Harvard Is A Community Of Individuals, Not Statistics

To the editors:



I take significant issue with Mr. Bronshtein’s recently published “Make the Admissions Game Fair” (op-ed, Sep. 21) for several reasons.

Initially, however, I will stand alongside the author in applauding the College’s recent decision to abolish its early action policy. It does represent an important step towards Harvard’s recruitment of “the very best,” as Bronshtein labels them, regardless of socioeconomic, geographic, or­—for lack of better term—scholastic origin.

It is true; the admissions process is a complex and unwieldy one. Surely mistakes are made in selection. That said, Bronshtein’s attack of admissions as lacking the truly “meritocratic” bent it should have is unfounded and represents the danger of parochial belief in what the Harvard student should be. The College prides itself on the breadth and depth of its student body, and, in attracting our generation’s best and brightest, strives to develop those students that they may become leaders and engineers of worldwide progress. As I understand, Dean Fitzsimmons and his staff set about each year to assemble a class of individuals. Harvard could easily fill its ranks with valedictorians or 1600s (apologies, 2400s). It deliberately chooses not to do so because such a class would not serve the University or each other well.

Instead, Harvard has realized that an individual’s ability is not solely defined by GPA, board score, or the variably “pretty” applications to which Bronshtein refers. The inhabitants of Byerly Hall try to value an application for both its tangible and intangible qualities. This means that the “throwing a ball hard or running quickly” is weighted, as is the ability to play the cello, or a work history that includes the founding of a non-profit. In my experience, there are few students at Harvard “only for athletics,” as there are few students there only for lab work or a role in the orchestra. My teammates have gone on to pursue careers in medicine, in law, in teaching, and yes, there are even a few in finance. And as an aside, I can tell you with the utmost certainty that we were far from “exalted” in the College community.

It took me nearly four years in Cambridge to learn that every member of the Harvard community is there for a reason; whether some are more valid than others is surely not for me, nor Bronshtein, to say. The admissions process is fallible because people are fallible, and in this context, perfection is unattainable. Instead, we must hope that Dean Fitzsimmons and his staff will continue their laudable work to assemble new classes of leaders, innovators, team players, and the overwhelming talent to which Harvard has become accustomed.

Let’s remember, every Harvard student was asked to join that remarkable community for a reason. I trust the College is better served for each of them.



JOSEPH D. McGEEHIN ’06

September 21, 2006