Zoology 1 is a course which is all too often passed up in favor of Biology A because of an impression that Biology A is a snap course and that there is a great deal of time-consuming laboratory work in Zoology 1 which can be avoided. This is an impression which has, perhaps, survived from the last generation, for Biology A is no longer the comparative snap that it is reputed to have been in other times, and the laboratory work in Zoology 1 is not really so staggering as is generally thought by the uninformed. The laboratory work rarely takes more than the four hours a week prescribed in the catalogue, and this can usually be worked in the morning.
The most potent reason for taking the course however, is the brilliant lecturing of Professor Parker. The lectures are interesting from seven minutes after nine until ten; at no time does one wish he were still slumbering peacefully in his bed, nor is he tempted to slumber in his seat. Many non-concentrators have called him the best lecturer in College; certainly one must go far to find anyone so genuinely amusing and at the same time informative.
The course as a whole is welf worth while taking. It must be included in the program of concentrators in Biology, and others will do well to swell its already large enrolment, for the subject is one which should form a part of any liberal education and Zoology 1 is an excellent introduction to the subject, from any point of view.
Zoology 3
Zoology 3 has, unquestionably, the worst reputation among the courses in the field of Biology; in general, this reputation is deserved. The lectures are the best point of the course, and they are by no means as good as might be expected. They are, however, moderately interesting to one who likes the subject, their worst fault being the disproportionately large amount of time spent on classification of animals.
The laboratory work, unlike the lectures, has no good features to recommend it. It is announced as requiring at least six hours per week. Actually, it consumes anywhere from eight to twelve, depending on the student and the particular assignment; the yellow oilcloth frequently seen hanging from the windows in the Houses contains, not bottles, but a defunct dogfish belonging to some individual who is studying Comparative Anatomy. The laboratory facilities are insufficient to handle the number taking the course, and the room is always crowded. Also, because of the numbers in the course, dissections and drawings must be completed at a regular time every week and presented at a stated twenty-minute interval, a system which has its disadvantages. Finally, Zoology 3 is literally the only course in the entire field in which the laboratory instructors are of very little assistance. They are, apparently, too anxious to return to their research to waste much time with students; some of them have an attitude which causes the demonstrations to resemble a grammar school quiz, and which occasionally bids fair to turn the laboratory into a battle field.
The course is badly in need of a general reorganization. If it were made a year course, as it is in most other colleges, it could cover the work far more adequately.
The following statement was made last night in connection with Zoology 3 by H. W. Rand '00 associate professor of Zoology, to clarify any misunderstanding which may have arisen from an article printed in the CRIMSON on March 29:
"In my opinion Zoology 3 is taken to best advantage if preceded by at least an entire year (two half courses) of biology. It is not advisable that Freshmen should take Zoology 3 in their second half-year, following Zoology 1. The courses Zoology 3, 4, and 5, must be taken in their numerical sequence. Therefore to change Zoology 3 from the first to the second half-year would make it necessary, or at least desirable, to make related changes in the other courses."