Greek system is an ideal model

A pre-frosh friend of mine, named Kevin, recently called me, brimming with excitement. He had just received word that he was offered a spot in John H. Ware III College House, one of Penn's 12 thriving living-learning communities.

His enthusiasm, of course, was more than justified. The College House System's glossy brochure proclaims, "Ware is a House that constantly explores new ways to enlighten its residents." (Of course, this same brochure absurdly comments, "Stouffer resembles a modern medieval village with its mixed brown brick, tawny concrete exterior, and soaring wooden arbor.")

Kevin and the rest of the class of 2005, I am afraid that you are all in for a let down in the fall. While Penn's attempt at integrating the academic, social and community aspects of college into residential life has admirable goals, the current system does not meet its stated objectives.

Several years ago, in their constant drive to enhance the undergraduate experience (move up on the U.S. News and World Report ranking), the Penn powers-that-be decided to implement the prosperous Yale and Harvard College House Systems.

University officials definitely picked up on the system's purpose of blurring the boundaries between living and learning in college dorms. Unfortunately, with endowment woes, a larger student body and significantly less on-campus housing, our carbon copy was bound to be less than perfect.

Yale and Harvard traditionally have eased freshmen into college and facilitated class unity by placing almost all freshmen into one housing area. But Penn, on the other hand, by encouraging upperclassmen to remain in the Quad and Hill House, limits the number of spots available to incoming freshmen. The complicated and meticulous house selection process used by our Ancient Eight peers disappeared in favor of the impersonal Scantron form.

To repair the shortcomings of our house system, the University should look at another institution founded on nearly identical principles. Despite the emnity that Administrators here and elsewhere tend to show this institution, it has thrived for 250 years, producing 85 percent of current Fortune 500 executives and every president in the last 175 years except for two -- this institution is the Greek System.

A few major contrasts between these housing options stand out -- the most obvious is the size of the community. There is no way that Harrison's 810 residents can be expected to form a cohesive community. On the other hand, members of a fraternity or a sorority house, while they may not always be best friends, at least know enough about their brothers or sisters to feel comfortable socializing and working academically with them. This familiarity is essential to building a community.

Another fundamental reason that the college houses do not instill strong loyalty is their haphazard selection process. Greek organizations are forbidden to do any recruitment until the spring semester, so that incoming freshmen can get a feel for the University environment before making a major commitment.

At that time, Greek chapters hold two weeks of rush events to ensure a close match between prospective and current members. The College House System, however, requires an individual to rank their house preferences before setting foot on campus. Furthermore, Penn does not even require a "personality questionnaire" to try to match compatible residents. This process provides no continuity from year to year and can create unneeded stress.

The twelve College Houses' larger size and random selection process manifest themselves as a lack of a distinct identity. Don't believe me? Ask anybody who lived in the lower Quad last year what Goldberg House's theme was. (FYI, it's Public Affairs and Public Culture.) Without any method for prospective members to get a feel for a house, the collection of individuals will be random, at best.

Critics of the Greek system will now launch their standard retort that because of this selection process and grouping by interest, fraternities and sororities are self-segregating. Allow me to reply bluntly -- No kidding!

Any group of friends or individuals who choose to spend time together is, by definition, self-segregating. In fact, there can be little argument that the houses and programs the University has created to explore specific interests have been the most promising. Residents lavish praise on W.E.B. DuBois House for providing educational and social events. Art's House, ST-Wing, and other residential programs have produced enormously successful performances and projects.

The Greek community provides opportunities for independence not found in the traditional College House System. For instance, without the luxury of Spectaguards or janitors, fraternity and sorority members must take responsibility for the safety and cleanliness of their homes. Without vigilant R.A.'s, members learn to make their own decisions and to look out for their peers. The epitome of this independence is that while University officials struggle to keep its dining services solvent, numerous Greek organizations budget their own resources to employ in-house chefs.

Turning around the College House System will be a long, difficult process, but one that should by no means be abandoned. The freshman experience must be restored by assigning as many incoming students as possible to their rightful homes in the Quad and Hill House. In addition, large physical spaces should be subdivided into smaller, more independent and interest-focused communities. And an interactive house selection process, involving both current and prospective residents, should be instituted.

University officials should not only make changes to the College House System, but they should encourage the Greek system to expand and thrive in light of its many successes. After it all, it looks as though the Greeks are beating Penn politicos at their own game.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.