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

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

The Review of History 1 given in your issue of last Friday morning September 23, cannot but call forth protest from one who has recently completed the course in question with a resulting opinion of almost diametrically opposite character, and who realizes that he is not entirely alone in his views. You have well described it as "a maze of dates, names and bibliography," to which is added "the stiff and remarkably comprehensive map requirements." The very complexity of detail considered robs the study and survey of much of its possible value. Interpretation of History is barely mentioned in the first half, only faintly considered in a few of the second term lectures, notably those of Professor Gay on the industrial Revolution, and actually discussed only in the final lecture.

But apart from these general criticisms, there is the mater of organization, upon which you have expended more praise than upon almost any other aspect of Harvard University existence. Why are weekly quizzes given to the non-honor men for almost the whole length of the year? And, worse, why must those men who have shown themselves capable of honor work in the self-vaunted most difficult undergraduate course be afflicted with regular bi-weekly hour exams? The excess study required by the average man in the course over that generally given with a full course is proverbial; the conference men find this load increased by reading in which they may have little or no interest.

It has been the boast of an acquaintance who likewise took History 1 as a Sophomore, that an honor grade might be attained with little or no attendance at lectures. The close parallelism (or perhaps a better term might be found, for parallel lines never meet!) of the lectures and reading make much of the work pure repetition. Only a very few exceptions, notably Professor Webster's masterpiece on the History of Modern Britain and the British Empire, discuss tendencies and movements, thus introducing a spirit of life which cannot in the nature of things be derived from readings alone. And surely the much-emphasized traditions of unity, hats, and pointers, are not among the best of Harvard traditions.

It is not the taking of the course, or its quasi-prescription for undergraduates against which I protest, but the unconsidered assumption that it represents the model of perfection and the acme of excellence in University teaching. A. Lincoln Gordon '34.