But all this is somehow soured when Peddie, explaining his methods, says, "I like to think I'm doing in Minnesota what Bob Blackman of Dartmouth is doing for the whole country....He hears of guys, tracks them down, and holds on." This is especially saddening, because it again shows an unusual and unhealthy emphasis on athletics, and because Blackman has given the Ivy League a bad name everywhere with his aggressive and, some say, illegal recruiting tactics. A debate among the Ivies this fall displayed a wide polartiy in interpretations of the Ivy League Code, with Dartmouth and Harvard at opposite extremes. It is troubling that a Harvard admission worker should want to espouse Blackman's methods.

Most of the increase in the Minnesota contingent has come from small public schools scattered all over the state. Peddie points out that personal visits to all the possible source schools would be impossible; "We figure we're going to get one boy from a school in five years--we can't appear every year." So, Paddie says, "we use an annual report on Minnesota boys at Harvard to get a foot in the door.... We send it to the boys we have tips on, and then sit back and wait for a nibble." If the boy responds in any manner, Peddie continues, "then we write to the school and say, "You tell us officially what he can do academically.' We tell the school that so-and-so has expressed an interest in us, which is literally true, even if exaggerated a little."

This cloak-and-daggering is necessary because Peddie's committed "can't get high school guidance counselors to stick their neck out." Minnesota is state university territory, and in the close-knit communities, Peddie claims, "a counselor can't afford to stick his neck out. . . . He can't favor us over a state university, or favor one Ivy college over another. The ones who will stick their necks out for us are the old gals, who don't want to be superintendents. Young guys have to watch it."

The important thing about a direct mail campaign, Peddie observes, is that "you've got to have some ideas whom you're going to get." This Peddie finds out "through all the sources I can think of." The secret of his success at recruiting is that he has established so many faithful contacts all over the state. He gets tips from alumni, undergraduates, school personnel and friends, as well as from a rather mysterious, athletically-minded group composed of "non-Harvard people that aren't school people or coaches." Peddie always peruses the small-town edition of the paper he works on, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, and many local journals, with careful attention to the sports pages. "We get prospects any way we can," he says.

The Minnesota club has an advantage, Peddie says, in that "Glimp and his committee have a slight bias for these small town boys. Give 'em one from Long Prairie and they get enthused . . . willing to take a gamble. They add a little bit in their minds to his Board scores."

One is tempted to ask whether Harvard, even in a quest for excellence, should solicit candidates so directly and, indeed, so desperately. And one would feel better even about these techniques if they were less strongly oriented toward athletes. Glimp and the staff try to visit local workers as frequently as possible, to keep them up to date on University policy, but the alumni obviously have considerable freedom of discretion. This freedom, if misused, could lead to most serious imbalances in incoming classes.

Whither the Interview

A basic ingredient of the selection process is the interview. Around Boston and at many big prep schools, admissions officials do the interviewing, but in the towns and villages around the country this job too falls to the alumni. Interviewing is not an easy art; and on many committees, as one alumnus says, the job goes "to anyone who wants to do it."

For one thing, the interview is a highly artificial situation. The boy is dressed up, he probably has traveled a great distance, and he is in unfamiliar surroundings. He carefully censors his own remarks, and usually he tries to give what he thinks is the "right" answer. Most of all, he is nervous; he knows his whole future may be at stake every time he opens his mouth.

The alumnus is in slightly better shape, but no much. He is not always sure what to ask, and he may find it hard to get below the surface. He realizes the boy is scared, but often he does not know how to put him at his ease; and sometimes the interviewer himself feels awkward.

"I do have trouble with interviews," Birge admits. Even so, he has interviewed more than 300 boys. "It's very difficult to judge in a half hour or an hour. Some boys are very shy, and I haven't known a great majority of the guys before the interview." Birge wonders, "When you get a guy who doesn't look like much--what to do? Especially if the guy is not an extrovert, and he sits there with his mouth dry and his feet shuffling. He knows his life depends on what you say. I feel for the boys; they're scared. They want to go to Harvard. They're thinking. 'If Birge thinks I'm a jerk, I won't go there.' I don't take off for shyness--I look for a little spark of greatness, a spark of creativity."

Doermann says, "If you find that rare person who can talk to and appraise boys with a wide range of backgrounds, a person with breadth and perception who knows enough of what Harvard requires, then the interview works beautifully. It provides an important and different kind of information." But new men on the job or those who lack the necessary breadth may run into difficulty, Doermann says, and another weakness of the interview is that it is a snap judgment. "You have to take interview reports in perspective," he warns, a sentiment with which Glimp would agree.

"For instance," Doermann explains, "Glimp takes charge of Minnesota. He has read reports from 10 or 15 interviews, and has talked with two-thirds of them. He has his own size up of the men. He's capable of discounting bias--if he knows an interviewer likes gregarious kids, he'll understand a bad rating for a shy one."

"Some grad schools think the interview is a weak device," Doermann says, "but if you have good interviewers and people to take it in perspective, it can be successful. The problem is to get more and better interviewers."

New Approaches