For thirteen hours before the History 134b hour examination, he explained the problems of European philosophy to her. He had done the reading, and understood it; she had done the reading and didn't understand it.

"When the exam came," she said later, "I wrote down only what Andy told me-no more and no less. After all, he understood what the course was about."

She received an A- on the exam; he received a C+.

Stories like this keep raising the perennial Cambridge question, "Are girls smarter?" Few Harvard students will admit the superiority of their black-stockinged counterparts. If the Cliffies do happen to take home higher grades, such happenings are easily explained away by apple-polishing or by sentimental tales of Mathla, where there was a girl who "couldn't even read numbers." The girls, on the other hand, explained their consistently better records by claims to sheer intellectual power.

Statistics Back 'Cliffies

Which side in this battle of the sexes is right? Statistical information backs the 'Cliffies. Every year a higher percentage of Radcliffe students make Dean's List than do Harvard scholars. Last year, for example, 39.2 percent of Harvard ranked in Groups I-III. Well over half-57 per cent-of the three lower 'Cliffe classes earned Dean's List privileges, and this rating does not include Radcliffe seniors, over 60 per cent of whom rank in Group III or above.

Honors records also favor Radcliffe claims. For the class of '58, Radcliffe-variety, 53 per cent won honors. Only 41.8 per cent of their Harvard counterparts received honors degrees.

Over the years, however, Harvard students do tend to receive more degrees summa cum laude than Radcliffe proportionately, according to Wilbur K.Jordan, Radcliffe president.

One complicating fact may assuage the fears of militant feminists. Relatively few girls major in the Natural Sciences, which award the highest number of summa degrees. Since most areas in this field do require General Examinations, or thesis preparation, and since Honors are usually calculated on the basis of grades in which the 'Cliffies hold the edge, the lack of the girls' overall superiority may be due the small number in Natural Sciences.

Radcliffe More Selective

Another way beleagued Harvard apologists explain the "smartness" of their Radcliffe counterparts concerns admissions and the old economic law of selectivity. Radcliffe, with entering classes of about 300, naturally can accept a higher percentage of the "cream of the crop" than Harvard, which admits a class of 1100, so the argument runs.

On the other hand, Harvard's admissions record is not a subject for shame. The largest number of secondary school applicants on record applied to Harvard last Fall; over 60 per cent were rejected. And the students admitted are by no means scholastic slouches. On Scholastic Aptitude Tests, members of the class of '56 scored from 474 to 674; for the class of '62, scores ranged from 543 to 743.

The problem of comparing this statistical "smartness" with that of students admitted to the 'Cliffe is accentuated by Radcliffe's traditional tight-lipped policy on SAT scores. "Radcliffe has no mathematical formula for choosing students, as most men's colleges do," Constance Pratt, 'Cliffe admissions director, explains.

In effect, this means that college board scores do not give an accurate appraisal of the calibre of the average Radcliffe student. High school seniors scoring in the high 700's on College Entrance Board Examinations might not be admitted, while a student scoring considerably lower might be.

Annex Intuition in Admissions

Mrs.Pratt and the admissions committee feel that statistics here would be "meaningless" considering the college's emphasis on a girl's background, record, recommendations and some "intuitive" feeling they might hold about a girl's chance for academic success.

Despite the non-mathematical criteria, however, a recent article in Harper's Magazine by Martin Mayer, which referred consistently to the Scholastic Aptitude Test of the College Entrance Examination Board, revealed one statistic that seems to give the 'Cliffes an academic edge over their Harvard colleagues: Radcliffe is the second most "selective" college in the country. The only college outranking it is not Harvard, but Caltech.

The problem is not so easy to solve as the statistics imply. "What we're really bickering about is a few intelligence points which don't really make much difference," Thomas F. Pettigrew, Assistant Professor of Social Psychology, points out. Almost all students at the two colleges are on the same high plane of scholastic ability, and each sex seems to have a particular arete in some field.

Scientific Proof Cited

Scientific proof, according to Pettigrew, has demonstrated that girls tend to be more proficient in verbal skills, whereas boy's abilities tend toward quantitative aptitudes. This "genuine difference" results from "reinforcement." From earliest childhood, girls are "reinforced" in clear writing and expression; boys, on the other hand, are often directed toward more quantitative problems. This difference also helps to explain the girls' complaints that boys' interest are "profane"; boys tend to go into fields like math, chemistry, or psychology instead of more culturally oriented subjects like Fine Arts or Literature. "In the long run, however, this all works out for the best," Pettigrew concluded. "The girls can bring their more exotic interests into their Westport home, and supply their money-earning husbands with a cultural basis they might otherwise lack."

Speculation about the 'Cliffies' better grades has run the gamut from libidinal explanations to pure intellectual superiority. However, the most reasonable explanation is found in "conscientiousness." Admittedly generalizations are dangerous, but Radcliffe students actually tend to do more work, to do greater amounts of reading, and to concentrate more upon marks. In the long run, girls come out ahead, Edward P.Morris, head tutor of the Department of Romance Languages, says. This superiority, however, is not due to innate ability, but rather to "instilled habits." "Fewer girls than boys get E's. Their average minimum level of conscientiousness is probably higher than the boys'," I. Bernard Cohen, associate professor of the History of Science, points out. "Whenever I've heard of someone spending a preposterous amount of time on some project like a paper, it has generally been a girl. For instance I read in the Confidential Guide that one girl said she worked for 52 hours on one of her Nat.Sci.3 papers."

