Concluding a year-long evaluation, House discretionary budgets allocated by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences have been modestly increased by up to five percent, with Quad Houses receiving the lion’s share in an attempt to correct for previous funding imbalances between Houses. While inequities in House budgets persist, this is an encouraging step forward in the effort to equalize the House funding system. All Harvard students should enjoy the same opportunities and amenities, regardless of the Houses to which they are randomly assigned.

First and foremost, additional transparency in regards to House discretionary funding is crucial. Due to the vague nature of allocations, most students are unaware of how money is spent or even who decides how to spend it. For this reason, increased information and dialogue would be beneficial.

Gossip regarding gross imbalances in House endowments adds to the problem as it circulates amongst undergraduates; for instance, rumors of Eliot House’s vault of alumni contributions contrast sharply with the perceived inadequacy of Quad funds. To correct these perceived—and possibly real—inequalities, Harvard is right to take proactive measures to level the playing field. FAS’s recent move was a welcome means to that end, and for that Harvard deserves praise.

While the aforementioned perception of River House funds dwarfing those of Quad Houses may be overblown by hearsay, some Houses were certainly associated with privilege in the past. Before the randomization of the housing system, the self-selection of specific Houses by wealthier students may have led to endowment imbalances that could exist to this day. Older Houses like Adams and Eliot are likely have stronger alumni bases when compared with Quad Houses and newer River Houses, and FAS’s recent allocation decision represents an effective way of rectifying this potential gap.

In the spirit of equalizing the residential experience, the Undergraduate Council should change the system it uses to allocate House funding, as well. Distribution should occur on a per-capita basis to promote equal enjoyment of student life. Providing funding based on the number of students in each House would maximize the utility of this money and send a message that each individual’s experience is a priority.

FAS took advisable action in working to improve student life, but this step should not be the last. Administrators must realize that there are far more aspects to the Harvard experience than can be encompassed by House discretionary spending. It is our hope that Harvard continues to develop innovative ways to enhance student life here on campus.