Examination proctors twice a year take their toll of undergraduate nerves and patience by often creating as much tension as the blue books they distribute. Since they apparently operate under the theory that students will cheat if they can, some proctors prowl around the examination room like watchdogs, emitting an occasional growl and contributing to an already unpleasant atmosphere.

While it is annoying enough to have a whole corps of individuals pace the floor and cast suspicious eyes on anyone not glued to his blue book, proctors also manage to act as judges on who can go to the rest rooms when, why, and in what numbers. A student who wants to smoke a cigarette is subject to the same standards.

Although the watchdog theory may have been effective in the bygone days of tutoring schools, it seems superfluous today. Students who really want to cheat can probably outwit the examiners. A proctor would be necessary for virtually every student to prevent an occasional cheater from consulting his small sheet of math formulas or list of important dates.

If proctors cannot prevent some amount of cheating, this does not mean that they are unnecessary. They are essential both to stop any flagrant abuses and to maintain good order. In a school as large and diverse as Harvard, an honor code could not replace the need for some degree of outside control. Nevertheless, proctors should show more respect for the student as a mature individual, who is not intent on "beating the system," but simply wants a more relaxed and less regimented examination room.