The op-ed in the Record from the JA Advisory Board has lots of great stuff, even if their claims about the decrease in the quality of the selected JAs are suspect.

We understand that the CUL worries about whether a three-year system would have enough “glue” to hold;

CUL is right to worry. Without drawing in first years and seniors, anchor housing will not accomplish its goals. Note that the JA advisory board should be able to forecast the future on this score. They should not be deceived into thinking that, just because CUL has left entries/JAs out of the plan today, CUL is committed to doing so in the future.

In fact, if/when anchor housing is implemented, I would gladly wager that, in 4 years, almost everyone will agree that — Surprise! — just as at Bowdoin and Middlebury, cluster identity has failed to arise at Williams.

What happens then? Well, the great and the good on CUL will look aroud and ask themselves, “How can we improve cluster community?” You can bet that the first answer to come to mind will be to attach entries to clusters — Just like Yale! — and enforce JA/cluster matching.

You read it here first.

however, a three-year system seemed to work in housing models from the past.

I have said it before and I’ll say it again. THIS IS NOT TRUE! Apologies for the shouting and, perhaps, it depends on what you mean by “work”. Perhaps the JA Advisory Board as a group is as uninformed on this topic as one of their members, David Seligman ‘05.

Again, Carter House in the 1980s “worked”. I find it hard to believe that Carter House today does not “work”. But all those who claim that the affiliation system was some sort of Cheers bar scene where everybody knew your name and free time was spent on house projects like Trivia and snow sculptures are either clueless or disingenuous.
[Aidan could have written this paragraph much better -- ed. I know, I know.]