summer jobs, relationships and now careers.

But to present the recruiting process as the "career process" reflects

Harvard's subtle and not so subtle attempts to challenge our values,

delude our personal goals and to generally morph our diverse interests and talents into its ideal type of a respectable alum.

Three years ago, we sat together in Annenberg, learning about each others successes in viola and hockey, in public service and debate. Now, History and Literature and Folk and Myth students will crowd together with Economics concentrators to hear about the Boston Consulting Group. Harvard has a stake in producing as many of these types as possible; consultant/banker/technology whizzes will chair the alumni campaign of 2030 or maybe donate a computer lab when the brand new Maxwell Dworkin is outdated.

To be fair, the impetus comes mostly from the firms that are recruiting. Local non-profits, magazines, school districts and Congress have few built-in mechanisms or resources to come here and woo us. OCS does attempt to present a variety of other options (or at least, direct us to the ubiquitous "binders in the downstairs reading room"). We should expect more of OCS, though. Compared to the convenience of the recruiting process, finding information about other fields is a much more arduous a task. Students who pursue other fields must be largely selfguided.

Together, OCS and the recruiters have collaborated so that procuring a job as a consultant or investment banker is easier then applying for a Freshman seminar. OCS should compensate, helping ease the research, interview and placement process in other fields. Why not publish a list on the OCS website of names and addresses of contacts in schools, museums, magazines and newspapers, religious organizations and government jobs?

Thankfully, Phillip Brooks House has stepped up its involvement in the