AS April 15th approaches, thousands of high schools students across the nation anxiously will be awaiting a letter from the Harvard-Radcliffe Admissions Office. Equally eager to see the results with be the watchdog media which has recently questioned vigorously the policies and procedures of the Admissions Office, particularly in reference to the admission of Asian-Americans.

On the surface, it may look as if the Admissions Office sets a quota on the number of Asian-Americans annually admitted to the College. After all, statistics reveal that during the last 10 years. Asian Americans have typically scored 20 points or more than other applicant groups on SATs and other standardized tests. Studies also show that the number of college-age Asian-American applicants has increased every year during the last decade. With an expanding pool of highly qualified candidates, the number of Asian-Americans accepted should show a parallel rise. And yet, the percentage of Asian-Americans at Harvard has hovered around the 12 percent mark for the last few years.

Is this the result of a hidden conspiracy formulated by white members of the Admissions Committee. who fear an Asian dominated college? I don't think One only needs to look beneath the veneer of statistics to see that the Admissions process, like the applicants it deals with, is more than just a matter of black and white.

SAT's, even though we all must take them, really play a minimal role in the entire admissions process. According to a statement on Asian American admissions released two weeks ago by Assistant Director of Minority Recruitment Susie Chao and Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William Fitzsimmons the Committee weighs many other factors in addition to academic criteria in its decisions. These factors include talents, interests, personalities, backgrounds and career goals.

Thus, just because John Lee scored higher than John Smith on the SAT's does not necessarily mean that the former has more of a chance to get in. The latter may have qualities which make him a "better" candidate. James Brown, the former Director of Admissions at Brown University, said in a New York Times article. "The question is not one of race. It's academic balance."

MORE does not mean better. A larger pool of eligible Asian-Americans does not necessarily translate to better candidates, just as a longer paper does not mean an A. Quantity is not the deciding factor: the Admissions Committee. I hope and believe, is seeking quality students who will make unique contributions to the University, cannot be manipulated as statistics are--against the existence of quotas arises when you closely examine the entire admissions process. According to David H. Eun '89. who has worked as a minority recruiter for the Admissions Committee for the last two years, the applications meetings occur in many different rooms, and each group of officers is oblivious to what the other groups are doing. The applications themselves are read numerous times by different officers, thereby further decentralizing the process.

"It would be very difficult for one officer to get a totally accurate, comprehensive scope of the composition of a class at specific points throughout the applications process," said Eun. Thus, it would be difficult for the Committee to keep track of the exact number of minority admittees, and virtually impossible to establish any kind of systematic bias against a specific ethnic group.

OF course, subtle biases are built into the admissions system. The Committee gives preference to alumni children, and since not many Asian-Americans have graduated from the College, their children still do not constitute a large number. Although one may object to this special consideration, Harvard is in the end a private business which must maintain financial solvency. Since much of the money comes from alumni contributions, the College is obligated to a certain extent to accept a large proportion of legacies.

Another subtle bias favors athletes. Unfortunately, not many 280-pound Asian tackles are running around. To displace the Harvard Varsity Club's vested interests in the student body would be impossible if not undesirable.

The Committee also argues that Asian-Americans do not meet the criteria for diversity. This argument is the most suspect, since Asian Americans admitted here have shown that they can lead publications or play varsity sports in addition to becoming Marshall scholars. But all the statistics show that Asians are overrepresented in sciencerelated fields. If the Committee seeks a diverse student body and not just one filled with scientists, then it should reject those candidates that have nothing else to offer. If all caucasians were interested solely in the Classics, the Committee should not accept them all either.

In the final tally, these biases do not add up to a quota. The percentage of Asian Americans per class has risen from 4.8 to 12.2 in the last decade--a testament to the effort of the present Admissions Committee to create a diverse student body. In the future, if the number of children of Asian-American alumni increases (which is now inevitable) without a parallel rise in acceptances, then Asian-Americans will have cause to worry. But for the present moment, there is no concrete evidence to assert the existence of a quota.