It is not often that the CRIMSON criticises the methods followed by instructors in giving their courses, because the mistakes that are sometimes made usually themselves point the way to speedy relief. But when the same complaint is heard year after year against the same group of courses we feel justified in taking account of it. The conditions with which we find fault prevail in the marking system used in two or three courses in elementary engineering, taken by a large number of men, in which mechanical drawing forms the principal part of the work. Instead of marking the drawings by some common standard intelligible to the students, the instructors in these courses indicate their gradings by a series of cabalistic symbols, whose significance is known only to the instructors themselves. The students may learn their marks in February and June, but at other times not without considerable difficulty.

Presumably this method was designed with a view to freeing the instructors from much petty haggling over grades, on the ground that the student's ignorance of his marks brings bliss to the instructor. Undoubtedly such freedom from tedious discussion and importunity is a blessing to the instructor. On the other hand, it leaves him defenceless against frequent suspicions of unfairness. It seems reasonable to expect that an instructor whose gradings are fair should be willing to support his judgment rather than take refuge behind a secret code of marks.

Work well done deserves the recognition of a high mark; poor work deserves the rebuke of a low grade; but work, good or bad, deserves something more satisfactory than a mark which indicates to the student no more than the fact that the instructor has seen it.