The Committee on House Life (CHL) compared Harvard’s housing system to Yale’s in a meeting yesterday that focused on defining the appropriate connection between first-year students and residential Houses.

While the committee agreed that improvements need to be made to the current housing system, most members said Yale’s system—which associates freshman dorms with residential colleges—is not necessarily the answer to deficiencies in House spirit and undergraduate advising.

Thomas H. Dingman ’67, associate dean of the college, said Harvard could take advantage of certain aspects of the Yale system.

“People pointed out the positives of the Yale system—that it provides more contact with more upperclassmen and a more formal advising structure—but that doesn’t mean that an official assignment to an upper class house from the beginning is the answer,” said Dingman.

Some members of the committee, which is composed of students, House masters and administrators, pointed out weaknesses of Yale’s system, including the possibility that freshmen with a House affiliation from the start may be less likely to engage with the freshman community as a whole.

“The committee recognized that it’s important to preserve the sense of openness and opportunity that is unique to freshman year and also to preserve the very different experience of House spirit of the upperclassmen,” Matthew J. Glazer ’06, chair of the Student Affairs Committee, said after the meeting.

“The issue to work on is improving both of these experiences and to make sure that there isn’t such a large disconnect between them,” he said.

The CHL noted several problems with the current lottery system—including a slow adjustment to House life from the lottery freshman spring through the fall of sophomore year.

Committee members also acknowledged that the Yale system might not work at Harvard even though the institutions are similar on the surface.

“It was interesting to note that it is not a perfect comparison to look at Harvard and Yale as if they were the same—especially in terms of housing situations. Yale doesn’t have a quad, and also more Yale students live off-campus than Harvard students,” Glazer said.

The CHL also discussed inadequacies of the freshman advising system, ultimately agreeing that upperclass resources need to be tapped.

“Students seem to hunger for some greater formalized peer advising,” Dingman said.

“Upperclassmen provide invaluable advice, because they are the only group on campus sufficiently knowledgeable and broad to serve so many different types of questions,” said Todd van Stolk-Riley ’06, Lowell House Committee co-chair.

But committee members expressed concern over the limitations of a system where upperclassmen act as academic advisers.

“In incorporating upperclassmen more actively as advisers, we are worried about the notion of professionalism,” van Stolk-Riley said.

Though the CHL does not usually handle freshman advising, Dingman said he set aside this meeting for both House masters and students to discuss the topic in order to pass along a summary to Ford Professor of the Social Science David Pilbeam, head of the Advising and Counseling Committee, for further review.

—Staff writer Nicole B. Urken can be reached at urken@fas.harvard.edu.