President Lowell, in his recent report to the Board of Overseers, characterized the reading period as a "bold experiment," the success of which is expressed by the judgment that "they have, in general, accomplished the purposes for which they were intended."

One of the most evident faults apparent after the mid-year reading period in 1930 was its extreme shortness, which was in itself responsible for many of the criticisms made at the time. This evil was corrected by the adoption of the two-and-a-half-week period now started. The longer time should bring out the greatest advantages of the plan, by allowing students to do interesting outside work suggested by course reading, as well as deeper study in particular fields.

It is a matter of time before the other weaknesses stressed by the investigating committee will be remedied. There is the objection that a few courses continue to hold one or two meetings per week instead of the usual three. There is the possible objection, strong last year, that several courses failed to cooperate with the spirit of the reading period by giving assignments either too long, too much a continuation of the general lecture work, or with too little room for choice. The extent of the improvement along these latter lines cannot be determined until the end of the present period.

At any rate, it is almost obvious that the system of the reading period, with its ultimate benefits, can only be appreciated by those willing to work with it. The average and below-average undergraduates will probably maintain about the same standard of work as before, whereas hard-working and brilliant students are able to decidedly profit.