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.

Our process is actually under constant review, and as Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 has suggested, we will revisit it again this year. It's worth noting that this same process led to outstanding results in the Canadian Rhodes and British Marshall Scholarships competitions this year. The Crimson's headline last Monday said Harvard had been "shut out" this year, an approach that seems wrong. Rhodes Scholarships aren't simply prizes that schools collect, but opportunities for students. As U.S. Rhodes Secretary Elliot Gerson '74 told The Crimson, "We choose individuals, not colleges." I appreciate the disappointment our U.S. Rhodes candidates may feel, but I hope we will all take the success of our Canadian Rhodes and British Marshall winners as a true measure of the Class of 2001.

Paul A. Bohlmann

Dec. 18, 2000

The writer is director of fellowships at the Office of Career Services.

Energy Concerns Must Include the Poor

To the editors:

The points Rohan R. Gulrajani '01 raises about California's energy crisis (Column, Dec. 18) are well-taken. I strongly contest, however, the idea that the unbridled free market is the answer to this dilemma for several reasons. Ignoring for a minute the fact that Americans' perception of the supply of energy is woefully out of whack with reality (and hence so is the market's), the unbridled free market's effect on the energy situation is nonetheless undesirable. True, demand might go down in response to higher prices, but precisely the wrong group would be affected: as usual, the poor. Do we really want to fall back on the situation of the early 20th century where electricity was a luxury of the rich? There was a reason that President Franklin D. Roosevelt '04 undertook the Rural Electrification Project. He believed that electricity was not simply an amusement but rather a tool that could improve the standard of living of the American people.

Our country does indeed waste energy. But it's not the family that uses their stove to cook food, their furnace to heat the house, and their washer and dryer to clean clothes that should suffer because of that. Sometimes we can't simply close our eyes and hope that Adam Smith's magical, invisible hand will come and sweep away our problems. We're going to have to change our attitudes towards energy and the environment in general, but unfettered capitalism is not the way to achieve that change. The solution to the energy crisis lies in our ability and willingness to prioritize conservation and the environment as a group, and it is precisely here that economic conservatives fail.

Nicholas C. Murphy '02

Dec. 18, 2000

Harvard Tyrannical To Revoke Keg Privileges

To the editors:

It is a sad day when the Harvard administration decides to act tyrannically, revoking from students and alum their liberty to consume beer from kegs at a festive occasion such as the Harvard-Yale game (News, Dec. 14). As a minor I cannot drink, but I do have some thoughts on the issue.

In walking around the area surrounding The Game on that Saturday, something was apparent that is otherwise seldom seen around this campus: spirit. All kinds of people from different circles came to see the game and hang out with friends on a crisp fall day.

And yes, without a doubt, there was drinking. Further, without a doubt, there were also certain people who proved unable to handle themselves while drinking. But the administration has chosen to remedy this in a ridiculous way. In the free society in which we all live, the administration decided to impose a ban on students, removing perhaps the most benign form of drinking--keg beer.

And while drinking from kegs does not have to directly correlate to spirit, I think from this decision we will see yet another dampening of campus-wide support for a great activity. I see no reason why any substantial restrictions should be placed on a day that brought students out from all walks of life.

But forget the students for a minute, for whom this draconian punishment is intended. There are thousands of alumni who want to see this game and tailgate before it. They should have the ability to do this, and do so with kegs if they desire. Essentially, what I gather from this is that Harvard is too lazy to find a solution in which people can still maintain their free choice. That is sad. The choice to drink from kegs should be made by individuals, not an institution. But it seems Harvard sees it another way.

Brad R. Sohn '02

Dec. 15, 2000