In essence, non-ordered choice would introduce randomization into all the houses except those that need it most.

THE current scheme of maximizing choice produces a less-than-optimal outcome year after year. Either you deny that there is a problem and retain the status quo, or you recognize that the magnitude of the problem calls for action--and not the token action of non-ordered choice.

That action must be full randomization.

An entirely random process would assure that diversity is more than a frequently-trumpeted virtue. It would put the athlete, academic, musician, artist, political activist in the same house, allowing them to bounce their ideas off each other.

First-year students could still choose their rooming blocks, so they would not be entirely isolated in their new houses. As added consolation, the administration should increase the maximum size of rooming blocks to 20 and allow greater flexibility in transfers among houses.

And evidence suggests that students probably would not feel uncomfortable with the change, even at first. A wide-ranging survey of upperclass students two springs ago showed that satisfaction with house life and success in the assignment lottery were virtually unrelated.

That survey also found that 69 percent of those surveyed said roommates were the most important factor in choosing a house. Full randomization could only ease the tension in rooming groups and allow students to room with people with whom they feel comfortable, instead of those who are willing to go to the Quad or go for a particular reputation.

JEWETT, the masters and the Undergraduate Council should recognize the merits of full randomization and implement it immediately--without experimenting with non-ordered choice or mechanical changes in the computer program.

The admissions office should send a letter to all accepted students this spring informing them of the new housing process. That way those who want "separate but equal" housing can seek it elsewhere.