To the Editors of The Crimson:

In your article on LSAT preparation (April 14, 1986), Harvard Law School Director of Admissions Molly Geraghty is quoted as saying, "There's no evidence whatsoever that a cram course does any good."

We at the Stanley H. Kaplan Educational Center concur totally and wholeheartedly. That is why Kaplan has never offered, and will never offer, a "cram course" of the kind with which our programs are occasionally confused. Thirty-plus hours of live instruction spread across eight weeks, another 30 or so hours of suggested home study, and an available library of over 200 hours of practice and review material written by a research staff of qualifications similar to those of the actual test writers--all this cannot possibly constitute "cramming" by any reasonable definition!

While actual cram courses are indeed ineffectual at best, there is irrefutable evidence that the Kaplan program is much more than an "expensive confidence booster." No less an authority than the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a 1979 study on standardized-test prep courses, wrote, "though it cannot be concluded that coaching [in general] will work for everyone, the results of the study do show that coaching can be effective for those who do not score well on standardized tests." Much more significantly, they added, "coaching at School A [Kaplan] can be effective for all students, not just for underachievers [emphasis added]."

Pleasant as this official validation is for us, far more important are the accolades of hundreds of thousands of Kaplan "alums" like Harvard's Benjamin Reder, who said in your article, "I really do think [the Kaplan course] helps... but some people can't afford it." To correct the record on this issue as well, it should be emphasized that Kaplan does offer "scholarships" to qualified students. We do not anyone to be denied the competitive edge the Kaplan courses confer. Susan B. Kaplan   New England Regional Administrator   Stanley H. Kaplan Educational Center