Let the Houses Compete

Money can’t buy happiness — good thing Adams House now has both.

On Housing Day, as first-years waited to learn where they would spend the next three years, the College launched a new fundraising competition. The 24-hour “Housing Day Challenge” allowed alumni to donate money directly to their Houses. The results were lopsided: Adams came out on top, raking in $170,051 across 444 individual gifts, Lowell finished a distant second with $51,310 across 403 gifts, and no other House cracked $12,000 or collected more than 90 donations. Kirkland House held the rear at $2,411.

The disparity is hard to miss, but before the College considers flattening the competition in the name of fairness, it should let this experiment breathe for another year. If these jaw-dropping gaps become the norm, Harvard should reconsider — for now, an unequal pot of new money beats an empty pot.

It is only natural for students in less flush Houses to feel resentful watching Adams cash out. Certainly, any competition has its losers, but it's hard to be a good sport when the last placed House raises roughly 1/70 that of the first placed House.

Pareto, however, would be delighted: a House-based fundraiser is probably still better than more equitable alternatives, since alumni seem more likely to open their wallets to compete with other Houses than pitch in to a diffuse College-wide bucket. Some money for everyone is better than no money for anyone, especially amid fiscal uncertainty afflicting other parts of the University.

By holding the competition another year, this year’s results have the chance to energize alumni from underperforming Houses into donating, narrowing the gap. If such comically large discrepancies persist, only then might an evaluation be due.

Adams, of course, holds a major advantage: it has just emerged from renovation, complete with renewed alumni enthusiasm that makes graduates nostalgic, sentimental, and hence generous. If that’s the case, there’s no need to level the playing field. Other Houses could work on strengthening their alumni relations through outreach and programming to keep graduates tied to House life.

Should the challenge return next year, every House should come prepared to make the competition — well, competitive. Worst case scenario, Kirkland is left with a more engaged alumni body.

That is not to say that there are no problems with the housing system, but that they go deeper than a lighthearted, 24-hour contest that puts extra money in virtually everyone’s pockets. The quality of the Harvard experience deserves not to depend on one’s luck in the housing lottery.

Some disparities are mildly annoying and make for funny banter; others shape student life in decisive ways. It is already unfortunate that some Houses simply have nicer facilities and larger rooms — it is more concerning that your House might impact your postgraduate outcomes because of inconsistencies in advising.

One place for the College to start is the House Committees. HoCo grants should be distributed per student, instead of evenly by House. A House with more residents should get more money to offer the same caliber of social programming. More must be done, however, to resolve the larger systematic problems apparently at play.

So next year, we hope all Houses will rise to the Housing Day Challenge. Let the Houses schmooze their way into better formals and more ambitious social calendars — and if Adams House is going to stunt on the rest of us, it should at least have the decency to turn its windfall into an all-time great party.

The rest of us expect an invite.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.