This page is referenced by:

• 1 2018-04-16T03:28:29-04:00 House Committee Blueprint for Action and Research Finding 1 plain 2018-04-18T09:32:11-04:00 This blueprint for action will showcase the major findings from interviews with residential council/committee leaders, in particular how they identified their successes and limitations.
   
   
  What success looks like:

  •  Campus-wide buy-in to House Committee events and more overall interest in joining the house committee
  • Continued administrative support, but strong autonomy for leaders.
  • Fewer instances of burnout and recognition of the limited bandwidth of the committees.
  • A sense of empowerment for leaders and all members of the House community.
  • House Committees feel empowered to solicit feedback, advocate for students, and let them know that they belong to a community of peers who care about them.

   
  Continued question for debate: Harvard is unique in that people have a high level of affiliation with their residential houses, but house committees face many limitations. Why are house committees not viewed as prestigious among peers? What are the limitations of their work?
   

  Areas for Internal Action (committee programming, leadership, and logistics) 

   

  • Committee Structure

    • Committees that are constantly open to new members are the most inclusive, but without clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of each member, these committees may find they cannot be as productive. There is a tradeoff between flexibility and defined roles that is unique to each committee, but committees should consider both as valuable. 
    • Many committees voiced that communication of responsibilities was key to success, especially during busier weeks of the semester.
      • Committees found success when they were able to involve younger members, especially as support for the larger events in “vice” or “shadow” positions that have low barriers to entry.
    • Leaders found much more satisfaction with committees that felt cohesive and fun, proving the importance of social events and consistent appreciation of members.

  • Consistency in events and communication

    • Meeting notes should be communicated if members need to miss meetings; many leaders feel they could build a more inclusive community if they offered town halls or listening sessions to what kind of feedback their peers had.
    • Princeton co-chairs found that they have between 100-200 students attend their weekly study breaks, an astonishing participation that is possible because study breaks happen every week and happen across all residential colleges; Adams has found great success in weekly Thursday night steins.

  • Focus on inclusion

    • Leaders want to see their committees reflect on questions of inclusion, representation, and equity so that they do not only serve certain segments of the house and so that events can be open to all (e.g.: considering cultural context of themes or ordering food that is inclusive of allergies).
    • The large amount of time spent on house committee work without compensation may limit access for many students interested in getting involved. A stipend could support those students. 
    • Leaders are concerned that their committees can become “super cliques” and unapproachable without consistent outreach. 
      • One Harvard Co-Chair said “If done right, they can be a wonderful way of facilitating empowering leadership experiences and vibrant, welcoming communities for all students, but they can also easily slide into glorified cliques – cliques that not only hold privilege but also hold access to resources that belong to the entire House community. If we can’t support a diverse range of students who are working to improve House life while provided insufficient resources, then odds are it’ll be the latter.”
   

  Areas for External Action (policies, partnerships, and beyond)

   

  • Staff support

    • Student leaders valued the autonomy of their work and saw the administration as providing financial and structural support.
    • Some co-chairs did find that they appreciated when they could get “implementation support” (i.e. a program would be devised by students but the labor of the effort – set up, clean up, selling tickets/merchandise – could be supported by outside staff).
    • Co-chairs especially advocated for volunteer support with university-wide initiatives but warned that too many expectations and projects will cause more burnout. 
      • One Harvard Co-Chair said “HoCo's are left with little room to focus on what our mission is, what aspirations we have, and longer term projects since every week we have to turn around a Stein or a house wide event or a formal or a housing day video, etc. Mission creep is making our jobs more difficult without an understanding of where that mission creep stops.”
      • House committees cannot necessarily provide all residential support, but many are eager to learn more about effective leadership and how HoCos can support the mission of equity and inclusion.
    • Princeton residential colleges each have a “student life” administrator who provides logistical support and meets more consistently with student leaders.
    • Leaders wish for more recognition for the work they do.
      • One Harvard student said “Having an understaffed committee has made it hard to do the "above and beyond" work that we're striving for. We've managed to keep up with our standard events and even add 1-2, but the level of community input and new events that we're hoping for has been harder to achieve. The lack of prestige around HoCo has made it difficult to get students to be involved, especially since there isn't much recognition for the work that we do (seeing that a lot of it is social/event planning).”

