Admissions Policy

The formation of a CEP sub-committee to study admissions policy reflects the need of both faculty and Administration to decide what sort of student the college should try to educate. The crux of the problem of admissions criteria seems to consist of a choice between the proven scholar and the intelligent "all around" man. There is, of course, room for both, but serious disagreement exists as to the desirable mixture of these types in future classes. The exponents of one position, hold, in general, that Harvard is a place for scholarship, and admissions consideration should thus consider academic achievement as almost the sole basis for acceptance.

Such a view, however, does not consider the non-academic factors of college education. A community of scholars is a worthy ideal for a university, but not necessarily for an undergraduate body. The four undergraduate years are supposed to provide a "liberal education," not a mere preview of professional, graduate scholasticism, and the notion of diversity lies at the basis of this goal of liberal education. With the press of applicants constantly growing, Harvard could easily fill its classes in a few years from the members of any relatively homogeneous group, whether such a group consist of those who come from New England, or can pay the complete costs of their education, or can make Groups I, II, or III. But the elimination of varied backgrounds--considered from the aspects of wealth, geographical background, or interests aside from scholarship--would make Harvard education into glorified professional training.

It would also be easy for Harvard to admit a larger proportion of students who have been given the opportunity to reach a very high level of academic achievement in prep schools or very good public schools. But the risk of admitting students of uncertain preparation but promising potential should certainly continue to be taken. On the one hand predictions of future success based on previous preparation and performance is not particularly reliable; moreover such a policy would weaken the healthy effects of geographical distribution.

It is unfortunate that the committee might be encouraged to overlook the non-academic considerations of admissions because of dissatisfactions with the relatively feeble record of the class of '61. This reversal is an isolated incident and the brilliant records of many preceding classes selected under the same admissions policy excludes the possibility of any direct cause and effect relationship.

Perhaps the most serious danger inherent in the committee's work is that it may be too abstract in its consideration. The more mundane problems of assembling a college class--those recognized by Dean Bender but unrecognized by many who do not have to deal with them--cannot be solved by the vote of a faculty committee. Most important, the CEP sub-committee must remember that the objectives of undergraduate education and admissions are not those of graduate preparation for filling its own profession's ranks.