The Ills of PBK

To the Editor:

Each spring, close to one hundred members of the graduating class are added to the twenty-four members of their class already in Phi Beta Kappa. As a disappointed candidate for this "select" group, I decided to learn what. I could of its clandestine election procedures. I inquired of Dean Monro, several faculty members, the wife of recent Harvard Phi Bete, and others. The results of these discussions were profoundly disturbing to me, and, I feel, should be made public.

I believe I would not be incorrect in assessing election to PBK as the second highest academic honor Harvard College can bestow. If so, the Society should act less like a Final Club, and more like an honorary society. It is well known amongst those eligible--chiefly, the consistent Group II's--that in all cases, save those with straight A's to show, election is strongly dependent on two factors: one's friends in the Society, and/or among the Society's faculty advisers. As I understand it, faculty recommendations carry strong weight, and each member has "blackball" power over any candidate. It's hard to think of a system more prone to politicking, favoritism, and subjectivism of all sorts. It's also hard to think of a system which so actively discourages heterogeneity of interests among those it selects.

This club-like election ritual has had some distasteful results. For example, of four history concentrators in my House with very similar records, the two who had close friends in PBK were elected; the other two (including myself), who had different interests, different friends, and in certain ways, better records, were not elected. Upon questioning other sources, I found that such occurrences were not unusual. Men with under 9. averages had been elected, while those close to 11. had been rejected; cum laude candidates had been elected over magna candidates; men who had dropped theses, but had friends, had made it over the magna graduates who had sweated those long, often difficult hours, in the libraries; and so on.

My contention is that PBK should act either like an honorary society or like a Final Club (for those of certain interests), but should not be allowed to act as both. I believe that there are those in this impressionable world who might be led to believe that a PBK member from Harvard was necessarily a better student than one who was not a member. Under present conditions, this assumption is simply not true. Why not scrap this behind-the-scenes "hocuspocus" and determine election by objective means: by giving a certain weight to (1) the student's average, (2) his generals, and (3) his thesis--and nothing else. The highest 90 on such a scale should be elected. Those below would at least know why they were rejected. Inclusion of thesis and generals in the criteria would eliminate (1) grade-grubbers and (2) thesis-droppers. Adoption of objective standards would not eliminate all the Society's friends--merely those who are relatively undeserving. Charles R. Chester '66