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

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

The recent reorganization of Government 1 into one lecture and two section meetings a week, although designed to give the student a means for ampler discussion on topics related to the required reading, presents some very serious drawbacks which at the same time anathematize the whole section system. Of course the section meeting has its use and at best must be tolerated as a necessary evil: but lacing undue emphasis on it is a fact which bears some discussion.

The added emphasis reflects a more or less conscious imitation of Economics A. where, however, the subject and emphasis are entirely different and should not encourage copy. The importance of this distinction is clarified by the fact that the average student in Government 1 is unequal to the opportunities which free discussion offer; almost invariably the section degenerate into a whole-handed exposition of watery opinions or into a one-man tyranny of some able talker. In either case the result is the same, and the purpose of the section is defeated. Such a fact inevitably reflects upon the capacity of the section-hands as leader in discussion; yet too often it is not their fault that they should fall to the mercy of their group. the fault seems really to lie in the section-system itself. Some years ago History 1 endeavored to ameliorate some of its defects as of large classes by the inauguration of the conference group; its success points to possibility of some sort of compromise in Government, for one of the most obvious faults of the sections now is their unwieldy size of nearly thirty men.

Cutting, down the lectures in a course where their ascendancy should, I think, be paramount, places an added premium on this discussion; work, and thereby increase the above, evils two-fold. The new-system diminishes some of the great possibilities of the lecture system: for example the mature view of a competent lecturer on relevant topics suggested by the reading.

Certainly the situation involves many complicated factors; but while one admits the sound advantages of individual discussion which have seeped down from the graduate seminar, one wonders about the advisability of applying the system too strictly to a general undergraduate course like Government 1. How favorably do the advantages which the student will reap from the new section system compare with these he gained from lectures, when, under Professor Munro, Theodore Roosevelt appeared on the platform?  George L. Haskins '35