We invite all members of the University to contribute to this column, but we are not responsible for the sentiments expressed.

To the Editors of the Crimson:

Now that the examinations are removed from our immediate circle of vision, we can look at the question of their abolition from a standpoint that is fairly unprejudiced. On one point in the abolishment that seems bound to come in time, I should like to have information. The outside world, which admittedly knows a little about the subject, has severely frowned on the present system. The "student body" has almost unhesitatingly declared against the long examinations held twice a year. The opinion of the Faculty shows an emphatic tendency towards doing away with mid-years and finals. Our professors are constantly heaping blame on examinations as being a "barbarous survival;" Dr. James tells his classes that, psychologically considered, the present system of necessary semi-annual "cramming" could not be worse; about one-fifth of the midyears have actually been done away with, and all admit that grading on six or eight hour examinations and on the outside work is perfectly possible and decidedly preferable. Practically no one stands up to defend the long exams. Not only is the whole force of public opinion against them, but the judgment of most of the men who would vote for abolition is in favor of the change. The point which I should like to have elucidated is, why, then, are they not abolished?

SENIOR.