  • Flexible and increased funding

    • Co-chairs valued when the funding could meet the spontaneity of the house’s program desires; this allows for empowering a greater population within the house.
    • Many students advocate a loosening of restrictions around what HoCos can do.

  • Generate a Task Force Report on Harvard Houses to find more areas of strength and improvement in generating renewed energy in the houses. 

    • At Princeton, they developed a 2016 Task Force on the Residential College Model. Even though Harvard has a longer-standing and more diverse House system, it has still evolved significantly. By incorporating many different stakeholder voices, Princeton’s task force was able to spur ideas for how to increase meaningful engagement that supports personal growth and realize the vision of students feeling like they have a “home.”
    • Harvard has the successful “Committee on Student Life” however that idea-generating energy can be expanded in the coming years with a more in-depth study of the Houses and the various systems of support within the Houses.
    • Among many of the Princeton Task Force’s findings, it discusses the College Councils and the potential they have.
      • The report says Princeton should Enhance College Council Governance: We recommend that the University consider how to enhance opportunities for students to participate in college governance. Although students recognize the College Council positions as opportunities to cultivate leadership skills in the college, they do not see the councils as playing “true” college governance roles. We were impressed by the level of student governance and autonomy at the institutions we studied as part of our benchmarking process. College Councils could be a primary way of integrating juniors and seniors into the colleges.” Could increased participation in governance give Harvard house committees the prestige that would increase membership?
   
  Overall, I applaud residential leaders and staff for consistently seeking to build a friendly and supportive home for students. In order for HoCos to thrive, there is potential for more funding, staff support, and internal analysis in the way committee leaders communicate with, structure, and inspire their members. Incentivizing and motivating committed and selfless volunteers is an ongoing concern, especially when the work lacks the interest and prestige on campus. However, student buy-in is most likely with diverse and evolving programming that is based on regular input.
   
   

  A closer look at few Princeton College Councils
  
  
   

  Taylor Mills is a Council Chair of Mathey College of Princeton University, a diverse residential living and learning environment that, according to the College website, houses approximately two hundred first-year students, two hundred sophomores, and one hundred and forty juniors and seniors. Princeton “Colleges” provide ideal case comparisons to Harvard’s residential communities because of the similar missions in creating inclusive and diverse programming for a wide range of students and making sure that a residential community feels like home. Mills describes that she did not join the overarching College-wide student council because she wanted to have a more tangible, specific role. She says that the College Council allows her to feel like she’s making a difference and she can see the day-to-day change. In particular, she feels like the moment she really knew she was impacting people was when she planned “frosh week,” answering questions that the incoming freshmen had and helping them feel less lost. Like Harvard House Committee Co-Chairs, she discusses that the role has helped her meet lots of people. At Princeton, there are “Residential Community Advisors” who are like “PAFs” at Harvard, but integrated into the residential halls and work with “Peer Academic Advisors” as well. These groups operate outside of the College Council, but have some crossover membership like Mills. Perhaps a model like this at Harvard would allow for advising and peer support to follow students beyond their freshmen year into the second year, however, the ongoing concern is that there are not enough students to fill the event planning and advising roles. In addition, Mathey College only has 10 residential graduate students compared to 20-30 in each of the Harvard houses.
              When discussing the limitations of her work as the Council Chair of Mathey College, Mills discussed the internal limitation within the council that people get so busy and often a job gets put on two or three people along with other time management and coordination concerns. At the same time, people who live in Mathey who might attend their events are very busy and have their own groups. “It’s [about] trying to get people out of their comfort zone,” Mills says, referring to reaching students who might not normally come to Mathey events. Mills gives the insight that the Mathey College Council could work to be a bit more structured and clear about the roles of each role on the council. The Mathey College Council works with an administrator in the College who picks out two people who she likes to meet with her; those two liasons tell her what’s going on. Mills voiced that at one point it was felt that the administration had too much say, but that they were able to stake out on their own. “We’re pretty hands off, which is a pretty big perk…they have less sway…this can be a good or bad thing…we tell them our ideas, but they can veto things,” Mills added, offering an example of a food vendor that she was not able to use because of administrative veto.
              Discussing some of Mathey’s largest events, she says that 200-300 people come to “study breaks,” a turnout that is possible because every single College has study breaks at the same time. But, Mills says that it would be great to make these events more interactive instead of just having people come to eat food and leave, but this is a very habitual event.
   
