Without Key, Tours Lose

The Office of Admissions and Financial Aid announced last month, and reaffirmed in a meeting Wednesday, that it would assume full control over campus tours for prospective students. This decision drastically changes the relationship that the admissions office has with the Crimson Key Society, which had previously given nearly all campus tours. But, more importantly, the decision could have severe detrimental effects on the quality of tours.

Publicly and in private meetings with Crimson Key officers, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 and Director of Admissions Marlyn McGrath Lewis ’70-’73 have stated that these changes are being implemented to create greater accountability among guides, to diversify the tour staff and to provide more jobs for students. We agree with these ideas. What we object to is the process by which the admissions office came to this decision: a process that examined neither our membership nor our selection procedure. It was a process void of student input and involved so little investigation that the admissions office failed to discover that we already address their concerns.

To start, the admissions office has always had substantial control over tours. In recent years, they have raised concerns about length and composition, and those changes have been swiftly implemented. They have also had (and used) the ability to bar a tour guide for poor performance. And we have encouraged admissions officers to attend our tours and evaluate us directly, although this has seldom occurred due to their time constraints. What confuses us is how these same officers, who now control not only performance management but also hiring and training of guides, can effectively evaluate new guides and improve accountability.

On the subject of diversity, Byerly Hall suffers from a lack of information. Although the Crimson Key Society is not as diverse as the student body, we are close, and it is not due to a lack of effort on our part. In recent years, we have sought to recruit members by postering and mail-dropping, by holding information sessions and office hours and through e-mails to house lists and student groups. Our efforts attract 150 to 200 applicants for our spring selection process each year. Currently, the first admissions hire process has attracted a “few dozen” applicants, and advertising has been sparse, making nebulous the admissions office’s assertion that they will attract a larger, broader group of students.

Finally, it is misguided to think that the lack of pay for tour guide services presents a barrier for less financially-able students who would like to lead tours. Many Crimson Key guides are work-study students, and the time commitment for tour guides is so minimal that we fail to see how interested students cannot find time or how work-study students would benefit from an opportunity that would employ them for less than 30 hours per semester. Furthermore, Crimson Key has paid work-study guides in the past but with little success, since most guides take pride in their volunteer status and the objectivity that it impresses upon prospective students.

Even the good intentions behind these concerns are corrupted by a poorly devised and implemented hiring process. Crimson Key, the sole provider of Harvard tour guides during the school year over the past 54 years, was not even approached for advice in devising the new plan. In fact, before pressure was applied from Crimson Key alumni and officers, Byerly Hall did not see the need to discuss further the changes relayed to us over the summer, and because of time constraints among admissions officers in the fall, student input will not be possible in the near future. The plan that has emerged from this investigative void is one that doesn’t begin to measure up to the Crimson Key’s “thorough selection process” and “extensive training” that The Harvard Crimson attested to in its staff editorial Tuesday.

Our two-round selection process includes model tours delivered by senior officers of Key, a three-page application that encourages creativity and enthusiasm, a thorough interview that includes a model tour stop and difficult questions culled from actual tour experiences, two full-length tours and feedback from veteran guides. The result is that Crimson Key guides are fully prepared to give a tour the day they are selected for membership by our committee-based panel of officers.

The admissions office’s plan is quite different. It consists of a one-page application followed by a typical job interview. Hiring decisions are made before any formal training occurs, and training will not be nearly as extensive, as the admissions office does not have the resources to carry out our thorough training regimen. But what is most troublesome is that when admissions officers were presented with the details of our procedure, not only did they express little interest in how we select guides, but they also insinuated that our extensive process could be a barrier in becoming a tour guide. Tour control, not tour quality, is their priority.

We disagree with the admissions office’s decision, and we have concerns about its implementation. Nevertheless, the Crimson Key Society will remain one of the University’s most loyal supporters. As such, we will continue to give tours to campus visitors through the Information and Marshal’s Offices and volunteer during Freshman Week, Parents’ Weekends, Arts First and Commencement. We have always looked for additional ways to augment our service to the Harvard community, and we will use this unique moment in our history to explore those opportunities.

Brian J. Hayes ’03 is an applied math concentrator in Lowell House. He is vice-president of the Crimson Key.