College Disagrees With Survey on Academic Trends In the Houses

A study revealing a wide difference in the academic performance among residents of the 13 College Houses which was released privately to officials earlier this week and published in The Harvard Crimson has raised a flurry of controversy among members of the University.

College officials and House Masters yesterday expressed concern about the accuracy of the report and the timing of its release, just over a week before the Freshman Housing lottery in two regular meetings of the student-Faculty Committee on Housing (COH).

Administrators added that the University does not condone the findings of the report, authored by two professors which shows that students with similar academic interests and grade-point averages tend to choose the same Houses.

"The report does not represent College policy or College views," said Dean of the College John B. Fox Jr. '59, who refused to comment on any specific aspect of the report. Officials said they fear the report will have an adverse effect on the College's on going attempt to foster more diversity in the Houses.

"We are worried that students will look at the report and say House "X" is for smartics, so I'm going to House "X", said Leverett House Master John E. Dowling '57, a faculty member of COH.

Committee Members criticized the report's evaluation of the data Dowling said his main objection to the report was "the lack of statistical analysis."

"Basically it was a very sloppy academic job," he said, adding. "There was no scientific evaluation of the data in the report."

But Mather House Senior Tutor Stephen A. Epstein, who co-authored the study with Associate Registrar Jay A. Halfond, said yesterday that he was surprised and dismayed at the University's reception of the report. "We had no idea that the mere existence of such a report would be controversial," he said.

Committee members expressed concern that the report's conclusions would have an adverse effect on the up-coming Freshman housing lottery. "If one Freshman chooses a house on the basis of this report then it (the repast) will have done some real damage," Dowling said, adding that he was not sure how much of an impact the report will have.

Committee members also addressed the question of whether the report, which was sent to the Masters, some administrators and some members of the Undergraduate Council, should have been released at all. Some members suggested that in the future reports of such a potentially controversial nature be approved by University Hall before they are released.

Kirkland House Master Donald H. Pfister said yesterday that because of the sensitive nature of the topic, any further inquires into the academic diversity of the Houses should involve the Masters and Senior tutors of all the Houses.

"A lot of people in Kirkland House felt hurt by the report. They felt that it was insensitive and locked them into a stereotype that doesn't apply," Pfister said.

But Epstein said the report did not try to rank the Houses or focus particular attention on any one of the Houses. "For us it was a project in contemporary social history, not an explosive political questioning of Harvard.