The Compromise on House Selection

In groping for a viable House selection system, the Committee on the Houses at last seems to be approaching a solution that will be acceptable to all concerned--administrators, Masters, and freshmen. The zigs and zags of the past two years have aggravated the problem, for they have overemphasized the importance of the selection process and obscured the various advantages that every House offers. Actually, most freshmen will find to their surprise that any of the nine Houses has enough merits to keep them well content. The sooner a compromise plan permits the uproar to die down, the better.

The modifications now before the Committee on Houses should satisfy partisans on all sides of the issue. The most important change would once more permit a Master to select a portion of those freshmen who indicate his House as their first choice. The applicants would regain the opportunity to express one-two-three preferences. And the Masters, several of whom feel muzzled by the present machinery, would receive more representation on the House assignment Committee.

The readjustment would not mean a return to the faults of the old system. The Assignment Committee would continue to keep the number of first choices for each House in strict secrecy, preventing the "popularity contest" which gave some Houses undeserved bad reputations. The first step in the process would be for Masters in Houses with few first choice applicants to choose as many freshmen as they needed from the common pool. The Masters could thereby sidestep the unsavory practice of "raiding" a popular House's first choice roster, and at the same time build up their own Houses by claiming the cream of the freshman class.

The compromise solution would also settle grievances created by the present plan. "Substantial," that absurd, undefinable term, would be banished from the system. Freshmen could all have a chance to express their wishes without mulling over whether or not they had "substantial" reasons. At worst, the present requirements encourage freshmen who have no real reasons to invent them. The system would provide more opportunity for both Master and student choice, in itself a good thing. Choice should be valued for its own sake, whether it is choice of a field concentration or choice of a time to get up in the morning. Simply because the old system encouraged choice but could not guarantee that all requests would be satisfied is no reason for abandoning choice altogether.

But if the Committee on Houses modifies the selection system along the lines now under discussion, it should not fail -- as it did this year -- to give students enough information on exactly how the final version will operate. The lack of communications this year resulted in monumental confusion. As Master Gill has pointed out, any modification should be accompanied by a clear, concise explanation. The Committee should improve the original system, not scrap it, and the compromise proposals seem well-designed to accomplish this refinement. Under no circumstances should the Committee kill or cripple choice in curing "raiding" and the "popularity contest."