TIME AND THE HOURS

Every year, at one time or another, criticism is leveled at the superfluity of hour examinations. The general trend has been to decrease their number steadily; they still, however, remain scattered through the months with all too consistent regularity. Half courses in particular follow this tendency, under the principle that a greater proportion of quizzes is necessary when the work is covered in less time.

The value of any sort of examinations except finals has been seriously questioned by many educators. Yale, in its recently announced plan, will omit even midyears, and hold three reading periods at different times during the college year. At the opposite extreme stand those courses demanding weekly or biweekly tests, and sometimes even section meetings during a reading period. Both plans have advantages, but those of the freer course are more desirable.

The chief arguments raised against these examinations is the frequency with which they occur. An average student, taking four courses, finds himself with a schedule calling for an exam almost every week, to say nothing of written and tutorial work. The Department of History recently passed a ruling limiting courses to a maximum of three hour exams each half year; this, however, allows a maximum possibility of twelve hours, or about one a week. On the other hand, occasional tests are of value if only for the fact that they prevent a student from dropping too far behind in his work, and thereby alleviate the cramming so often otherwise essential before finals. More important than that, and a more basic reason for their existence is that they allow him some standard upon which to continue his work. With this as a foundation, undoubtedly the most satisfactory system, under present educational methods, is to have a minimum number of hour examinations, which will test not the amount of work done, but rather ability to apply the knowledge gained.