One week after the College announced it would reduce the maximum size of blocking groups from 16 to eight, student leaders throughout the House system say they have heard little reaction to the policy change in their Houses, despite widely varied opinions of its merits.

The sparse reaction to the announcement contrasts with backlash to the College's 1995 decision to randomize upperclass housing, which culminated in a noisy protest led in part by then-Adams House Master Robert J. Kiely '60.

This time around, however, fewer students are talking about the change, much less getting miffed--even though the new policy is more a tweak than an overhaul.

"To tell you the truth, most people were pretty oblivious," said Mather House Committee Chair Wendy M. Lu '00 about the decision, which Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 made formal in letters he sent to students last week.

Many students said the timing of the decision and the fact that it only affects first-year students directly has meant few upperclass students are paying heed.

"From the administration's standpoint, they timed the decision perfectly," said Samuel C. Cohen '00, co-chair of the Lowell House Committee and former vice president of the Undergraduate Council. "It's certainly not something people have been dropping everything to talk about."

But even among the circles where changes in House policy are fodder for dinner conversation, there appears to be little consensus about the change, aside from a feeling that the College should have done more to formally involve students in its decision-making process.

According to Quincy House Committee Chair Jim P. Stewart '00, the reduction in blocking size is unnecessary, although he has long supported the theory behind randomization.

"With the upper limit [of the blocking groups] at 16, you still have a bit of diversity in the House," Stewart said.