For some time there has been a growing unrest in the educational world. Material evidence of this has been given in the progressive reforms of such colleges as Yale, Rollins, and Wisconsin. Chicago, for a long time, has been a leader in the movement for a less mechanized and more liberal curriculum.

Some time ago President Hutchins announced his intention of abolishing definite classes. Students were no longer to be sophomores, juniors or seniors, they were to be merely members of the university at work in a special field. They might complete their education in a few months, or they might remain for the more conventional four years. Chicago cares little about the length of time, they ask only that a man do his work to the best of his ability.

In general, though to a less marked degree, this is the attitude assumed by most of the universities and colleges which have undertaken educational reform. The emphasis has been taken off mass instruction and has been placed upon the individual. With all this stress upon the revision of curriculum few universities have attempted social reform as well. Harvard has tried it, and Yale and Princeton are following in her footsteps though more cautiously. But up to now no college has had the courage to effect both an educational and a social reorganization at the samo time.

Yesterday, however, it was announced that Chicago was to inaugurate along with its new inflexible curriculum a house plan that conforms in physical make-up to the Harvard plan. President Hutchins does not say, however, that the idea is to create a new democratic feeling among his students. He does not hope that it will bring about a cross-section among his students. He does hope, and confidently believes, that his house plan will bring a greater freedom and contact between student and teacher. It is a ramification of the university's effort to place greater emphasis upon the individual. It is not in any way devised to bring about a feeling of comradeship among the students, it is rather to stimulate interest in work by the aid and inspiration of the "tutors" who will live in the houses.

How well this plan will succeed is an open question. The answer must perforce lie in the future. Chicago may have gone at reorganization in too violent a fashion. Her wrath at existing conditions may have led her to an attempt at reform that is too extreme for the undergraduates. The American mind is flexible, but it may not be pliant enough to accept all these changes in one year. There can be little doubt but that Chicago has found a panacea for the ills of modern education. The real question lies in the drastic method of its application.