Unlike the “Room of Requirement” at Hogwarts, which magically appears when a student is in need of it, the Senior Common Rooms at Harvard never seem to feel like doing much of anything for students. Among other things, the recently released Report on Harvard House Renewal expressed widespread student dissatisfaction or confusion with the Senior Common Room as a component of House life. Ostensibly, every House’s SCR is designed to promote meaningful student-faculty interaction by introducing students to distinguished academics and other prominent members of the Harvard community. But, in many Houses, the SCR remains both physically and academically inaccessible.

Adding to the confusion, the term “Senior Common Room” can be used to refer to both a physical space in the House and the group of distinguished academics and professionals who comprise the membership of a House’s SCR. As the College moves forward in its first comprehensive renovation program in 26 years, it should aggressively address this deficiency in the House system. The SCR currently seems to be suffering from a severe case of mission drift: It is unclear whether an SCR is supposed to serve as a source of academic advising, pre-professional counseling, simple socializing, or something else entirely. While every House is different, it is imperative that, in any new system, the specific role of the SCR is made clear.

In Harvard’s new House system, the SCR should be more integrated into undergraduate life. Students should be explicitly introduced to the SCR when they join a House in March of their freshman year. The concept of an SCR should be explained to them, and resources (whether physical or electronic) should be provided to them in order to help them build lasting relationships with House tutors and sponsored academics.

One of the biggest benefits of the House system is the bewildering array of wonderful quirks that has developed over time and the development of a unique House culture at every residence. Take, for example, Eliot House’s beloved spring formal or Dunster House’s bizarre side gate. But this diversity does not seem to extend to the SCR: All 12 residential Houses seem to have an exclusionary and enigmatic policy regarding this supposedly “common” physical space. Kirkland House, for example, only allows students to use the space by appointment, while Winthrop and Eliot are even more restrictive. After renovations, the SCR should be more accessible to the House as a whole.

Of course, making a few changes in room reservation policies is one thing; comprehensive institutional change is another. Every House should have a tutor, student, or administrator who is charged with bridging the gap between the SCR and its residents. The burden falls upon those who administer the SCR to establish meaningful links between its members and the student population. At the very least, House administrators should make it easier for students to reach out on their own, either through the House website or through their resident tutor.

To some extent, the report addresses our concerns: It calls for the creation of a House fellows program, which addresses many of the shortcomings of the current SCR system. In particular, we are excited about the new program’s mandate that its fellows facilitate meaningful interaction within the House community through lectures, discussion dinners, and integration into the larger network of House advising through liaisons with graduate students. Per the committee’s recommendations, we hope to see the College pilot the House fellows program in one or two Houses and, if successful, require all 12 Houses to participate.