Education, like almost every other kind of human endeavor in these times, is in a state of flux. Dissatisfaction, discussion, innovation are rife, and while many mistakes may be made, there is certain to be progress. In fact such progress is already in evidence in the extension of freedom of cuts at the University and at Princeton, a move toward the ideal of education by desire rather than by compulsion. But Columbia has taken the greatest stride of all in its plan, just announced, of abolishing mid-year and final examinations in certain trial courses and perhaps in the near future, all compulsory attendance at classes.

The plan as announced is definite in its details. By it, steady day-to-day work is expected to replace pre-examination cramming, and a diploma is to be earned "by honest work from day to day and month to month." Moreover it is proposed that a "B" standing in this daily work be required. The latter requirement is, perhaps, necessary if Columbia wishes to teach those alone who have a "B desire" to learn. But obviously the plan must include some system of frequent classroom examinations or quisses to determine who does and who does not possess that desire. And furthermore to make the diploma really valuable, it must include some form of general examination at the close of the college sojourn to ascertain whether the student has assimilated and related the facts which he has learned.

Presumably, however, the plan at Columbia has been drawn up to provide such necessary machinery. But there still remains a valid objection to the scheme as a whole. Of course, practical business men wil decry it as making education a soft sinecure--or a softer sinecure than they say education is at present. The objection does not follow naturally, but it may follow in this case and so throw discredit on the whole trend of the collegiate educational system. The proposal to abolish examinations has come not through evolution and the gradual growth of the desire the learn but as a relief measure, a means of stopping cramming and cheating at examinations by removing the examinations. While admitting that the Honor System in college has little to recommend it and the policing of examination rooms remains an insult to many, yet the Columbia method seems to approach the problem from the wrong end, to put the cart before the horse. Before undergraduates may be allowed all the privileges of the "desire" program, they must be educated up to education by desire. In this course of sprouts, gradual extension of freedom of cuts is a prime requisite to accustom the student to responsibility in doing his own work.

In short Columbia is leaping to the final ideal of college education without any of the preliminary steps, and therefore it may "o'erleap itself and fall on the other". The experiment is one of absorbing interest and one may well hope for its success. But in case of failure, one must remember that the ideal has scarcely been tried under fair conditions and should therefore not, as an ideal, be condemned.