VARIATIONS ON AN OLD THEME

The chorus of praise which has greeted the most recent of Harvard's experiments cannot be attributed to any standardization of educational theory in this country. Perhaps never before has there been in American university education a greater variety of theories and practices than exists today. Yet the fact remains that criticism of the pre-examination "reading periods", some of which is reprinted on this page, is of one tone in applauding the spirit behind the change and in hoping for its success.

In the light of such comments as these, and in that of fuller appreciation of just what the change will entail, a more complete estimate of its worth is now possible than when the news was first announced. The most significant revision that has been established is the realization that the change is so far merely nominal. Until it is accepted by the individual departments, it is entirely inoperative, and even then, it will apply only to those courses designated by the department.

If this provision, which was not emphasized when the policy was first made public, should serve to kill the plan, there would be few to praise it. But this is hardly likely. It is far more to be expected that it will alleviate the pangs of transition between one method and the other. That such a radical change as this could be effected with no academic mortality it would be absurd to comtemplate, and the gradual substitution, of the new reading period for lectures should do much to reduce this mortality.

Chronic critics of the new order of things will see in this possible temporary lowering of standards a veritable menace. The fact is that the new order has so resulted in a distinct increase in the number of men achieving Dean's List privileges. The new policy, in devolving greater responsibility upon the individual student and in allowing him greater personal initiative, is following the same general lines as the changes which have preceded it, the tutorial system, the general examinations, and similar innovations. It is difficult to understand why this most recent step should not achieve equally successful results.