To the Editors of The Crimson:

I want to call your attention to several errors in and omissions from the article on Harvard's tuition and fees which appeared in your April 8 issue.

First, and most important, the comparisons made between Ivy League tuition and fee rates are somewhat inaccurate. The data you quote under the heading "tuition" are not simply tuition rates. Rather, these data are what colleges call the package cost, i.e., University health fees are not treated consistently in your comparisons. For example, the 1988-89 rates reported for Yale and Dartmouth do not include required health fees. Had required health fees been included for all institutions, your table would show Harvard's cost as lower than that for either Yale or Dartmouth.

Second, Harvard's 1988-89 tuition rate of $12.715 is the lowest for any of the seven Ivy League institutions whose tuition rates have been announced. Adding room, board, and health fees to tuition raised Harvard's cost from the bottom of the list to third because our room rates are quite high. There are several reasons for this: the Harvard house system is significantly more comprehensive than that found even at comparable institutions: metropolitan Boston is among the most expensive areas in the United States in which to live; and Harvard has been investing large sums in the renovation of the buildings that make up the house system.

Third, while your article points out that Harvard has taken strong action to assure that our financial aid resources rise more rapidly than fees. I should point out that Harvard is working very hard to control costs and to keep fee increases to a minimum. Robert H. Scott   Vice President for Finance