(We invite all men in the University to submit communications on subjects of timely interest.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The articles, letters and editorials which have recently been published in the various college papers, leave no reasonable doubt that a change in the Harvard entrance requirements is not only desirable but urgent. Both the examiners and the headmasters of preparatory schools are of this opinion. Moreover, all the reports received by the investigating committee show that a change is wise. One argument, however, has been too little emphasized--the failure of the present system to carry out its professed purpose.

The aim of the entrance examinations is not to test the candidate's knowledge of facts, but to examine his intellectual power. The examiners try to ask, not "How much do you know"? but "Are you qualified to profit by instruction in Harvard College"? As a means of determining the extent of this qualification, a considerably smaller set of requirements would be more efficient; for at the average age of candidates for admission, the attempt to cover the present field is ordinarily attended by a parrot-like grasp of unrelated details, but by no real mastery or assimilation of the subjects. If the examiners insisted on higher standards in fewer subjects, however, the result would be two-fold: the candidates would have to gain an intelligent command of these subjects, and the examiners would thus be enable to judge of their intellectual characters. Finally, not the least benefit of such a system is the fact that it would necessitate of itself the kind of training in school that is useful in college and in the world at large--and this is more than any one can claim for the present system. JUNIOR.