To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

It is difficult to discover any valid objection to the new rules for concentration in ancient and modern languages As literature neither the Bible nor Shakespeare have has yet been seriously questioned. Among the great authors there is choice enough to satisfy differing tastes. Moreover, the spirit of the rules announces itself to be rightly revolutionary. "The primary object is not to exact performance of a task prescribed", says the pamphlet, "but to assist in the formation of a habit--the habit of reading good literature."

Unfortunately this bold statement is slightly vitiated on its negative side by the fact that the usual method of probing, the written examination is to be employed. The preversion of this delicate instrument into an extractor of meticulous bits of unrelated information is a sad fact of experience to most of us. No doubt those who formulated the new rules mean to stress intelligence and to make the examination broad and general rather than textual. Let us hope so.

There is another more important side of the question. These regulations, to a few satiric rogues appear to have been inaugurated on the general principle that since the students do not at present cover the work required of them, the obvious panacea is to assign more. Really, this is an inference supported by the facts. The student feels that quite enough is required of him already. He is not in a receptive mood.

Now there is a kernel of truth in this criticism, even though we approve of the rules. The whole tendency of college legislation, of late, has been to increase the burden of the student without releasing him from the petty annoyances that so often sour him. It is time to do away with a few of them. Two courses would have twice the value of four as a minimum for the senior. If the student is to be interested in his reading he must have time to be so. He cannot be while his life is one tedious examination after another. An ounce of confidence in the undergraduate, an ounce of trust in his power to educate himself, would do more for him and for education than heavy over-doses of the milk bottle lecture system. Incidentally, it would be a splendid act of faith. B. PRESCOTT '21.

May 18, 1921.