In one of its early issues this autumn the CRIMSON published a "Confidential Guide" covering more than forty of the larger courses in Harvard College, particularly those open to Freshmen. It was led to do this by a feeling that the merits and faults of these various courses had received too little discussion in previous years and that a frank appraisal of them, from the undergraduate point of view, would be of interest to prospective students. Hence the publication of several columns in which these courses, one by one, were given praise or criticism or an intermingling of both.

Now although this action represented something of an innovation in undergraduate journalism it ought not to be condemned on that account. On the contrary, it may well be heralded as an auspicious omen of increased seriousness in the attitude of our student body toward the curriculum. The undergraduate of today is more careful in the selection of his courses than his father was. He is not primarily interested by the fact that a course is reputed to be easy; he wants to know whether it is worth while, well given, and handled by instructors who put some personality into it. That is as it ought to be, and insofar as the CRIMSON can help the exercise of such discrimination by its readers it is to be commended for its enterprise.

But in this case the intent appears to have been better than the achievement. A poor method was used in compiling the Guide. The responsibility for rating each course was placed upon a single individual, a member of the board of editors. Obviously it would have been much fairer to seek and combine the opinions of several undergraduates, for it is not often that any two men regard a course in precisely the same light. If the CRIMSON desires to function as a mentor it should be able to provide something more dependable than the unsupported say-so of some individual editor who remains anonymous. To brand a course as worthless, or an instructor as incompetent, on the testimony of one student among several hundred is hardly in accord with the amenities of clean journalism or true sportsmanship.

On the face of things, moreover, it does not appear that the fourteen undergraduates whose names appear as editors of the CRIMSON at the present time are peculiarly qualified to give expert guidance in matters pertaining to the curriculum. Only two of the fourteen are in the three highest groups of the college rank list. Nine are in the three lowest groups. The remaining three have scholastic records so low that their names do not appear in the rank list at all. On the whole, therefore, it would seem as if the editors have rated the Faculty somewhat higher than the Faculty has ranked the editors.

Another year, we hope, a similar survey will be undertaken, but on a broader basis. The work is such that the Student Council might well be asked to take it in hand, devising some means whereby general undergraduate opinion may be properly reflected in the matter. Every instructor is interested in knowing what the students think of his course; but we doubt that he will be much influenced by what some nameless individual thinks of it, which is all that the CRIMSON has given him this autumn. Alumni Bulletin.