(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters, but under special conditions, at the request of the writer, names will be withheld.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

The revolutionary aspect of the Reading Period has, it seems to me, been overestimated. As the plan worked out in many cases, students were merely given unusually heavy assignments which did not essentially differ from ordinary course requirements. In such instances, the changes involved in the Reading Period were as follows: students were not lectured to, nor were they quizzed on the subjects covered by the assignments. But when one considers that the lectures in some courses do not cover the same ground as the contemporaneous reading, and that few courses hold quizzes directly prior to the examination period, the novelty of the Reading Period diminishes. Furthermore, the prospects of the examinations which lie in wait at the conclusion of the Period are a considerable stimulus to student industry.

A Reading Period more conducive to to intellectual independence on the part of the students, and a more definite departure from the prevalent spoon-feeding methods in American education might be devised. Of the possibilities which are open I mention two. First, a student might, by arrangement with his department, or tutor, or both, investigate into a field which interests him and which the pressure of course work does not allow him to pursue in the regular session. Second, as has been suggested in several courses, students might read in some special topic connected with the subject of a course. Louis Harap, '28.