The Particular

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

It is regrettable that the controversy about the latest English 72 examination has been so obscured by invective and the attempt to be humorous on the part of the various commentators on the merits and defects of the said examination. Slightly varying the words of Dr. Johnson, "They have been carried away by the exhuberance of their own verbosity." The letter of "J. Prendergast Elliott" is no more Billingsgate than the last, wherein the previous writers are anathematized as asses. It is regrettable for the reason that the issues raised touch the fundamentals of the Harvard educational policy, and a little more intelligent discussion and less mutual recrimination would throw more light on the subject.

Some say that when a man enters a university he has reached the age when it is up to him to decide whether he is to make the most of his time spent there or whether he is to fritter it away, together with his family's money. This, they say, is the principle on which English universities operate, and toward which Harvard has been inclining.

God forbid. I think that this is only another demonstration of the fact that the old maxim of "Spare the rod and spoil the child" has quite gone out of fashion of late. Its is easy to say that a college student is no longer a child: maybe not, in the accepted sense of the word, but he certainly is intellectually, in comparison to those professors whose duty it is to guide him on the paths of learning.

Therefore it is also their duty to apply the rod in the form of D's and E's when his academic endeavours fall below the standards set by the University. And the only way to find out whether his work is up to those standards is to compose examinations which shall thoroughly test his knowledge. Professor Rollins did no more than this; granted it was a good comprehensive test, but when a student enrolls in a course he is supposed to do the work of that course, and if he doesn't like it, he can get out.

Vague declarations that examinations should be composed with regard to some ephemeral standard of higher education seem to be the cries of those who dislike doing the work assigned them, rather than the constructive suggestions of those who see a means of initiating this painless exposure to learning. (Name withheld on request).