Presumably to the horror of all Law School students, it was recently disclosed that three new proposals for alteration in the examination system had been made to the administrative board of that school. All of these suggestions were aimed at the student who relies on cramming to pass the annual examinations, and all of them were so calculated as to make the students' tasks more difficult. Dean Pound's own proposal, it was revealed, was for a "comprehensive" examination at the end of the third year, so that the more knowledge of the six courses taken during that year would not be sufficient for passing. Of the other two plans, one cuts the examination period from three weeks to six days, and the other introduces a rather complicated system intended to strike at "vagueness in the mind of the student."

These innovations, then, are in line with the modern demand for the broad view; they aim away in theory, from the mere accumulation of isolated facts. In short, they are made in the same spirit as was the introduction of divisionals at Harvard. The study of Law, however, is a different matter from the general education sought in a college. According to the expressed opinions of those professors in the Law School who have had experience in general practice, cramming is not necessarily a bad thing, for the student in any case is learning to locate facts when he needs them, and is not attempting to store a great mass of precedents in his head. Finally, it is doubtful whether the execution of any of the proposals would have exactly the desired effect. It is easily possible that they might cause a period of cramming longer, but otherwise the same as the old one.

The law, in short, is a practical field, and not altogether suited for the application of general educational principles. In this connection, it is significant that opposition to the new plans came from those professors who had had practical experience, support from those who have academic inclinations. It is generally accepted that the introduction of divisionals in Harvard College was a good step; it has made for a wider and sounder foundation of knowledge. But the College prepares one to live, while the graduate schools prepare one to make a living; everything considered, this distinction should be upheld.