A circular letter sent to last year's honor students in the field of English literature by an officer in the English department suggests both practical and considerable revision of the Divisional Examinations in that field. It has long been thought that too short a time is allowed for the writing of those examinations, three hours being the maximum. Considering the fact that the background of four years is supposed to be represented in that paper, the suggestion to lengthen the period of examination is certain common sense. Three hours to talk of five centuries of prose and poetry appears at first glance the method of an illiberal rather than a liberal education.

The letter suggests as amendment an initial examination of three hours dealing with the fourteenth through the eighteenth centuries. Two hours the next day would then be devoted to the nineteenth cntury. Emphasis on more modern literature is probably determined by the fact that examinations in Bible, Shakespeare, and Ancient Authors have already been held in the Fall of the senior year.

Wherever the emphasis is laid, few would dispute the advantages of splitting the examination into two parts to take place on successive days. For the honor student the plan would give added opportunity to coe vrthe field which from the start seems discouragingly large. For those who are not honor students the two day division would ease and clarify the jumbled burden of the years.

There are few objections to the plan. The most that can be said is that it would increase the time and expense mechanically. Inherently it carries out rather than thwarts the purpose of Divisional examinations, which are, like any examinations, big sticks to force the gaining of traditional knowledge. The student would have more opportunity to present a clarified view, and the clarified view has always been deeply the educator's concern.