Indeed, the council's only real authority is over a budget drawn from student fees of $20 yearly. Advocates of service as the council's primary mission argue that the body should concentrate on how to best disperse these funds.

In the end, advocates of the "service-first" philosophy argue that the council is just another extra-curricular, that it has a limited mandate and should not pretend otherwise.

In contrast, students at Stanford take the Associate Students of Stanford University (ASSU) much more seriously than the average run-of-the-mill extracurricular.

For starters, representatives to the student government are paid. The four members of the council of presidents receive a yearly stipend of $4100. And the financial manager, who oversees allocation of grants to student groups, earns a whopping $14,000 a year.

"The ASSU is very effective at making the administration realize that students are a vital part of the university," says Beth S. Morgan, a senior at Stanford and a former member of the body.

"The administration recognizes that we're serious about student issues," Morgan says.

The body is able to pay itself, Morgan says, because it has accrued three million dollars over the years. ASSU-run student businesses, much like services operated by Harvard Student Agencies, are extremely profitable, Morgan says.

The ASSU's operating budget weighs in near $300,000 yearly. The Undergraduate Council's budget is a relatively meager $120,000 a year.

Like at Harvard, many campaigns for the Stanford undergraduate senate focus on service issues, like the quality of food on campus and the operating hours of libraries.

But when a critical legislative issue is slated to come before the senate, the campaigns heat up.

For example, last year a motion was introduced to change the legislative charter so that students accused of misconduct would have to be found innocent by "clear and convincing evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt innocent."

To pass, such a motion has to be approved by the student senate, the faculty senate and the president of the university.

"The Daily stages a debate. The radio station stages a debate. People know about the issues," Morgan says.

The election process is also supervised by an independent election commissioner who earns $2000 yearly.

This stands in marked contrast to the Undergraduate Council, where the sitting vice chair is responsible for elections.

Still, Harvard is not alone in student governmental structure. Brown and Yale, for example, follow much the same pattern. Student representatives are not paid and are limited to an advisory role on most critical campus issues. Like Harvard, voter turnout for campus elections is low.

Both Brown and Yale concentrate on funding student groups and activities.

They appoint representatives to most important administrative committees, although they do not have a vote.

Minor differences, like a popular election for leader of the student government, separate these other Ivies from Harvard. But the similarities out-weigh any differences and the problems are the same. Services that are effectively carried out are taken for granted and students view the bodies as largely ineffectual.

Despite minor clamoring for the Undergraduate Council to be dissolved, few council members have advocated major structural change. Without it, it seems, the issues facing the council are likely to stay much the same.