This is the sad state of affairs of the Class of 2001's quest for the U.S. Rhodes Scholarship. Although Harvard students often represent at least four of the 32 scholars who go on to study at Oxford University, this year they are entirely absent from the group. And having duly congratulated Canadian Rhodes scholarship winner Tegan S. Shohet '01, we are puzzled why Harvard students were unable to garner any of the American Rhodes scholarships. Statistical fluke? So says Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68.

But we think that the answer might well lie in the endorsement process for Harvard applicants. The Office of Career Services (OCS) whittles down the candidate pool annually from 80-100 students to 30-40. Applications are reviewed by one committee composed of Faculty members and another drawn from fellowship tutors from each House. These committees look at a student's academic transcript, 1,000-word personal statement and one-page activities list, but do not examine the eight letters of recommendation that the official Rhodes selection committee requires. Since 1991-1992, when OCS decided to severely restrict endorsements, many have regarded OCS selection procedures as at best mysterious, and at worst, unfair.

Last year, Rhodes officials urged the College to be more expansive in its endorsements. In response, OCS increased its endorsement numbers by twenty percent of last year's group. However, we are unsure why the University does not endorse all the applicants--especially when not a single member of this year's increased endorsement pool made it past the final round.

The advantages of a full endorsement for all College applicants are clear. The great majority of Harvard candidates who shoot for the Rhodes are highly qualified. OCS may judge some to be more qualified than others, but without interviews and full application materials, it is difficult for them to determine whether the Rhodes committees would come to the same decisions that it does. In addition, eliminating the Harvard endorsement competition would allow Harvard applicants more time to work on their actual Rhodes applications. OCS could devote the resources that it currently devotes toward the selection process toward, for example, schooling candidates in interviewing techniques

The postulated disadvantage that might come from a full endorsement--though OCS has never declared this outright--would be that Harvard's applicant pool may be weakened in the eyes of the Rhodes committee. There is no reason to believe this would be the case, especially when the Rhodes committee itself has urged Harvard to be more generous in its opinion of applicants. In addition, past precedent has shown that prior to 1991-1992, when the endorsement procedure was more liberal, Harvard had no fewer, and in many years, certainly a greater, number of scholars.

In OCS's review of its fellowship selection procedures later this year, we hope that these concerns are taken into consideration. The future of next year's Rhodes scholars may well hang in the balance.