In a meeting last Wednesday, house masters voted overwhelmingly to recommend that first-year students be completely randomized into upperclass houses, Quincy House Master Michael Shinagel said yesterday.

"Ten houses voted in favor of randomization, two not [in favor], one abstention," Shinagel said during yesterday's joint meeting of the Committee on House Life (COHL) and the Committee on College Life (COCL).

Shinagel said this vote implies that the masters support the conclusion of the Report on the Structure of Harvard College that "the current system for assigning students to Houses be abandoned in favor of random assignment of roommate groups at the end of Freshman year."

Leverett House Co-Master John E. Dowling '57, who chairs the meetings of the house masters, said the masters have indicated to Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 that they support complete randomization.

"The recommendation was that the great majority of masters felt they would prefer complete randomization of the houses," Dowling said. "We also determined that most house masters were less comfortable with the current system than with complete randomization."

The Dean of the College is authorized to make the final decision on house assignments.

But not all masters agree that the vote represents an endorsement of randomization.

Lowell House Co-Master William H. Bossert '59 said the masters' vote was intended as a recommendation.

"There is no strong consensus on any particular option," he said. "When there is a formal decision, it will be made known."

During the COCL/COHL meeting, Bossert said the masters voted for house selection arrangements "you could accept."

"Ten houses could accept randomization, but seven-and-a-half could accept the current system," said Bossert.

Adams House Co-Master Robert J. Kiely, who was one of two masters who opposed randomization, said the vote was not even taken formally.

"It was done very quickly," Kiely said. "It was a straw vote to see whether there ought to be future discussion."

Dudley House Master Daniel S. Fisher said the vote is not a mandate for randomization because a nearly equal number of masters supported the current system.

"The number that was happy with one arrangement was not significantly different from the one that was happy with the other," said Fisher. IZATIONwho abstained from the votes. "Everyone felt there were lots of arguments for both sides."

North House Co-Master J. Woodland Hastings said the results of the vote indicate that masters prefer randomization but would be willing to live with the current system.

Dowling said the current system of non-ordered choice has prevented diversity from flourishing in the houses.

"The masters feel keenly that each house should be a microcosm of the College, and an important part of the Harvard education is that students should educate themselves in terms of diversity," Dowling said. "The current system is a compromise which has not worked well enough."

But Kiely, who has been Adams House co-master for 22 years, said forcing diversity upon students through randomization is not an appropriate solution.

"I think it's a bad idea," Kiely said. "I'm certainly in favor of diversity in the houses. I feel this can come along better if students want it. To try to force that is not a good idea."

Bossert said he supports randomization not necessarily because it increases diversity but because it will make students' first-year experiences more meaningful.

"I would love for this not to disrupt the freshman year as much as it does," said Bossert, who has been Lowell House co-master for 20 years. "[First-years] should be spending a lot of time going to departmental offices researching concentrations."

In addition, at last Wednesday's meeting, the masters proposed reducing the maximum size of a first-year blocking group from twenty students to eight students.

"Those occasional blocks of 18 can skew the constituency of the house," Shinagel said.

During the COCL/COHL meeting, Jewett said reducing the size of blocking groups could appease some masters' demands for more diverse houses.

"Maybe if changing the block size made a huge change, people wouldn't be as inclined to go to randomization," Jewett said.

Bossert said reducing the size of blocking groups may be the only alternative to randomization.

"If we don't go to eight, random assignment is almost a certainty," Bossert said.

But COHL member Serena L. Davila '95 said reducing blocking groups may lead to hurt feelings among first-years.

"I would feel that you would be limiting how people would feel about living with people," Davila said.

At a meeting Monday night, members of the Undergraduate Council's student affairs committee, responding to the concerns of the masters, recommended reducing the maximum size of a block to 16, said Justin C. Label '97, the committee's chair.

But according to Jewett, a reduction in size from 20 to 16 will not have a noticeable effect on house diversity.

"Moving from twenty to sixteen is essentially not doing anything," Jewett said.

After the meeting, Bossert suggested a compromise proposal that would ordinarily limit blocking groups to 8 students but would allow exceptions to the rule "for good reason."

Other topics discussed at yesterday's COHL meeting include rescheduling the time of inter-house transfers and re-organizing the intra-house lotteries that determine room assignments for juniors and seniors.

Bossert and Cabot House Co-Master Jurij Striedter proposed looking into replacing the intra-house lotteries with a program in which a house administrator would assign rooms.

"Nobody will get a worse room," Bossert said. "The average would increase, and nobody would be worse off."

But Eliot House Committee Co-Chair Kevin M. Davis '96 said students do not want to lose their right to choose their rooms.

"Fiat doesn't fly," Davis said. "I don't think students would ever play to fist."

The COHL did not take a vote on any housing issues at yesterday's meeting.

Tom Horan Jr. contributed to the reporting of this story.