A project which has been discussed for several years with increasing interest, until now it appears to be the most important matter before the faculty and board of overseers, is shortening the academic course to three years. The main arguments for this plan appear to be that a full course through the college and a professional school requires too much time, that the present graduate department is hampered in organization and work, and that the positions of Harvard university and Harvard professors abroad are anomalous.

It has been argued that Harvard ought to model her organization after the European universities. But after which, English, French, or German? If there are three different types of universities abroad, why should there not be an American type? Harvard has certain functions to perform, and if they differ from those of a German university, Harvard ought not to be forced to conform to a German standard. Harvard aims to give her students culture in a broad sense, improve their moral character, and not merely offer them a chance to study as German universities do. As for our professors they must soon be given their true rank abroad as our university becomes better known and its organization better understood. That Harvard is rapidly securing recognition in the United States of her leadership among American universities, and is making the value of her A. B. felt, is shown by the increasing number of graduates from other colleges who come to get this degree.

If it is considered advisable to form the graduate department into a Philosophical school with a separate faculty, there seems to be no reason why this could not be done without disturbing the present academic organization, New courses might be created and the most advanced of the present courses might be transferred to its charge, and still be open to undergraduates as electives.

The chief gain in shortening the course would appear to lie in lowering the age of graduates from the professional schools. But could not this be accomplished in other ways? The true fault lies, not in our academic department, but in the preparatory and lower schools. There is no reason why the American schools, should not, like the European schools, educate their pupils in sixteen or seventeen years instead of nineteen. It seems quite possible that Harvard might gain a year at least by exerting her influence upon the larger preparatory schools, some of which already offer a shorter course than the regular, and which could in their turn influence the lower schools. Another year ought to be saved by opening courses in the professional schools to seniors as electives This policy has been adopted toward the Scientific school, and might equally well be extended to the Law and Medical schools. Neither of these changes would cause any injustice to the great body of men who come to Harvard for a liberal education without intending to enter a profession.

If it were widely known that it is not difficult for a student to take the present academic course in three years, would not most of this cry for a shorter course cease? A very large proportion of men take some additional courses beyond the required amount, merely for the benefit of the courses. More and more every year take the four years work in three. The fact that half a-dozen of these three year men will this year be awarded summa cum or magna cum degrees, and have at the same time been actively connected with college papers or athletics, show that their study has not been too absorbing.

Finally the voice of undergraduates is, without exaggeration, almost unanimous against shortening the course. They appreciate that a great, if not the greatest part of value of their college life lies in its social side. They are very unwilling to lose their senior year, the most valuable of all; for they realize that it is only then that they grow out of cliques and chance acquaintanceships, form lasting friendships, and become recognized and recognize others at their true worth.