Testing Assumptions

To the editors:

Your article "Test Prep Courses Stress, Cost Students" (Feature, April 7) explored an unrepresentative range of Harvard experiences. The article correctly supports the assertion by Nicholas B. Lemann '76 that test prep courses traditionally promote meritocracy. However, there are also exceptions to this tradition. Not all companies use a few rare financial aid offerings covertly. Less privileged students also have the option of using courses that seek them out. Some options, such as my $350 TestWell LSAT course, charge everyone based on financial need and allow for free repeats. Your article fails to mention that students can make more moderate choices that are between the $8 books and the $1,000 prep courses.

Also, most students do not invest extraordinary time in test prep courses simply because "everybody else is doing it." This competitive impulse contradicts the experience of most students I know, who have various backgrounds and legitimate needs to raise their scores--whether they are smart Harvard overachievers or not. Test prep does not merely defray anxiety for anxious over-achievers, as suggested, but often aptly levels the playing field for students who benefit, without emptying their wallets or hindering personal strategies.

Charisa A. Smith '00

April 18, 2000

Sensationalizing Campus Christians

To the editors:

I was offended and disappointed when I read your Fifteen Minutes scrutiny "Lift High the Cross" (FM, April 13). Contrary to its subtitle, this article does not leave any room for any type of open, fair discussion.

First, false assumptions about evangelical Christians constitute the foundation of the article. For example, your article claims that evangelical Christians are "politically conservative," "don't think the homosexual act is very kosher with the Almighty," and implies that evangelicals do not go to Memorial Church because they condemn Gomes' lifestyle. These statements are sweeping generalizations and completely ignore the fact that many evangelical Christians have totally differing opinions on those topics.

Second, not only did the article base many of its assumptions on the physical appearance of students and speakers, but it also misrepresented several sources by taking quotes out of context. This article irresponsibly uses these descriptions to create a sensationalized and exaggerated image of these evangelical Christian groups.

It seems that quite a bit of work and effort went into the research for this article, and it is unfortunate that the presentation of information failed in its attempt to encourage such a "discussion." However, the article does bring up the important issues of the role of evangelical Christian groups on campus, the ways in which evangelical Christians reconcile their faith with life at a secular learning institution, and how others perceive evangelical Christians and the groups to which they belong.

Cindy J. Kin '00

April 16, 2000

•

Defending Mr. Chu

To the editors:

Give me a break. The recent hubbub raised over The Misanthropic Mister Chu (Op-Ed, April 17) is ridiculous and just illustrates the ludicrous extent to which political correctness has reached. Should all Asian-Americans portrayed in the media be tall, science-hating, incredibly popular people? Should all minorities portrayed in the media be completely removed any characteristic that might be taken as a stereotype--in other words be made bland, boring and unbelievable?

This perhaps is one of the reasons why there are so few minorities in the media in general. What writer would want to risk the wrath of politically correct pundits? What writer would want the task of scripting dialogue that has to be completely inoffensive? Seems to me that the attempted censorship of Mister Chu sports its own message of racial intolerance by restricting certain characteristics from Asians. And hey, Mister Chu isn't even a stereotype. After all, he doesn't even know kung-fu.

Raymond H. Wu '03

April 18, 2000