There is an extraordinary diversity among Harvard instructors in their methods of marking examination papers, and in several instances they have felt impelled to declare their views and systems. One instructor has said, "60 per cent. is a very good mark," while another of equal authority and prominence has declared that 70 per cent. is merely "a defensive mark," and supports his view by giving almost all the men in his elective who do any work a mark above that limit, such marks being exceptional in the other course. Between these range numerous other instructors' views which are diverse and conflicting to a degree that is appalling to the seeker for honors. Recitations are supposed to be voluntary, but not only is this an unpleasing fallacy, as every one knows who "cuts" to any degree, but many instructors in giving out their marks take into consideration the regularity of a man's attendance at the recitations. "I can not give you any better mark if you do not think it fit to attend my recitations," is a reproof that more than one disappointed man has received, when he knew and felt that his work was deserving of a higher mark. Many instructors thus take offense at a student who cuts, and he suffers accordingly.

If honors and scholarships were awarded with exact regard to the proportionate merits of a man's work under different instructors, there would be little cause for complaint. But the fact is that all awards are made by an absolute standard of the mere marks obtained, which often enough misrepresent the real comparative worth of different men's work under the present regime.