Yale Admissions Head Defends Policy Against Alumni Attacks In Two Areas

Alumni directed sharp fire early this fall against two sensitive areas of Yale admissions policy--preference for alumni sons, and the ratio of private and public school applicants admitted.

This week the administration's young, and comparatively new Director of Admissions, Arthur Howe, Jr., decided it had gone far enough. "The Admissions Office has been silent too long," he said, "It is time to straighten this thing out."

Howe declared the existing policy is correct in both areas, charging that speakers in the independent-public school debate lacked facts, and re-affirming Yale's policy of preference for the sons of alumni.

It was this latter stand which had met with most vehement opposition in the pages of the Yale Alumni Magazine. Outspokesman for the opposition was Jack B. Schmetterer '52, who charged that sons of alumni were admitted without competing and were often unable to maintain their positions.

"The effect on these poor wretches is often disastrous . . . many spend the first year crushed between the ambition of parents and the standards of the Yale freshman year," Schmetterer wrote to the Alumni Magazine.

"It is an agonizing experience," he continued, "and many flunk out. Their failure is the fault of their alumni fathers, but the boys themselves suffer the crushing disappointment of academic failure," concluded the alumnus, who termed himself "one who has watched some Yale sons suffer the torture of the damned."

"The policy here might be described," Howe said, "as 'give the boy a break.' If an alumni son is clearly able to do satisfactory work and his personality does not bar him, we will take him," Howe said.

He admited, however, that of the 230 alumni sons admitted this fall, perhaps 30 to 40 might not have been admitted if they had not been alumni sons.

Howe justified the presence of this group stating, "we think we will gain more than we will lose, both in moral and financial support. The great loyalty of the alumni is worth something to us, not just financially."

He further pointed out that the 30 to 40 members of the Class of '59 represent the smallest such group ever. And increased pressure for admission will, Howe predicted, push the number even lower.

This prediction drew praise from Paul Weiss, professor of philosophy, who has consistently and vocally opposed the favoring of alumni sons.

"The Ivy schools own nothing to their alumni," Weiss said early this week. "They were educated here because they were competent and Yale has no right to take less than the best in America," he said.

This refusal to take any but the best, was also the center of the private school-public school fight. Alumni cited figures showing that public school students do better than those from private schools. Why, they demanded, does Yale not take more boys from public schools?

Said Howe, "I hate statistics. They always hide facts." He then produced his own figures to show that the difference in performance was not between public and non-public students, but rather between scholarship and non-scholarship students.

Statistically, about 60 percent of all public school matriculants are also applicants for financial aid. On the other hand, only 15 percent of the independent school products seek scholarships.

The fact is, Howe said, that boys without scholarships tend to do about the same, regardiess of where they went to school before. The same is true of boys with scholarships, he said.

"The explanation," concluded Howe, "lies in this: scholarship boys do better in general."