Perhaps the chief objection voiced by the critics of the initial Reading Period at Harvard has centered around the chorus of seemingly unsubstantiated praise raised by its well-wishers immediately upon its termination. Inasmuch as in some cases the approbation was so extravagant as to suggest propaganda and to obscure the fundamental aspects of the innovation, Dean Hanford's complete official resume of the Reading Period results can be expected to shed authentic light upon the situation. At least it significantly indicates the optimism prevalent in University Hall over the outcome of the educational experiment.

Anyone who has interested himself in a sane appraisal of the results of the Reading Period will discover little that is new in the report with the possible exception of the authoritative statistics. Almost too much has been said and written about the success of the experiment in connection with the various Departments, the Faculty, the Library, the extra-curriculum activities, and last but not least, the upperclassmen. The main thing proved by Dean Hanford's article is the fact that the Reading Period has definitely established itself, that not only is there an improvement in the matter of satisfactory grades, but also such virtues as the stimulation of original effort, independent reading and tutorial work, and most vitally important of all a recognition of the room for improvement. In many respects the paragraph devoted to the constructive suggestions is the most enlightening part of the article. The Reading Period has its attendant evils, and a recognition of them is a step in the right direction.

Dean Hanford's article, however, contains one sentence that far outweighs any of the statistics, evils, and benefits associated with the Reading Period. "Although the students in general seem to have profited from the Reading Period," writes Dean Hanford, "the greatest good was perhaps derived by the honor men and those with a high C average." In one sentence he points indirectly to the chasm within the ranks of students not only in Harvard College but in every university and college in the country, that is, the widening of the gulf which separates the A and B and high C students from the C, low C, D and E students. If the Reading Period has done nothing else it has pointed to this important trend.

On the face of Dean Hanford's figures and the long recognized problem of the two factors--the real and the "gentleman" student--it may be safely supposed that the next step in education is logically the official recognition of the gap. This conclusion is based upon the hypothesis that every man who takes his studies seriously and spends the requisite amount of time on them should be capable of attaining at least a high C average. If this statement sounds too startling in view of the number of men on probation and those who maintain a precarious low C level, it is only necessary to point to the inroads of athletics, outside activities, society, and perhaps an apathetic attitude which in some cases keeps the most capable men from spending even two hours a day on their studies. It would be difficult to maintain that at least 90 percent of the men in Harvard College could not possibly raise themselves to a high C level by an average of three hours of intelligent study a day.

If it is presumptious to advance the possibility of such a Utopia, only extreme optimism could advance its probable occurrence. There will probably always be the low C, and D, and the E men. The Reading Period has proved this truth. It is the A, B and high C men who employed it to the best advantage; on the other hand, the undergraduates who cling to the lower half of the grade hierarchy seem not to have appreciated the experiment.

The solution of the problem lies perhaps in the segregation of the two groups, The scholastic elite deserve and should have the Tutorial System, the General Examinations, the Reading Period, and all that goes with them. They are the men who will ultimately take their degree with Honors, and there is no reason why they should be placed on the same plane with the men who waste their own and their tutor's time, prepare for their General Examinations at a tutoring school, neglect their Reading Period assignments and turn their backs on every attempt on the part of authorities to make intellectual pastures a delectable paradise for students. "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" seems to apply here. Educators might hesitate to recognize the obvious need for separation, but soon they may have to focus their attention upon this situation. As long as steps like the Reading Period are taken, so long will the breach widen. The autimonies are clearly outlined. In the end, it is either the Tutorial System, the Reading Period, the degree with Honors on one side, or on the other lectures, the class room, the instructor, the weekly quizzes and time for athletics, extra-curriculum activities with the ordinary degree.

No panacea for the many educational ills of the college is being offered, but few deny the tendencies of the times. Separation of the two groups of students is being considered and has been considered. Yale is pondering the Third College at this moment. But as long as such steps as the Reading Period innovation are being taken, it is imperative to recognize the fact that only about half the undergraduate body is benefited. On all too many has the latest seed from University Hall been wasted. Then in the future only the appreciative would have the opportunities presented by the Tutorial System at their commond. While it is difficult to draw the line between the scholastic strata, the Reading Period itself has revealed that it is to some extent possible.