To the Editors of The Crimson:

We applaud the fact that one of the first decisions made by Michael Spence, new Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), was to commission a group of faculty members to reevaluate the Graduate School (GSAS). The result of the Strauch Committee's several months' work has recently been made public. Although their suggestions include issues as provocative as reallocation of university funds (increasing reorganizing the administration, little discussion has been generated thus far. As graduate students who reported to the Strauch Committee, we lament this and hope that the report will be more widely read and openly debated among the university community. Discussion is particularly vital because of the report's occasionally self-congratulatory content. It is the product of many minds; contradictions on basic issues have survived unresolved in the final version. The response of the FAS community will help determine how these disagreements are untangled and acted upon In addition, the Report itself legislate nothing. In order for actual changes to take place in the GSAS.

what are now suggestion to Dean Spence must are now suggestion by the Faculty

Appropriately, the issue addressed most thoroughly by the Strauch Report is graduate student financial aid. It upholds in strong terms the cornerstones of the present program: departments must offer every incoming student a "need-related" sum above or equal to a minimum level; continuing students are promised at least that income for their second year; admissions (and hence financial aid) policies assume that everyone admitted into a program will graduate. The latter point is especially Important-it marks the difference between Harvard's plan and that of universities where high attrition rates reduce incoming classes by half or more.

The committee also makes some welcome new suggestions. At present, many continuing minimum income until fall of the coming academic year. The report advocates a plan whereby all continuing would receive notification of a least minimum level of support in the preceding spring. We regard this as a essential of the responsible financial planning urged upon us by the GSAS, and would further ask that; summer teaching assignments be announced earlier.

While the Report does not address the problem. Dean Spence has shown interest in reconsidering the present policy of taking up to 90 percent of outside scholarship away from graduate students prior aid package. The present system seems designed to diminish the incentive to seek outside funds that would represent a net income to the student and to Harvard. We have suggested that a ceiling of 50 percent for reductions would be a fair figure. A related issue is the policy of docking House tutors for the estimated worth of their dormitory rooms and meals. Should tutors, who provide a service to the Harvard Houses in return for their board, also lose a substantial fraction of their income?

Although the Committee claims that no overall financial policy changes are recommended, the Report suggests that it is "reasonable to experiment in a few typical departments with a plan that would permit admission offers with financial awards more than $1000 below the calculated support figure." Presently, the offer can fall short by only $1000. A figure of 75-80 percent of the minimum is suggested for this trial program. The motivation for this comes from the desire to modestly increase enrollments in some departments by a combination of: 1) increasing funds available for graduate student aid; 2) reallocating funds among departments; 3) increasing the number of faculty for teaching and advising; 4) relaxing present financial aid policies.

However, what do we mean by a minimum unless that sun is uncompromisingly upheld? Apparently precisely those policies strongly affirmed by the Committee (and listed above) would be circumvented. How will this program be evaluated? Will students ignorant of the high price of living in Cambridge be informed that their aid level is lower than Harvard thinks allowable? Will students simply spend more time working on outside jobs, thus leathering the time to graduation? Does Harvard really want to spread it's financial resources as than as possible Surely, erring on the side of slight benefitting students better than the alternative.

Another of the issues on which the Committee wants to have it both ways is that of reduction in length of time to degree Almost all graduate students want to finish more quickly, but we cannot do this unless we are given substantially more financial support. A reduction in teaching load (recommended in the Report) must be accompanied by an increase in fellowships, not explicitly promised by the Report.

The Committee only makes passing references to the two graduate appeals boards, the teaching Fellows Appeals Board and the Financial Aid Appeals Board, and define the latter too narrowly Access to appellate procedure is vital to the welfare of any healthy institution and the existence of these boards should be more widely publicized Its task should include institutions and enforcement of existence of these boards should be more widely published. Its task should include interpretation and enforcement of existing guidelines, not just wavering them (which is how the Report defines its function).

We commend the Report's emphasis on the priority of hiring GSAS students before outsiders for teaching fellow positions. Although this preference already exists in principle, it is not followed widely enough at present.(Policing professors hiring practices is neither possible or desirable). Thus the Report's unambiguous endorsement of this policy represents a welcome reminder.

In general, the Report demonstration an increased awareness of graduate students as people. In its concern about young graduate students who may need a more supportive environment and in its recognition that older students not be treated as their parents children (e.g, in submitting parental financial data). The Committee demonstrates the degree to which it investigated students interests. Suzanne Amador   Irene kacandes   Mark Postman   David spergel   (Subcommittee of Graduate Student Council to the Strauch Committee)