   
   
  
   
          Anna is a sophomore leader of Butler College and felt drawn to joining Butler College Council because she thought it was cool to have a group open to all students. The Council has 7 committees including “cultural, community building, publicity civic engagement, intramural sports, and academic.” Like Mathey, they have a series of events throughout the year including trips to New York and Philadelphia for concerts and a spring carnival. Anna notes that this large of an event requires collaboration with administrators because it is a lot that they could not handle on their own. That being said, Anna notes “we’re lucky to be in a residential college where the staff members are willing to cede control when it comes to college council…if we’re convincing enough we can do it.” When describing the council, Anna says, “we are flexible bunch of people who are there to support the activities of our fellow students…a lot of what we do is behind the scenes...these events will always be there if you need a break…we are successful in providing support and constant community people can always come back to.”
            Interestingly, Anna notes that they choose to be intentional with their goals, saying that ultimately college is busy and they don’t want anyone to feel pressured to being a part of the community. Instead, they are just there to offer opportunities that students can access based on their autonomy and interests. Anna notes that in order to decrease turnover they are trying to evolve mentorship within the committee, and even though she thinks an application process might make the council more cohesive, she thinks the fundamental point is to be welcoming and representative of the whole residential college by having open membership. As for inclusion, she says “if we don’t provide an example, how do we build a solid foundation for the community?”
  When it comes to leadership, Anna says that leadership “is learning how to communicate your vision for something and how you enjoy what you do so others want to get involved…being vulnerable and open helps other people see and that we need to do things together as a team.” Finally, Anna offers important insight that “you have to be constantly reaching out to other leaders from the group and also have to solicit their ideas and be available when they offer you ideas…people don’t always offer their feedback in traditional ways.” This could mean that residential leaders should re-think their feedback system and make it more accessible.
   
           Joseph from Wilson College echoes many of the same beliefs of Anna and Taylor. In particular, Joseph describes the administrators as people who they can fall back on when their busy student schedules overwhelm them. He describes the relationship with administrators as “what we make of it,” in that the council can organize everything on their own and doesn’t need permission from them, but that they are still supportive. He finds that the weekly meetings with the treasurer, two co-chairs, and deans are productive and effective.  
           Interestingly, whereas each of the Harvard co-chairs wanted more money from the administration, none of the Princeton co-chairs voiced financial concern, but perhaps this is because of a smaller number of events put on throughout the year. Joseph says that when it comes to money priorities, Wilson chooses to prioritize more of the “community building” events like outings rather than gear giveaways. He says that he always feels like he is doing Council when he is not doing homework as its concerns are always on his mind. That being said, like each of the leaders interviewed, Joseph has valued what he has learned about being a leader from working on College Council and really valued what he is able to contribute to Wilson. 
  
  
  Overall, I found that Princeton students did not voice as many complaints about running their College Councils as Harvard students do. Even those Harvard students who felt satisfied as co-chairs felt there was room for improvement whether it be the immense amount that is expected of them form their peers and the university, the internal pressure they feel, or the lack of unity and effectiveness of their committee. It is difficult to assess exactly why Harvard students are less satisfied, but some theories include the intense social expectations Harvard students have to plan more and more complex events for their extracurricular-intense peers and the less direct administrative support that Harvard students have compared to Princeton with each college housing a residential student life director. Both campuses cited the limited time that students have to commit to residential life given competing interests and the way that it is easy for college students to quickly be consumed with other responsibilities, both of which can be changed with more incentive (funding) and prestige (real, instead of menial responsibilities and recognition) in the co-chair role, or as our administration advocates, a campuswide philosophical and cultural orientation toward teaching students about the importance of building community in a diverse residential setting.  Overall, these results prove to be very context-specific in that some Houses and Colleges achieve more success from others, proving that we have a lot to learn from within our very own campus.