Harvard Law School Makes Online Zero-L Course Free for All U.S. Law Schools Due to Coronavirus
For Kennedy School Fellows, Epstein-Linked Donors Present a Moral Dilemma
Tenants Grapple with High Rents and Local Turnover at Asana-Owned Properties
In April, Theft Surged as Cambridge Residents Stayed at Home
The History of Harvard's Commencement, Explained
Crimson House gridmen swept six out of eight contests yesterday in the annual College-House games, as they outscored the Yalies 99 points to 40.
In the day's most exciting game, Kirkland House downed Calhoun 6-0. Kirkland scored midway through the match and kept itself warm for the rest of the cold afternoon with constant efforts to prevent a determined opponent from crossing the goal line. Adams House also ran away with a shutout victory. Dominating the entire game, the strong Adams offense scored 16 points to Ezra Stiles' none, and the defense prevented Stiles from making even a minor threat.
The Leverett House Bunnies, sparked by aggressive line-play and the vicious running of fullback Mike Hardesty, pounded out a 16-0 win over Timothy Dwight.
The first touchdown was set up by a bad pass from center on a Dwight College punting situation which gave the ball to Leverett on the Yalies' five-yard line. Four plays later, Hardesty bowled over from the two. Bob Kragman swept right end for the extra two points.
Oncoming darkness threatened to hamper the efforts of both teams as Dunster toppled Jonathan Edwards 27-12. The Funsters built up an early margin and though Yale threatened seriously towards the end of the game, they were unable to close the 27-point gap.
Winthrop trampled Trumbull 32-0 in a one-sided match that perhaps should
past eight years, there was a great deal of "favoritism" in the assignments to popular Colleges. If a student had a relative who had been in a College, either as a faculty associate or an undergraduate, the Master felt "morally obligated" to admit him. Even such adventitious contact as a freshman-year job in a College dining hall could guarantee a suite in the same College 12 months later. Also, "the Masters had friends and classmates who would put pressure on them to admit certain students." In short, despite the appearance of a free choice, "the system had no real integrity. If you were a country boy from Iowa, with no connections, you were odd man out."
Moreover, each College's staff wanted to have as many applications as possible. The attempt to woo touring freshmen, Foord recalls, "had almost the flavor of a rushing program for fraternities. But the staff's effort was probably worthwhile, since Masters found it difficult to run Colleges containing students who didn't want to be there. (About 60 per cent of each freshman class went where it wanted to go; the same figure applies to Harvard today.) Foord says the advantages of the preference system seemed even smaller when the Masters gave a moment of consideration to the students' reasons for picking one College over another. Few freshmen knew anything about a College except its name and its stereotype.
AND so the system was changed. Yale brought in an IBM machine which reduces each student to a name and a set of characteristics. A committee chaired by the Dean of Freshman and including five other university administrators but no men connected with a College, took over the task of distributing the freshmen. Using the information on each student given by the IBM machine, the committee attempted to spread out the science majors, prep school boys, athletes, and every other identifiable group.
For a while the idea lingered of giving each College an intellectual character, if not a social one. The advocates of this plan wanted to put history majors in one College, scientists in another, humanists in a third. Unfortunately, there weren't enough clearly definable intellectual types to go round; the plan also contradicted rather flagrantly the principle that a University should confront its students with as much diversity as possible.
Because of these drawbacks, the "intellectual" idea never really escaped the talking stage, and ever since the introduction of the new system there has been no consistent difference in the undergraduate composition of the various Colleges.
The recommendation last spring that Yale freshmen be assigned to a College immediately upon arriving in New Haven created a minor sensation. (In another section of the report, the committee suggested that Yale plan ultimately to establish a women's college.) The committee's ideal was that someday someone would give Yale enough money to tear down existing freshman dormitories and build three or four new Colleges in their place. Until this goal can be achieved, a block of several freshman entries has been affiliated with each upperclass College; freshmen from these entries can attend College dances, play on College athletic teams, and eat a reasonable number of meals each week in the College dining halls. In general, the freshmen are expected to pick their future roommates from students heading for the same College, but if acquaintances affiliated with different Colleges would like to room together, exceptions can be made to the general rule. (As at Harvard, however, sophomores, juniors, and seniors can move out of their College only in very rare circumstances.)
In effect, the committee lessened the separation between freshman and upperclass education. It noted that because of the increasing quality of the country's secondary schools, freshmen-whether "separated" or not-were taking courses at all levels of the university. The committee decided that "the student in his first year at Yale should feel immediately that his maturity is acknowledged and that he is an active member of a great intellectual enterprise."
THE question is, could any parts of Yale's College assignment system be profitably instituted at Harvard? The most provocative suggestion is to discontinue asking freshmen to make choices for where they want to live. Unfortunately, the arguments on this issue are numerous and cloudy. For example, those who like the status quo claim that letting the student make a choice tends to build up his feeling for his House. This point seems particularly valid when one recalls that although only 60 to 65 per cent of the freshmen House, almost 90 per cent get into one of their top three choices. Indeed, Anthony Greenwald, a Yale graduate who has spent the past three years living in Leverett Houses as a Social Relations tutor, has suggested that the average Yale Master is expected to participate in undergraduate pursuits even more vigorously than does his Harvard counterpart. Perhaps this extra effort is needed to overcome a neutrality on the part of the entering sophomore.
Those who dislike the present Harvard system, however, point to plight of the few students who end up in a House they would rather have avoided. They add that the preference method also causes embarrassment, in some cases painfully acute, for the staff of an underapplied House.
The matter of House stereotypes can also be argued both ways. While there is considerable doubt of any substantive basis for them, the fact remain many freshmen at least take them into consideration when choosing a House, and in some cases weigh them quite heavily. Moreover, as David Riesman and Christopher Jencks have pointed out in a forty-page study of the Houses, even if no stereotypes existed, freshmen would probably create them in order to justify a choice for which they have no other justification. Stereotypes that lack meaning and reality can't hurt anyone, claim the defenders of the status quo, but the opposition usually asks if Harvard education should encourage students to act on such illusions.
People who like the present system occasionally state that it takes account of individual identities - that any other method treats the students like a peg to be fitted into some pigeonhole. Yet the reason why the assignment of a student House should be a personal enterprise is hard to understand in view of the fact that the freshman will probably be equally happy no matter where goes.
ONE point, however, seems fairly clear: as currently administered, the preference system requires immeasurably more work, and an immeasurably greater expenditure of energy, than the relatively simple process of making sure that no single House gets too many of any one kind of person. The shuffling of application forms which goes on under the present Harvard system seems endless. After each House has filled a certain percentage of its vacancies from its first choice applications, some of the applications from the overapplied Houses are transferred to the offices of the underapplied. When the underapplied Houses have filled the
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.