Of course, there were also the serious campaigners, fresh from student council races in high school, who were determined to make their early mark at Harvard. Senior pictures and lofty promises completed several of the candidates' decorations. Many candidates went door-to-door, canvassing with fliers and candy prior to the voting.

Freshmen responded well to the fierce competition placed around them: approximately 42% of freshmen voted this year. Although this may appear to be a dismal showing, U.S. voting records display just 47.2% of voting aged citizens voted in the Presidential election.

The upperclass portion of the campus, however, was disinterested in this year's race, a state of affairs typical of the Undergraduate Council's 17-year history. Even with a voter turnout that the UC was "very proud of,"according to election chair Kyle Hawkins, only a small minority of Harvard voted to decide our representatives for the '99-'00 school year. Hawkins maintained that Harvard usually has the best voter turnout of all the Ivy League schools, but despite this achievement, a meager 16% of upperclassmen took the time to exercise their voting rights this year. 

The upperclass candidates - some of whom were last-minute recruits to fill empty slates - had a different campaign slant than the freshmen, filling posters with their history and prior achievements on the UC. Lowell House candidate Jim Griffin's posters stated simply, "I voted NO,"in reference to last year's controversial UC debate to bring ROTC back to Harvard. Adams House candidate Justin Barkley asserted his belief that the UC was meant to improve the quality of life for Harvard students and maintained that national issues or endorsements were not part of the UC's jurisdiction. 

Despite this "issue-oriented"approach, upperclassmen remained largely detached from the entire display. As a result of this apathy, write-in candidates flourished: in one House the write-in candidate finished first and two others had second place write-ins. The UC estimated that several hundred people received write-in votes, whether as jokes or in support of legitimate candidates. 

So why the poor turnouts? Is it because everyone hates the Undergraduate Council? Is Harvard, one of the world's finest institutions of higher learning, filled with apathetic students - or, ironically, is this perpetually low voter turnout due to inadequate voter education? Certainly, outrageous campaign posters or lofty promises can tell a voter little about the candidate or the Undergraduate Council. Many freshmen professed that they had little knowledge of what the UC does, who the candidates were, or how they were supposed to vote. Many remain oblivious to which candidates had won seats. So should we rebuke freshman candidates for failing to articulate the duties of the Undergraduate Council? Perhaps - but it was the freshman class that voted in large numbers, and the upperclassmen that ignored the election.

Instead, the disparity in voter turnout between the Class of '03 and the rest of the college should be viewed as a function of freshman naivete. New arrivals at Harvard are still enamored with the concept of student government from high school, assuming that homecoming dances and ice cream sales will top the list of fun things they will be discussing. They know little of the UC's dealings, but they assume that, like every other offering during the activities fair, this is one more thing with which they should be involved - even if only by casting their vote at the FAS prompt. 

Upperclassmen, in contrast, are disenchanted with the Undergraduate Council and its dealings. Having seen little done that influences their lives, they have resigned themselves to complaining about, but not replacing the members of the UC. Students are frustrated both with the lack of power granted the UC and the ways that it uses the power it has been granted. Perhaps rather than tying itself up with irrelevant issues - last year's pro-LAMBDA resolution springs to mind - the UC should focus on representing its constituents. Just as in "real"government, student governing is only effective when it includes the common man in the process. 

- Heather Woodruff, Staff Writer
 

The logic behind this proposal is nothing new. The argument is this: a 1300 combined SAT score from a wealthy student from Andover, who has enjoyed considerable educational advantages, is actually "worth"less than, say, a 1250 from a poor, black student who attended an inner-city school. The disadvantaged student overcame significant obstacles such a sub-standard facilities, over-crowded classrooms, ill-prepared teachers, and lack of support at home. Achieving his 1250 under these conditions ought to impress admissions officers much more than a numerically higher score from a student who, by and large, had a much easier life. 

In the language of the ETS proposal, the student who scored a 1250, beating all expectations, is a "striver."The SAT score, ETS argues, should reflect this accomplishment so that universities can easily identify "strivers."

In fact, though, colleges already do identify students like this. Which college admits its incoming class based on standardized test scores alone? Very few Admissions committees devote a great deal of time and energy to identifying students whose achievements, given their backgrounds, reflect a tremendous drive to succeed. It is recognized universally that SAT scores do not, and cannot, reflect a student's full potential.

So why the proposed change in score reporting? Nathan Glazer, writing in the New Republic, points out that this approach will not mollify the majority of Americans opposed to racially-conscious admissions practices. Nor will it be legally distinguishable from the current practice of taking race into consideration as "one factor among many."Indeed, in those states that have passed referenda banning the use of race in college admissions, the "SAT strivers" concept would be unconstitutional. 

Ultimately, the proposal seems designed to give the appearance of fairness, without actually altering the affirmative action status quo. University administrators are usually committed to promoting a superficial racial equality, despite statistically significant gaps in academic performances among the races. Given the controversy that has surrounded this practice, "SAT strivers" scores may, it is hoped, alter public perceptions. No longer will the conservative media be able to demonstrate, with such humiliating ease, the gross disparity between blacks and whites by publishing the average SAT scores for admitted students, collated by race. With the new, adjusted scores, it will appear as if universities have standards once again, and, better yet, it will appear as if we have moved that much closer to a society in which blacks and whites are achieving on par with each other.

But we should not lose sight of the costs associated with tampering with the statistical truth. It is one thing to recognize that a 1250 from Harlem High means something different from a 1250 from Groton. It is quite another to abandon the idea of standardized testing altogether. Proponents of the "strivers"score, of course, downplay its meaning. Glazer writes: "The new scoreÉis simply an adjustment of the actual SAT score." 

Not quite. The intent of standardized testing was, initially, to give admissions committees a sense of how candidates compared to each other in an absolute sense. On that level, the 1300 is worth more than a 1250, regardless of who the student is, where he came from, or what obstacles he overcame to achieve his score. Whether or not the fifty-point difference is a meaningful distinction is left to the admissions office. "Readjusting,""race-norming,"or "class-norming" (as ETS is also suggesting doing), then, is a move of tremendous importance. More than "simply an adjustment,"as Glazer nonchalantly writes, it is the abandonment of the principles of standardization in testing altogether. 

Standardized testing was once championed as a way to "level the playing field,"to evaluate candidates on their merit alone. Racism, it was hoped, would die out because selections would be made on objective criteria. But things didn't turn out as planned - blacks and Hispanics continued to underperform relative to their white counterparts. Rather than address this issue directly, the ETS seems all to eager to falsify the truth for the sake of appearances. 

- David Campbell, Staff Writer