The current number of the Monthly contains a harsh editorial comment on the young instructor at Harvard--a somewhat exaggerated statement, written from a not altogether unbiased point of view. After discussing the absurd position in which certain Seniors have been placed by appointment to positions as assistants in courses where they must correct the work of their own classmates, the editorial proceeds to discredit the entire system of employing men but recently graduated, as instructors in undergraduate courses. Such "a man," says the editorial, "who goes directly from his undergraduate work here into the work of teaching other Harvard undergraduates is bound to be narrow and of little value as a teacher." In concluding the Monthly suggests as a remedy a rule to forbid the appointment of men as instructors who have not been graduated at least two years, thus giving them an opportunity to broaden their point of view before coming in contact with men whose minds are still undeveloped.

It is impossible to believe that such a regulation, which would involve much additional expense to the University, is either necessary or advisable. There is much to be said in favor of personal contact between men who have just finished their undergraduate life at Harvard and men who are newcomers. But the benefit from such a connection depends entirely upon the personality of the young instructor, and this we believe is the key to the whole situation. There are men at Harvard, whose undergraduate life is just completed, and whose work and personality qualify them for positions as instructors, and if the men responsible for the appointments are far-sighted enough to see that standing on the College books is not the only consideration, the system may be a decided success. At the present time personality is not sufficiently considered.

As for the three-year men who correct the work of their classmates, the CRIMSON believes that their position is false. In reviewing the Monthly editorial a member of the faculty says, ". . . the editorial board of the Monthly itself contains a number of men whose proclivities show conclusively that they are fully competent to criticise intelligently the themes at least of Freshmen, if not of upperclassmen," and exactly there lies the difficulty. Why should these competent men be subjected to the criticisms of men no more competent than themselves? They all have the knowledge, and many have the personality, and as first year graduates would make admirable instructors, since they are no longer on a plane of equality with the men they instruct. A regulation forbidding the appointment of a man to such positions until his class bad graduated would mean no greater expense to the University, but much greater justice to the undergraduate.