To the Editors of the Crimson:

Public discussion of the fellowships process at Harvard is worthwhile and potentially beneficial. Jeffrey Nordhaus's November 16 article, however, is not only substantially inaccurate but also, it seems to me, substantially misleading and ultimately detrimental to community understanding.

Several factual inadequacies need to be addressed first. Nordhaus writes that a committee of faculty and administrators has met annually for over 50 years to scrutinize carefully and endorse University applicants for the Rhodes and Marshall competition. In fact, a University endorsement committee has met for only more than a decade, and it was only this fall that faculty and administrators participated in this meeting.

Nordhaus writes that Dean of the College I. Fred Jewett chairs this meeting. In fact, the dean first attended this year, but Director of Fellowships Kristine Forsgard chaired the meeting. Nordhaus writes that Forsgard told committee members to discuss neither committee decision nor committee procedures. In fact, no such instructions were issued.

Nordhaus writes that Forsgard assembles a faculty/tutor committee to make nominations for University competitions such as the Luce and Rockefeller fellowships. In fact, these committees and procedures originate strictly in an administrative and advisory capacity.

Beyond these factual misrepresentations. Nordhaus's article also seems substantially misleading in its tone, which seems to suggest that OCS administration of the fellowships process is incompetent, inadequte, and even conspiratorial. We read, for example, that faculty and House fellowships officers (HFOs) have complained about the working of this "small, exclusive and highly secretive committee." The Selection Committee is by definition small and exclusive--it consists of all HFOs, the OCS Fellowships Director and, as of this year, the Dean of the College and members of the faculty.

Discussion of individual decisions is naturally confidential. just as are specific decisions in the Admissions Office or, say, in the selection of Crimson editors: the thrust of these decisions may be explained to individual applicants, but confidentiality ultimately serves the welfare of the applicants as well as of committee members.

Finally, Nordhaus suggests discrepancies of effectiveness within each House, and this, too seems misleading. While some discrepancies surely exist given differences in experience, to suggest that HFOs hold an applicants fate in their hands is facile and ultimately harmful. It seems virtually impossible for HFOs to "play favorites" or for House letters to be inadequate.

To characterize the involvement of OCS and HFOs in the fellowhips process as anything other than advocacy does the whole process a disservice. Though there has been debate about the process, every party involved in the debate has maintained the best interests of student applicants as the primary consideration. Harvard is unique in the extent of its involvement in these competitions on students's behalf. All this is not to say that Harvard's system is faultless, but it is this concern to maximize our effectiveness for students that prompted reform consideration in the first place and which continues to promote these discussions. It is a tribute to OCS and Dean Jewett that they are as involved as they are and that the status quo is always under scrutiny. It may that Harvard's procedures are not as effective as they can be. But as of this year they certainly seem more objective and more effective than they have been. and Harvard students continue to compile an impressive record of success in the various competitions in which the University is involved. Paul Bohlman   Fellowships Officer Kirkland House