ENGLISH 166

To The Editors of the Crimson:

I took Robert Kiely's English 166 this past semester, and I have several comments concerning your front page story of Feb. 4 accusing Kiely of revealing exam questions in advance to some students. I don't see anything unfair about Adams House students asking Kiely to hold a review session, nor do I see anything unfair about Kiely accepting the request. He told everyone at the beginning of the course that he would be glad to discuss the course with anyone, either individually or in groups. He specifically encouraged us to make use of his (and the teaching assistants') office hours. While it was perhaps thoughtless of him to mention two "examples" that were in fact on the exam, I hardly consider that criminal. In the course of leading a review session, it would cover. Besides, the real advantage of pre-exam review lies not in hearing Kiely divulge two possible questions, but rather in talking with him about the 12 authors and novels in the course. This opportunity has been available to any student all year. I wish more professors were as interested in students as Professor Kiely, and I wish more students had the initiative to organize pre-exam reviews. I feel, then, that the tone and implication on your article was not only sensationalist, but was a disservice to one of the finest professors in the University.

P.S. I don't live in Adams House. David Blankenhorn '77