Word: would
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1980-1989
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
CLEARLY, something has to change. Allowing student choice would be fine if it worked, but it doesn't. Maximizing choice results in a faulty distribution that perpetuates itself year after year. Randomization would ensure maximal diversity and dynamism. For proof, we need only look at Currier House, which is largely randomized already...
...true, the benefits of randomization would not be fully realized for several years--a fault that would plague any change in the assignment system. But after that, the problem is solved. If we do nothing, the deficiencies of the current system will continue to exist with no chance for improvement...
Personally, I would prefer 100 percent randomization to the 50 percent or more plan proposed last year by Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57. But no matter what solution the College implements, it must be based on random assignments. No other alternative produces the same result with fewer drawbacks...
...ordered choice" solution suffers from essentially the same defect. The object of housing reform is to get students who otherwise would not live in certain houses to live there, and to get the students who otherwise would live in those houses to live somewhere else. Non-ordered choice fails to do that...
After all, "anywhere but Adams, Eliot or Kirkland," is a perenially popular first-choice house. Students who are disinclined to live in stereotyped houses could still avoid them under the non-ordered choice system. Non-ordered choice would thus introduce randomization to every house except the ones that need...