Memorial Hall Tower Is Proof Of Misguided Priorities

To the editors:

I am writing in response to the University's recent decision to restore the tower atop Memorial Hall.

The restoration project and the hefty $4 million price tag present us with some difficult issues. Mainly, can we be absolutely certain that the money is not needed elsewhere? It may be understandable that Harvard would like to celebrate its successful five-year capital campaign, and perhaps the reconstruction of the tower would be a powerful symbol of the campaign's success.

Nevertheless, the restoration will only be a symbol. There seem to be dozens of issues on campus that need attention, not to mention financial support. I question the fundraising priorities of the University. We must remember that the heart of Harvard is not in the pomp of its buildings, but rather in the vibrant campus community that inhabits its hallowed halls. Thus, if we are to truly celebrate the success of our University's fundraising campaign, the best possible investments would be made in the spirit of improving life for the students, the faculty, and the staff. A student union, an improved fitness facility and increased wages for Harvard workers are only three of the current issues demanding attention. Furthermore, these options would directly and unequivocally improve life for Harvard citizens.

It is frivolous for the administration and the proponents of the restoration to claim that the $4 million is spare money. There are plenty of demands to be met; these demands must be vocalized and the administration must be willing to listen. An aesthetic enhancement, perhaps, but the reconstruction of the Memorial Hall tower serves only to distort the concerns of Harvard University.

Masafumi J. Hoshino '02

Feb. 17, 1999

In Defense of Teacher Testing

To the editors:

While reading the article "Questions of Validity Surround Teacher Tests" (Feb. 24), I was reminded of a similar issue that arose in my home state of Florida about 10 years ago. All college sophomores were required to take and pass the CLAST test in order to continue on to the college of their chosen major. The test was supposed to be at about a 10th grade level. I honestly feel it was much easier than that, and I went to a mediocre public high school and was a B student in college.

Well, there were many students who failed one or more parts of the test (you can retake it as many times as you need to pass.) There was an outcry of, "It's unfair! It's gender biased! It's race biased! Our future shouldn't be based on one test!"

My feeling at the time was, and still is, if you cannot pass an easy test of basic, general literacy skills, I do not want you receiving a diploma from my University. It would lower the credibility of an education from the University, and that's not fair to those of us who have no problem performing basic math skills and forming complete sentences.

I have not seen the MECT. It may have serious flaws. But the story sounds oddly familiar, and I can't help but feel it may be a similar situation.

Aimee Berger

Feb. 24, 1999

•

To the editor:

I am always amused to read articles concerning teacher testing. It seems that because the tests "are praised by politicians and criticized by educators", those who criticize the test are always portrayed as being right.

For the January 9, 1999 administration of the MECT, 95 percent of the students who were repeat test takers (i.e., had failed before) failed once again. So any variance in test scores isn't big enough, or consistent enough, to push some of these people over the passing threshold. These poor souls also apparently all had the bad luck to get a bad proctor and/or a faulty tape both times they took the test.

I agree that maybe the test should be looked into, and I am open to the possibility that the test may be unfair, but I think The Crimson and other newspapers should put away their violins, stop playing their sad songs, and open themselves to the possibility that people are failing because they are unprepared, and they fail repeatedly because they do not invest the time and effort in order to make themselves prepared.

Michael V. Ziniti '99

Feb. 24, 1999

The writer is a participant in UTEP, did his student teaching last semester, took the MECT in January and passed.