Advertisement

To Randomize Or Not To Randomize?

Eliot House was famous for drawing competitive skaters because of the long tradition of supporting the Jimmy Fund with the “Evening With Champions” skating show, as well as non-skating students who were interested in supporting the high-profile charitable event, according to Falk.

Even without active input from House Masters, however, the Houses became “lop-sided,” with Houses retaining distinct personality types, Badgers said, leading the College administration to begin its review of the housing system.

STARTING THE BEGINNING

The Committee on Housing, for which Falk and two other students represented the student body, was the main advisory body for the discussion on housing randomization.

The committee’s discussion on House randomization was prompted by a 1984 study authored by Associate Registrar Jay A. Halfond and Mather House Senior Tutor Steven A. Epstein, which confirmed that Houses conformed to perceived stereotypes.

Advertisement

In his final years at the College, then-College Dean John B. Fox Jr. ’59 proceeded to establish the Committee on Housing.

The dean handpicked his committee’s members—three student members, three House Masters, and Former Dean of the Students Archie C. Epps III—who would meet quarterly to discuss whether or not to make the housing system random.

“We [the committee] worked with the Dean of the College, John Fox, to survey students and determine whether they favored randomization of housing assignments,” Falk said. “While some students certainly favored randomization at the time, most did not, and so the committee could not recommend that the housing lottery convert to a purely random system.”

Students and House Masters were seemingly united in their opinion to maintain the status quo.

Students were loath to change the system, Broder said, because “people, by and large, went where they wanted to go.”

Falk said that the Committee on Housing survey demonstrated that “many House Masters joined the majority of students in their belief and concern that complete randomization could adversely affect the positive traditions that many Houses had proudly maintained for many years.”

The system remained untouched for the next four years.

BEYOND THE BEGINNING

The College only modified its system in 1989, increasing the number of students randomly assigned to Houses from 15 percent to 25.

And in 1995, the College endorsed a randomized House lottery system for all freshmen to be implemented in 1996.

Tags

Recommended Articles

Advertisement