The question of the "diamond in the rough" has caused many furrowed brows among Harvard admissions officials in the past few decades. One of the more difficult cases settled by the Admissions Committee last week concerned a straight-A student from a small Negro high school (74 in the graduating class) in North Carolina. Judging by his demonstrated leadership and by his secondary school record, he was an ideal candidate for admission. Being colored also gave him a definite advantage, since non-whites are given preference over equally-qualified white students. One fact kept this student out of Harvard: his 385 score on the verbal section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Are cases like this "diamonds in the rough" or not? Is such a student able and ill-prepared, or merely incompetent and ill-prepared?

Unfortunately, the number of these borderline decisions is almost certain to increase in the future. Dean Monro is actively campaigning for a program of proselytizing and emphasizing the worth of college. Several times he has called for "recruitment" of college-worthy students from low-income areas, students who rarely go beyond secondary school and who lack the preparation provided by college-oriented high schools and prep schools. Harvard thus seems to be playing one hand against the other: first, encouraging applications from ill-prepared students; and second, having to deny or question seriously admitting these applicants.

Some sort of compromise can--indeed must--be found. Perhaps the solution lies in some sort of "farm system" for students Harvard would like to admit, but cannot, due to their poor preparation. The Admission Committee, although rejecting a student's application, could give an implicit guarantee to admit him once he completes a satisfactory year at another college. After two terms elsewhere, the students would then go through the regular four-year Harvard education; he might receive credit for the courses taken in his first freshman year.

A liberalized transfer policy would be a corner-stone of this proposed system. Last year, the College turned down 88.2 per cent of the transfer applicants from four-year colleges. This extremely high rejection percentage, moreover, is on the increase. Only two students transferred, as freshmen, into the class of '62, since members of the Admissions Committee feel that most students can obtain an adequate education at another college.

Obviously, there are many disadvantages associated with a program of transfers into the freshman class. Five years of undergraduate work, not four, might be necessary. The Admissions Committee could gain many more headaches. And there is always the chance that such a program would fail completely due to lack of interest. However, the Admissions Committee probably could assess applicants better after a year of college work; by that additional period of study, the applicants could prove whether or not they were "diamonds in the rough." More important, the benefits of Harvard education would be opened, at least potentially, to students with a wider range of backgrounds--one of the prime aims of Harvard admissions policy.

Harvard cannot stand in magnificent semi-isolation and feel that all secondary schools will prepare their students, no matter how able, for a college education. Dean Monro has pointed out that the relative number of applicants from low-income areas has been decreasing steadily--perhaps due to well-founded fears that they will not be admitted. If Harvard seeks to provide education for those with aptitude and not merely those with good training, liberalization of transfer policies is urgently needed.