Since the start of Joint Instruction during the war, Harvard and Radcliffe have kept strict limits on the extent of their new policy of cooperation. Provost Buck's request last week for a Student Council opinion on "the feasibility and desirability of merging final examinations in joint courses" was, therefore, a significant indication that University officers are not completely satisfied with the carefully balanced status quo of their policy toward Radcliffe.

The Provost gave no opinion on the final examination question in his statement, and it may be considered that a University stand on the issue is awaiting further evidence. Whether to merge final examinations in the two colleges is, as a matter of fact, a question with two so nearly equal points of view that any decision will be difficult.

Convenience and economy are the chief arguments in favor of the proposed change. The difficulties of getting exams and instructors in two different places at the same time and the extra expense of duplicating rooms all point to joint examinations as a logical step.

For Radcliffe, however, the step would present other obstructions, the most important one being the possibility of losing for 'Cliffe undergraduates their popular honor system. Radcliffe cannot be expected to favor a change which would saddle examinations with proctors and rules which are now notably and happily absent.

The difficulties from the 'Cliffe side of the question do not mean, however, that no possibility of compromise exists. One important factor so far neglected by Provost Buck is the Radcliffe Student Government, which, as the spokesman for 'Cliffe undergraduates, should certainly be consulted, on any proposal such as this. Perhaps the ideal group to investigate and make recommendations about the merger of final examinations would be a joint committee of the Student Government and the Harvard Student Council.