Harvard’s decision to do away with its early admissions program has created a lot of hubbub about whether or not such policies are equitable. But all the commotion over the fact that wealthy students are accepted at a higher rate during the early round does not get to the heart of the question of whether early admission, particularly binding early decision, is fair. If all those wealthy students accepted early were geniuses, it would be hard to dispute the fact that they deserved an acceptance letter, regardless of their socioeconomic background. The process would only be unfair if lower standards were applied during the early round than in the regular round, thus making it inherently easier for an early applicant to obtain a letter of acceptance; all students would want to reap the benefits of this kind of policy, but low-income students would be denied access because of the financial commitment required. To get to the heart of the issue we must examine the reasons why early admissions exists and evaluate the standards applied to early applicants to really gauge whether this system should persist at Dartmouth.
More »
To the Editor:
I am writing in response to Thursday’s article regarding Alpha Phi’s rush (“Alpha Phi holds inaugural rush events,” Oct. 5). I’d like to make a clarification on the issue of a physical plant. Alpha Phi is very concerned with and committed to securing a house, and I think this view may have been misrepresented in the article. Specifically in reference to the holding of rush in non-residential venues, I stated that I did not think that our lack of a physical plant was a problem — we were able to secure three excellent, conveniently-located rooms that afforded us the opportunity to get to know the rushees in a comfortable fashion. Considering the success of our first night at the Hanover Inn, I expressed that I did not believe any of the sisters were bemoaning the fact that we could not hold rush in a house.
More »
To the Editor:
I suppose it is problematic to try and pin down exactly who qualifies as elite in America. There are really so many method of measuring one’s distance from the average. You could use wealth, power, athletic ability, educational achievement, name recognition or any host of other characteristics. Therefore, when offering a rebuttal to Zak Moore ‘09’s column on Thursday (“Elitism, Not Intellectualism,” Oct. 5), I will not try to go after his definitions. Instead, I will stick to one of his points in particular. Moore thinks that elites “will not concede that America is the greatest country in the world.” My question is this: Why should they?
More »
