Rhodes Process Still the Best for Students

To the editors:

All of us close to the U.S. Rhodes Scholarships endorsement process at Harvard are surprised and a little disappointed at this year's selection decisions--not so much for Harvard, but for the students who will miss this opportunity for study at Oxford. Having read The Crimson's news story last Monday, op-ed piece last Wednesday and staff editorial today, I think it's important to interject some perspective.

There is no reason to think that this year's result is anything but a fluke. In the last 10 years, following fairly strict endorsement criteria, Harvard College has nominated 458 candidates for the U.S. Rhodes, 44 of whom have been fortunate enough to win. In this same decade, U.S. state committees have considered over 10,000 candidates from 350 colleges and universities. That one school's students should fare so well, and do so consistently over time, is truly remarkable in this context.

In fact, in each of the past four years, the number of schools laying claim to Rhodes scholars-elect has met or set an American record, this year with a record spread of 28. At least eight schools have claimed their first Rhodes scholars in this time frame. With college admissions becoming more competitive across the country and schools beefing up honors programs and fellowships advising, this spread is probably the wave of the future.

Incidentally, prior to 1991-92, Harvard followed an extremely liberal endorsement philosophy, with no discernible difference in end results. The shift to a tighter policy that year reflected changed thinking here prompted in part by pressure from state and district Rhodes committees, but we have managed, on average, to endorse nearly half of our applicants since then.

In any case, the success of our candidates over time should not create an expectation for a certain number of spots in any given year.

Though there is always room for criticism, I believe our current endorsement process is the fairest, most thorough and most faithful to the scholarships that Harvard has ever used. We no longer eliminate candidates from the bottom, but try to identify those who are very strong in order to endorse them. As it does throughout the competition (and exams and term papers), the burden falls on candidates to make the best possible case for themselves. In its final phase, our committee does consider supporting materials from the Houses, but decisions fall on the basis of what candidates themselves have chosen to submit. However attractive it might be to have recommendations and/or interviews in the review process, the late start of Harvard's academic year makes this logistically unfeasible without moving the process back into the summer or spring.