To the editors:

I would like to respond to the editorial (Opinon, Feb. 11) and article (News, Feb. 5) concerning undergraduate advising at Harvard and to the comments directed to the Economics Department in particular. In the editorial and related article, The Crimson remarked that the Economics Department ranked near bottom in advising and quoted Head Tutor Christopher Foote as saying "We have no plans to rework the system." Apparently, a large portion of the investigative reporting by The Crimson constituted putting those two sentences right next to each other.

In truth, the Economics Department does not hold to a "why fix what's broken" mentality as asserted by the Crimson editors. Reality is a little more nuanced. The fact is, economics undergraduates and faculty have divergent ideas on what optimal interaction might be like. Although I am sympathetic to student concerns, I hope I can put the faculty position in a better light.

Professors want to help undergraduates explore theories and research. They do not want to figure out whether econometrics counts as a special field for this year's graduating seniors. Professors want to balance their time between cutting-edge research, teaching and interaction with actors like the Federal Reserve. The current system in economics tries to free professors so that they have a more meaningful role in the development of undergraduates. If undergraduates were constantly asking, for example, whether Anthropology 105 counts as a related field, professors would have less time for thesis advising. But this draws the ire of students, and we have the senior surveys to prove it.

I am sure Dr. Foote did declare there are no plans to change the advising system. I am also sure Dr. Foote cares a great deal about undergraduate education. Resolving this apparent conundrum involves asking Dr. Foote why there are no plans to change the advising system. An editorial perspective that avoids investigating the reasons behind decisions does a disservice to readers.

"Why fix what's broken?" was the answer put forth by The Crimson's staff. This theory is not exactly robust to criticism. It presumes a mindset among professors to ignore undergraduates. The reality is that it is extraordinarily difficult to reconcile student demands with other faculty pressures. Unless one assumes, as The Crimson may have, that all professors in all departments have equal demands on their time in all directions, a simple cross-sectional comparison of departmental advising can be somewhat misleading.

The demands of hundreds of concentrators to hear, from a professor's mouth, if a blue form must be turned in for students in Economics 1530 to satisfy the writing requirement, cannot reasonably be met given other considerations on the professors' time. But questions such as why economics affects law and is a good foundation for law school are topics that they will entertain, some eagerly. Many professors are interested in the academic and professional development of students. They are interested in advising students in course selection as it relates to building a rich undergraduate career. But the mundane details of course selection--those related to administration of the concentration--are far less important to them. These procedural technicalities are left to the advising staff.

I agree with The Crimson editors that "while senior Faculty may have busier schedules, their expertise would make a world of difference to undergraduate concentrators." However, I do not think that if a student approaches a professor, instead of me, to know whether accounting at MIT counts for related field credit that it will make a "world of difference." The meaningful discussions that affect the undergraduate experience revolve around deeper issues. For that, the Faculty is there.

The Economics Department is fully aware that concentrators want more from it. Nothing I have written should be taken to be an apology for that. Indeed, if anything, perhaps too much of the role of faculty-student interaction occurs,de facto, at 20 Rear Garden St. Solutions will emerge when undergraduates take certain realities about Faculty existence into consideration and the Faculty accepts certain responsibilities towards undergraduates more directly. Until this meeting of the minds occurs, whether autonomously or at the behest of University Hall, I can only say that there are and will be, sadly, "no plans to rework the system". RISHI GANTI   Feb. 11, 1999 The author is an advisor in the Department of Economics, a resident tutor in economics at Lowell House, and Head Teaching Fellow of Economics 1423, "Capital Markets."