News

Pro-Palestine Encampment Represents First Major Test for Harvard President Alan Garber

News

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu Condemns Antisemitism at U.S. Colleges Amid Encampment at Harvard

News

‘A Joke’: Nikole Hannah-Jones Says Harvard Should Spend More on Legacy of Slavery Initiative

News

Massachusetts ACLU Demands Harvard Reinstate PSC in Letter

News

LIVE UPDATES: Pro-Palestine Protesters Begin Encampment in Harvard Yard

RADCLIFFE ROULETTE

THE MAIL

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

To the Editors of The Crimson:

As students who have a very practical interest in the matter, we would like to express our extreme dissatisfaction with the new House assignment system as proposed by Dean Rosovsky, reported by The Crimson on Thursday, March 4.

To quote from that article: "Under the altered system, roommate groups will be assigned a number by lottery. Each group will then receive its highest choice among Houses still available when its lottery number arises." What does this mean to the applicant? As assistant dean of the College Bruce Collier said in the Crimson article, "The change is likely to result in fewer roommate groups receiving their first choice House." This is quite an understatement. The proposed system will unavoidably result in a massive drop in the number of groups receiving their first-choice Houses.

Dean Rosovsky was quite vague concerning his new system. He was with good reason. When one realizes the full implications of the matter, there is cause for great concern. Let us consider an example: A group of students put Dunster as their first choice and receive lottery number 250 (out of approximately 500). As this group awaits the news, groups with numbers lower than theirs are getting into Dunster as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or maybe even 5th choice. So our unhappy group of Dunster Diehards see their shattered hopes filled with people who are half-assed about the whole affair but just happened to be numerically graced. Under the old system, these Diehards would at least have been supplanted by applicants of similar enthusiasm. Now, let's consider a case where the House in question is under-subscribed, such as Currier. These groups who put it as their first choice, who under the old system would have been guaranteed admittance, are now solely at the mercy of random numbers. If their number is 425, they will see their favorite filled by people who distinctly hate it and have it listed as 9th, or even 10th.

So what is Dean Rosovsky's rationale for his new system? The Crimson article says "[Rosovsky] wishes to discourage attempts to 'outsmart the system.'" To outsmart the system? In other words, to make use of our initiative, our free will? It strikes us as rather fascist. Craig Taylor '79   Roger Martin '79

The Crimson welcomes letters from its readers. All letters should be typed and signed. Letters bearing the signature of organizations should include the name of two individual representatives who can be contacted prior to publication. Letters should not exceed 35 lines in length. The Crimson reserves the right to edit letters for purposes of length.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags