"Nobody from our class was on this committee," he said. "Why didn't they wait for our class to come in to be able to represent themselves?"

Lewis wrote, though, that such a decision process would create significant instabilities in Harvard policy.

"If that were the correct way of doing things, then by the same logic it would seem that we ought to reconsider every Harvard rule annually with input from the students they affect," Lewis wrote.

Lewis added that students who had been at Harvard for a longer time would have a better perspective on the tradeoffs of such a decision.

"Petitions are never a good way to deal with issues that have to do with limiting choices or expanding requirements--as individuals we would always vote to give ourselves more choices and fewer requirements," Lewis wrote.

"That's why the process for understanding such choices is through reasoned discussion in student-faculty committees, not petitions," Lewis added.

The arguments for and against smaller maximum blocking-group sizes are varied. Quincy House Master Michael Shinagel wrote in an e-mail message that, after randomization, "each House should be a 'microcosm' of the College in terms of diversity."