Understanding these flaws helps explain why Harvard students won't be sailing to Oxford come September. The reason is not that Harvard didn't field good candidates. Those endorsed are among the best of the best. It's that Harvard didn't field all the candidates it could have.

The good news is that this can be easily fixed by the powers that be, who in this case happen to be Dean Lewis. The most ideal solution is simply to endorse all nominally qualified applicants. With the notoriously intense Rhodes interview process, which while not random is certainly a hit or miss experience, it is in Harvard's best interest to field as many candidates as possible. When those tossing the questions are so unpredictable, it's best to give everyone the chance to hit a home run. If Harvard wishes to continue restricting the number of candidates it endorses for institutional reasons, then at the very least OCS can ensure a full accounting of candidates' worthiness by bringing its endorsement competition in line with the Rhodes selection procedures. This would mean including a full slate of letters of recommendation and perhaps even a round of interviews.

If these changes are made, Lewis and Gerson can rest assured that Harvard's present impotence in the Rhodes competition is indeed a statistical fluke and not the result of a miscalibrated endorsement process. Future applicants too can then know it was the stars that were aligned against them rather than the system.

Christopher M. Kirchhoff '01 is a history and science concentrator in Winthrop House. His columns appear on alternate Wednesdays.