TWENTY-SIX YEARS ago, Richard Ward Kimball '50 and some of his classmates sat in the Eliot House dining hall and discussed their postgraduation plans. As Kimball describes the conversation in his 25th anniversary report, he said he did not know what he wanted to do, but he had a very clear idea of what he would never do: Richard Kimball would never work for a large corporation, he would never work in New York City and he would never live in the suburbs. Today, Kimball is the assistant corporate secretary for the Exxon Corporation and commutes to his downtown Manhattan office every day from his home in Chappaqua, N.Y.

Although he was skeptical about his decision to join Exxon in 1957, Kimball writes now that he is sure the decision was the right one:

At the time many friends predicted I would stay perhaps a year or two and then would flee rather than be devoured by the hostile beast lurking inside every large corporation which, according to the folklore then current, would pounce upon anyone showing the least inclination toward independent thought, word, deed or dress. That folklore, chronicled in books like "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit," "The Organization Man," and "Life in the Crystal Palace," was, I think, absurdly overdrawn. In any event, I did not encounter the beast...

Kimball is certainly not alone among Harvard alums. While the number of graduates who say they will eventually go into the field of business as an occupation averages about 10 or 15 per cent, a recent tabulation of about 150,000 living Harvard-Radcliffe graduates shows that almost one in three are directly employed in some business-related field. Adding in the high percentage of Harvard's 21,000 living lawyers presently involved in some area of corporate law, and those in fields such as publishing, architecture and engineering who are actually working for corporations, the number probably comes close to one in every two.

A startling percentage of these individuals, if a review of recent anniversary reports is a valid indication, say they are satisfied with their achievements since graduation and describe their personal lives as rewarding. Indeed, for most, the corporate beast that Kimball feared would turn every individual into a pre-fabricated "organizational" man has never reared its ugly head. But what is noticeably lacking from the often lengthy autobiographical sketches in recent 25th reunion books is a sense of obligation to anything higher than thyself and thine organization. The same people who describe their successful efforts in helping Exxon sell ever more gasoline and accrue ever-increasing profits, and who detail their travels abroad and the cultural events they witness in their leisure, have little or nothing to say about their contributions toward making our society a better place in which to live. Nor do they express concern for the problems and welfare of the vast majority of those less fortunate than themselves.

ALL HARVARD graduates can't be expected to leave the University with the conception of themselves as perfect Rousseauian citizens, whose only business is public service. And the fact that so many Harvard graduates work for private corporations does not necessarily mean that they ignore social causes. Most probably give sizeable donations every year to a wide range of charities, many speak out in moral outrage against "social injustices," and many serve as trustees and members of non-profit service organizations such as hospitals, and charitable groups. Besides, the argument goes, when one is a successful executive in a profitable company, he is doing a great deal to enhance all of society by helping to stimulate more jobs and to provide more income and commodities for everyone.

All this aside, it is a shameful fact of 150,000 graduates of the University who have been surveyed, only 860 describe their field as Social Service and another 2000 say they work for some non-profit institution (other than educational ones). Even the number of graduates involved in government service is incredibly low--about 5500.

It's difficult to blame only Harvard for the dearth of graduates who go out and dedicate their lives to eradicating social injustice, redistributing social benefits more equitably, and championing the cause of the "ordinary" citizen. Take, for example, a recent study by the Office of Career Services and Off-Campus Learning. It indicates that almost the exact same numbers of students in any given class say at graduation that they will enter various occupations as when the class entered. So, while the Harvard educational process may influence individuals in a class, it does not appear to alter the eventual occupational distribution of that class. But, even if each class could be swayed in four years here to focus on different fields than they had originally intended, the question then becomes how can the University go about instilling a higher sense of social commitment in students.

HARVARD REALLY can't solve the problem on its own. The truth of the matter is that there are few opportunities for someone who wants to go out and make a paid occupation out of serving the public good. Some graduates do run for political office, others join some mammoth bureaucracy where their role improving society is at best remote. A dedicated few organize their own community organization and give up hope of earning enough money on which to live comfortably. But public money available for welfare programs, public health care, community services and other areas in which the socially-committed graduate might hope to earn a living has been slashed continuously in the eight years since Nixon was elected president. The problem has gotten worse, not better.

A survey of first-year law students by the Harvard Law Students Guild this fall dramatized the situation. Although an overwhelming percentage of the students said that they would prefer to become involved in public service or political work after receiving law degrees, 40 per cent indicated that they expect to join big, corporate law firms. Quite simply, the corporate jobs are far more readily available, and offer much more security, prestige and monetary reward than anything in the public service area.

In the final analysis, it seems that Harvard will always have many Richard Kimballs, who boldly announce over dinner they will never be lured into self-seeking enterprise. Most of them too, will probably write in their 25th anniversary reports that they are working for a large corporation, in a large city and are living in the suburbs.