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.

He acknowledged one of the College's primary reasons for the size reduction--that it is often difficult to engage some of the House's large, homogeneous blocking groups in community events--but said halving the size caps will not do much to alleviate the problem.

"I'm just not sure limiting blocking groups to eight would change that dramatically," he said.

Others, however, were less equivocal in their opposition to the change.

Ben A. Lanson '00, chair of the Kirkland House Committee said if the Houses are indeed as random as the College says, then there is little merit to the argument that this change will help make each House look like a microcosm of the overall Harvard population.

"In the long run it ought to work out," Lanson said.

Similarly, Cohen of Lowell House said he sees little point in reducing the size of the blocking groups. He said if the House system can't effectively create community, having 16 or eight people in blocking groups will be of little importance.

But according to Michael P. Abate '00, who preceded Cohen as co-chair of Lowell House Committee, the decision may not be all that bad.

Although he supports the basis for the College's decision, Abate said that Lowell's relatively strong House community indicates large blocking groups are not necessarily the demons they've been portrayed as.

"Our experience is that you can build community with large blocking groups," he said. "[But] I agree with the motives of what they're doing."

And in Mather House--which still holds on to a stereotype as the "jock" House--Lu said she has observed the difference that a few large, homogeneous blocking groups can have on House life.

She said it is typically difficult to motivate large groups of new House residents to leave their friends and get involved in House activities.

"If you have a smaller group, it forces you to branch out more," Lu said. "Most core friendship groups can be incorporated in a group of eight."

Still, despite what Lewis termed "informal" consultation with many students during the decision process, none of the student leaders contacted by The Crimson yesterday said the College administration had asked them for their opinions.

Both supporters and opponents of the shift said they would have appreciated a chance to weigh in on smaller blocking groups.

"I would have been happy to offer my opinion on the subject," Stewart said.