Tattletales

THE AD BOARD's recent ruling that senior tutors must mention less serious disciplinary actions in the House letter of recommendation is an ominous decision, and one that will adversely affect a number of students Applying graduate schools and for fellowships. Each year, the Ad Board formally reprimands more than 50 undergraduates for disciplinary reasons. Serious sanctions such as probations or requirements to withdraw were already being noted in the transcripts and some House letters. Less serious admonitions had been left to the discretion of the tutors. Under the new rule tutors must spell out all relevant disciplinary actions, regardless of severity.

It seems ironic that, as an organization which prides itself on case by case analysis, the Ad Board has voted an unnecessarily inflexible rule. The College should certainly inform graduate schools of serious offenses such as plagiarism. But do tutors have a similar moral obligation to describe, in a schoolmarmish way, less serious and often trivial cases? Does walking out onto the fire escape in the student's sophomore year warrant's several paragraphs in the House letter?

In the competition for high-caliber graduate programs or prestigious fellowships, any incident involving formal disciplinary bodies increases the possibility of rejection. Consider Harvard Medical School. According to one pre-med tutor, approximately four to six thousand applicants vie for 160 slots each year. Most administrators read 60 applications a night in the screening process, and even the most dedicated admissions officer is hard pressed to spend more than six to 10 minutes on an application. Notices of disciplinary action--even trivial incidents, are flags for rejections.

The Ad Board instituted the new rule to reduce inconsistencies between House policies on letters of recommendations, but the new consistency sacrifices mature tutor discretion and compromises the student evaluation process. A letter writer cannot accurately describe a student if he is denied control over the letter's content. If students have exhibited violent or unethical behavior, tutors may candidly note it in the letters. But it remains unclear how lighting a firecracker in the Yard during freshman week reflects upon an individual's potential as a lawyer or doctor. The incident might be noted nonetheless. And where it is uncertain whether to include the incident, tutors who are usually in subordinate positions, will include them more often than not.

In place of the new rigid policy, we urge the College to adopt the "golden rule" recommendation policy under which tutors are encouraged to include any and all information they themselves would like to see in an evaluation. This policy, already in place at the Medical School, offers a sensible alternative to indiscriminate tattling that holds potentially serious consequences for the student in question.