To the Editors of The Crimson:

In her article attacking the Peace Corps for becoming less idealistic, (Crimson 4/16/83). Beth Schwinn offered a peculiar set of priorities for the program. Why does Schwinn criticize the Peace Corps for recruiting volunteers with practical skills? Developing countries want skilled volunteers. They don't want us merely to send over thousands of well-intentioned Crimson reporters to exude idealism. Why on Earth does Schwinn protest the increase in retirement age of volunteers, which to me is the most admirable aspect of the Peace Corps? So many retirees in this country become trapped in stultifying, deadly boring existences. The Peace Corps offers usefulness and >ael> people Why should college students, with all their opportunities, have more right than retirees to join the Peace Corps?

Finally, Schwinn's implication that by offering minimal job placement to returning volunteers, the Peace Corps is attracting more materialistic people, is ludicrous. Nobody joins the Peace Corps to make money. If the Peace Corps abandoned returning volunteers completely, many idealistic people might feel they could not afford to join. Does Schwinn want volunteer programs reserved for the wealthy?

As Schwinn admits, there are still many positions open for liberal arts graduates in the Peace Corps, but there is no reason the Peace Corps should avoid recruiting skilled people. People with technical skills can be idealistic too--the only difference is they can do a bit more with their idealism. The Peace Corps is still for those who believe that living a rich life means more than being rich. Lee levenson '83