Since General Education's inception in 1948, instructors have been plagued by the fact that many freshmen coming from superior schools are familiar with the material offered in the elementary courses in one or more of the three areas. To avoid this needless duplication, the Committee on Educational Policy, in its recommendations for a new, broad system of advanced standing and placement made two days ago, proposed that an exceptionally well prepared student be permitted to substitute one or two advanced courses for the elementary ones.

General Education was born from the belief that every thinking individual should be familiar with a certain basic core of Western intellectual tradition, and that modern specialized education failed to present this heritage. Proponents say that its scope is so broad that no secondary school curriculum could possibly cover the same areas. But it is senseless for a student to spend a whole year re-hashing material he has already assimilated. G.E.'s value lies in its unifying approach to knowledge, not in the specific subjects studied. The advanced G. E. courses and many offered in the various departments follow this broad approach. An incoming student who enrolled directly in one of these advanced courses would not waste his time in needless repetition of previous work and at the same time would benefit from the more mature level of presentation. For this reason, the recommendations of the Educational Policy Committee are sound.

But some distinction must be made as to what advanced level courses follow G.E.'s purposes. A course in intellectual or cultural history, for example, could be more valuable than an elementary social science course, while a purely factual history course would not present the same range of concepts. By the same token, a government course in political theory is preferable to one in state government. Many advanced curses in English, classics, philosophy, or comparative literature could replace the elementary humanities courses. A list of suitable courses should be worked out by the Committee on Special Standing and the Committee on General Education, it is probable that some advanced-level G.E. courses would be considerably revised and many more added.

Under the proposed program, placement tests would decide which students are eligible for exemption from the elementary courses. But the present system of objective tests must be completely revised. Essay tests are the only means of evaluating a student's maturity and his grasp of difficult concepts. Such tests are expensive; they must be individually graded, while objective tests can simply be run through machines. It is probable, however, that only a few students, say not more than ten or fifteen percent of a class, would be interested in taking the tests. They would know that only a few exemptions would be given, and the prospect of a three-hour examination during the busy freshman week would discourage all but those who felt reasonably sure of their knowledge of a field. Certainly no one would be required to take the tests. The Committee on General Education could publish lists of requirements, stating exactly what material must be known to secure an exemption. Such lists would not encourage cramming, for the essay questions on the examinations could be framed so that mere factual knowledge would make little difference if whole areas and concepts were not understood.

No blanket exemptions should be given. Each case should be individually decided on the basis of examinations, personal interviews, and the student's secondary school record. The number of exemptions must be small; there are few students who cannot benefit from an elementary level G.E. course. But a certain number of exemptions should be made, for neither G.E. nor any system of advanced placement can achieve its goal if a student feels he is wasting time in a course beneath his abilities.