(We invite all men in the University to submit communication on subjects of timely interest, but assume no responsibility for sentiments expressed under this head.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Three classes have experienced the benefits and inconveniences of the elective system as it exists in Harvard today, and soon a fourth is to be subjected to its regulations. It has existed long enough for its effects to be studied and perhaps understood. Let us see what these are from the point of view of the student.

One of the chief aims of the present elective system, as I understand it, is to require every student to concentrate in some field and avoid the dissipation of energy in the elementary study of a large number of unrelated subjects. Concentration necessitates the performance of a certain amount of advanced work, which is of greater advantage in developing mental power than a much larger amount of elementary work, which often consists merely in the acquisition of information, and does not necessitate any connected thought or analysis. It would seem, therefore, that the elective system were a success in forcing students to do more difficult and more beneficial work, but an administrative difficulty presents itself in the wise choice of a field for concentration.

No student who has followed the ordinary curriculum of high or preparatory schools, can possibly have more than an elementary knowledge of any subject at the end of his Freshman year. Before this time he is required to select his field for concentration. A priori, we may assume that he knows nothing of economics, for no student in his first year may take Economics A without special permission from the instructor. Obviously no one can wisely say whether he cares to make an advanced study of any subject when he has mastered little more than its rudiments. This fact is recognized by those who administer the elective system, for no student is denied the privilege of changing his field for concentration, unless it is suspected that he is trying to shift from a hard field to an easy one. The system is one thing in theory and becomes another in practice. Even in practice it is not perfectly elastic. For a student who finds that he wishes to concentrate in a field that does not require much work may find himself unable to make the change, because it is suspected that he is looking for a snap, even though he may be very anxious to work hard.

How, then, can matters be remedied? The administration by its actions admits that the system is over-rigid. A large percentage of students find their original choice distasteful to them. If we can preserve the increased mental power which the present system requires and, at the same time, render it more elastic we shall have achieved a reform.

All of the courses could be weighted in proportion to the amount and the elementary or the advanced character of the work they require, as 1, 2, or 3. All students could be required to take not only seventeen courses but to choose them so that the weights should add up to a given amount. In this way the work for a degree would be adequate not only in quantity but also in quality. We should sacrifice none of the mental power acquired under the present system, and we should have greater elasticity and ease of administration. It may be objected that many students would not acquire as complete a knowledge of some one subject, but it is generally conceded, I think that the chief purpose of a college education is population of mental power on the part of the student. It is platitudinous to say that nothing that one learns in college is of direct use in after life. Knowledge is a means, not an end. Whether that knowledge be concentrated or diversified is of little consequence so long as it is profound enough to give the desired mental power. ALFRED WALTER '14.