There are four types of people who care about the Undergraduate Council (UC). First, there are friends of candidates who, during a week of presidential campaigning in December, strip down to nearly nothing and yell their friend’s name loudly while banging on a drum in front of the Science Center. Second, there are the venerable campus leaders themselves. Third, there are the reporters who for some reason cover them (comp The Crimson and this could be you!). And finally, there are the naïve freshmen who think the UC is important.

As a somewhat jaded member of category three, I take pity on those poor souls in category four. This is my second annual attempt to help them make sense of the mad dash that is the UC elections.

The UC has two primary functions: divvying up money for student groups and lobbying the administration for improvements in student life. To do this, the UC has two committees: the Finance Committee (FiCom) and the Student Affairs Committee (SAC). Each house or “yard” (as the four subdivisions of the freshman class are known) elects two representatives, and the top vote-getter gets their choice of committee.

Those of you who remember the UC’s attempts at planning campus-wide events—the infamous $16,000 Springfest 2005 afterparty, which drew only 150 people, and the Havana on the Harbor boat cruise for which only 50 of 375 tickets were sold come to mind—can breathe easy. The Campus Life Committee that planned all those failures was jettisoned last May, and the new independently funded and elected College Events Board has replaced it.

FiCom pools every student’s term bill fee and then decides how to dole out the money to student organizations. Some of this isn’t discretionary—House Committees and parties get a predetermined amount of money. But much of it relies on grant applications that FiCom members evaluate. The UC’s budget was $369,225 last year, so it’s a fairly important job.

Because half of all UC representatives will be on FiCom, you should ask them about how they will decide grants. Who will they prioritize? What’s their standard for whether a grant is worthy? It’s best to use a hypothetical—would a candidate give money to a small student group with a good proposal or the larger student group with a mediocre proposal?

The other half of the winners will get to be on SAC. These UC representatives are the student voice to the administration on everything from academics to dining hall hours and library policies to the Tailgate.

Even freshman SAC members can make a difference. For instance, two years ago a few freshmen SAC members were given the task of researching student demand for a 24-hour library. The report they put together convinced the College and library administrations to make Lamont open 24 hours.

A 24-hour library, however, is one of the UC’s successes in the past few years. Most candidates will advocate the same causes that have been mentioned for years on end. Longer dining hall hours—which was tried last year and failed after Harvard University Dining Services did a cost evaluation—usually top the list.

But what are their other ideas? And are they feasible? For instance, as much as students want less restrictive tailgate rules, the demands of the Boston Police Department will scuttle almost all ideas.

In the end, you should decide whom to vote for not based on who is the friendliest or the most charismatic. Instead, ask questions, become an informed voter, and decide whose priorities for both SAC and FiCom best reflect your own.



Adam M. Guren ’08, a Crimson associate editorial chair, is an economics concentrator in Eliot House.