If you've ever read this column over the past two years, you know that I haven't had trouble finding things to complain about. From peer pressure to drink underage to the demise of the power ballad, from impeachment-obsessed Republicans to single-ply toilet paper, I've tried to shed some light on our problems and hopefully spur people to action for the better.

It may come as a surprise, then, that my final column is full of good news. I set out to look back over the last four years and judge whether Harvard had gotten better or worse in my time here. To my surprise, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that Harvard is in fact better than it was in September 1995--substantially better in many ways, with one large exception.

The criteria I used are admittedly fully subjective, reflecting my own interests. The judgments, of course, also reflect my particular experience, and may be grossly unrepresentative. All the same, here is my evaluation, broken down into 12 categories:

Academics. On the one hand, things are looking up. The College has committed to reducing requirements, but has also rightly added a quantitative component to the Core and toughened the language requirement. After a couple of sparse years, the Core has rebounded to offer a sizable number of new classes. Several departments have seen the arrival of renowned scholars, from William Julius Wilson in Afro-American Studies to Stephen Greenblatt in English. On the other hand, the last four years have also seen the depletion of the Government and History departments, particularly Americanists; the mass exodus of junior faculty from the English department; the seeming failure, if not iniquity, of the tenure system in the cases of government professors Bonnie Honig and Peter Berkowitz, and a huge missed opportunity in a periodic review of the Core to fully abandon the tired program in favor of distribution requirements. There has been no real progress on ethnic studies, and little to nothing has changed in such vital areas as section size, teaching fellow quality and academic advising. Verdict: Even to worse.

House life. Randomization went into effect with the Class of '99, and house character is unquestionably more artificial today where it can be said to exist at all. Worse yet, gay and black students (among others) no longer have residential spaces where they feel particularly at home. But on the plus side, lingering bastions of old Harvard elitism were wiped out, and self-segregation has been minimized. Randomization aside, however, house life is better because of the crop of new masters who have taken the reins. In Leverett House, Howard and Ann Georgi have won universal praise by learning students' names, participating in intramural events, opening the dining hall at night and generally caring that people are happy. Lowell Masters Diana L. Eck and Dorothy Austin have won similar praise. The new generation of masters also seems more amenable to trying universal keycard access, a simple but very significant change that students have long clamored for. Verdict: Better.

Dining. While there is still great room for improvement in meal plan flexibility and in the health and quality of the food, dining at Harvard has improved markedly. Four years ago, first-years were eating in the charming but old Union, with its foul-smelling washroom and eclectic seating; chick-wiches were not available from the grill; there was no Board Plus or Fly-By lunch option; frozen yogurt was in nary a house, and believe it or not, the food was less healthy and less edible. Verdict: Better.

Social life. Harvard has not built a "real" student center, the final clubs remain the site of much of the party action and the presence of fraternities and sororities has slowly begun to expand. Still, the growth of extracurricular organizations and the post-randomization era of house life has meant a wider array of weekend offerings. The decision by many final clubs to shut their doors to non-members also bodes well for the further democratization of Harvard's social scene. Verdict: Better to even.

The administration. Although President Neil L. Rudenstine seems as distant as ever--and although the Ad Board remains in dire need of reform to make it more accountable--at least Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 is no longer widely reviled. New to the post four years ago, Lewis was scorned for randomization (in fact only partially his doing), and for mishandling the restructuring of the Phillips Brooks House Association. Lewis apparently learned something from that difficult first year, at least in regard to public relations; it has been largely smooth sailing since. Lewis's only recent gaffe was the decision to split the role of Dean of Students into three smaller posts, rather than appoint an energetic new dean. Further, the administration's generous new financial aid policy has made Harvard a leader in that field as well, despite rising tuition. Verdict: Better to even.

Activism. After hitting rock-bottom in returning grapes to the dining halls and rejecting a "political" role for the Undergraduate Council, the student body seems to be reawakening to the need for activism. The living wage movement has real momentum, Harvard has begun to listen on sweat-shop reform and progressives are making noise again on the council, despite the backward vote on the Reserve Officer Training Corps. Verdict: Better.

Security. If only because of the blue light phones that have sprouted all around campus, Harvard feels like a safer place. Also credit the Harvard Police for opening a substation in the Yard, being proactive on bike and laptop security, keeping the community well-informed when crime does happen and steering clear of the accusations of racism that once plagued it. Verdict: Better.

Gender and race relations. President Clinton's national dialogue on race was conducted here with some success, and incidents of racial, ethnic and sexual harassment have been increasingly rare; the arch-conservative magazine Peninsula has also thankfully disappeared. The impact of the demise of Radcliffe College remains to be seen, but Harvard's efforts to step up its commitment to women's issues is promising. Verdict: Better to even.

Facilities. The Malkin Athletic Center was equipped with some new Stairmasters, but the building still needs to be razed. Elsewhere, varsity athletic facilities got a sleek upgrade, Boylston Hall and the new language lab look great and the Barker Center is a winner. Even Loker Commons, though a disappointment, has its fans. Verdict: Better.

Health care. Anonymous HIV testing is a plus, but students are no more confident in University Health Services today than they were in 1995. Horror stories remain common and the alcohol policy remains unclear to many. Verdict: Even.

Student press. In the last four years, the Advocate was brought back from bankruptcy, Diversity and Distinction was founded and became influential and The Crimson began free distribution to every student's door. The result has been more discourse and a more connected campus. Verdict: Better.

Cambridge. There still isn't a McDonald's in the Square, and the Tasty is gone. But on the whole the place is thriving, with a new Coop, new construction, new businesses (Toscanini's, Tealuxe and Brew Moon to name a few) and the Pit is as grungy as ever. Verdict: Better.

So there you have it. Thanks to the administration, faculty, students, alumni, even technology, Harvard College is better today than it was four years ago, in a variety of ways. That's not to say that these gains are all necessarily important, or even justified; I have argued in the past and continue to believe that seniors should consider not giving to the Senior Gift, for example, because Harvard has so much money and allocates it so poorly. Nonetheless, in a world where things are always rapidly changing, and often not for the better, it feels good to leave here knowing that the College is moving in the right direction. Geoffrey C. Upton '99 is a social studies concentrator in Leverett House. This is his final column.