The implementation of randomization marks a historic change in the character of Harvard's housing, an area which arguably most directly affects student life.

As students move into their dorms next fall, months of heated debate will give way to a new reality.

If the expectations of the framers of the randomization policy become true, most upperclass houses will contain fewer students that share a group of common interests. Instead, the houses will be home to broader, more diverse communities that are reflective of the College as a whole.

For diversification to succeed as College officials say they would like, many existing house stereotypes will have to be broken down, thus changing what some graduates consider to be a fundamental aspect of their Harvard experience.

Hoping to capture this vital change in the character of student living, The Crimson has compiled profiles of four of Harvard's 12 houses--Adams, Eliot, Mather and Pforzheimer--that have meant widely differing experiences for the undergraduates who have lived there.

The profiles reveal that in adapting to the new policy, each house faces challenges as unique as the house character itself.

And the path taken towards randomization may, in the end, have as great a role in the character of the house as the composition of the student population.

With varying ardor, some of the house masters point to the tradition their houses have established as unique elements of the greater community that should rightly be maintained. Others find that the promise of diversity overshadows the potential of keeping the particular character of an individual house.

In looking for ways to reshape their communities, these four very different houses should shed some light on what randomization holds for the future of the College