Females More Conscientious

In the long run, Harvard men hurt themselves by not doing the reading. Girls are always "miles ahead in competence and conscientiousness," Morris states. This fact shows up on examinations. Morris explains that he always grades blue books anonymously, folding back the covers so he cannot see who wrote the exam. Yet he can almost invariably tell whether the writer is a girl or a boy. One factor is writing ability, which tends to favor the girls. Another is the fact that, due to difference in study habits, boys' examinations tend to be "uneven." A Harvard student often "hits" one essay question, for which he had completed the reading and devoted thought, better than a Cliffie. But often he will completely "miss" two other answers. In contrast to this, girls, who usually do all the reading uniformly well, answer all questions with relatively equal competence. In the long run, this tendency works out in favor of the girls. "Education based on knowledge rather than capricious luck based on ignorance always wins out in the end, 'Morris says.

Girls Handwriting Advantage

Girls enjoy one deeply-rooted psychological advantage on examinations. Graders unconsciously tend to give higher marks to blue-books inscribe in the true Palmer method. Girls' cursive skills-a neat flowing style of writing rather than a hasty blot of cramped scribbling-provide a margin that cannot be overlooked. "It's true that it's easier to read exams written by girls," on grader notes, "just because their handwriting is far better than boys.' I suppose they might gain half a grade of more by this method."

Mark-consciousness, however, is the price of conscientiousness. Girls have "an almost neurotic feeling about grades, "Morris says. Generally they worry about degrees of Honors, reading, and other matters which the oft-more blase Harvard student regards as supercillious. "Selective" reading, some men argue, may demonstrate a greater degree of maturity than simply plowing through an entire reading list.

Morris also suggests that this compulsive "conscientiousness" among Radcliffe students also causes a dearth of "imagination" among female students. Evidence from different fields seems to indicate just the opposite, however. Pettigrew notes that girls in his course, Soc. Rel. 134, which concerns modern social problems such as integration, are more willing to take an "adventurous stand" than their Harvard colleagues. This might well be true, he says, because girls will never have to take the responsibility for their radical opinions after college. Nevertheless, the girls' approach toward the course, "irresponsible" or not, does lead to top grades. Each year, of the top 10 grades, only one or two go to Harvard students.

As one history grader commented on the problem, girls seem to have a greater "vitality" in approaching subject matter. "A girl is much more likely to come up to a grader and say, I don't like any of these suggested essay topics. But what I am interested in is....' She is much more likely to take a special interest in some one problem or element of a course, and want to follow through by herself. In contrast to this, a boy will read the list of paper topics, pick out an appropriate one, then deal with it matter-of-factly as best as he can." In short, a girl's dedication to doing all the reading religiously in a course does not necessarily restrict her to a dry, unimaginative, conservative way of treating an academic subject.

Professional Plans Noted

Another reason why some Radcliffe girls may devote more time to their courses stems from future professional plans. Cliffies who go into graduate work continue in Arts and Sciences, rather than entering professional schools as boys tend to do. This helps explain the male-female mark disparity in Social Relations, for example, since the girls are interested in the field as a whole rather than as a stepping-stone before future professional training.

An overwhelming number of Harvard men majoring in Social Relations go to Medical School, and learn the specific tools used in Soc Rel, such as psychoanalytic method, for a professional career. Proportionally, over 50 per cent of Radcliffe graduates doing additional work enter the GSAS. However, the overwhelming majority of Harvard students continuing in graduate studies enter professional schools, such as Law or Medicine.

Compulsion to Study

Part of the Cliffies' compulsiveness to study comes from the 5:1 Harvard Radcliffe ratio. "This is a man's university," Morris says, "and the only way girls can establish themselves then to overcome the insecurity of their position, is by doing all the course work thoroughly." To express superiority-or perhaps to achieve superiority-the 'Cliffie will often study harder than her Harvard counterpart. Militant feminism, in Cambridge, finds expression in Rank Lists and Honors. Girls, in this predominantly masculine community, can never attain equality except by competitive methods provided by competitive methods provided by the classroom.

Many Cliffies express the desire for equality, however, in a less erudite manner. Often members of any Harvard class spend time aiding their poor damsels in the struggle through the academic sloughs. "And then the ungrateful curse reward us good Samaritans by raising the curve and getting better grades than we do," one Harvard student explained. In the eyes of many Harvard men, at least half the 'Cliffe students would never make Dean's List without willing and able assistance.

But the myth runs equally well in the opposite direction. Well known at Radcliffe is the song about the poor girl who wrote a thesis for some boy each year for three years, only to be "dropped" as soon as her typewriter-weary fingers turned over the black-covered masterpieces. A familiar scene around the Quad, come examination period, is a harried-looking Harvard student coming to get reading and/or lecture notes from a willing Cliffe amanuensis.

Academic assistance is a two-way street. Widener Reading Room has provided the scene for many inexpensive rendezvous meetings justified by the desire for scholarship. Harvard students cannot justify the Cliffies' higher marks on the basis of assistance rendered, since the assistance is just as likely to come in the opposite direction.

Are the Men Joiners?

An equally false argument with which Harvard men seek to explain their inferior marks arises from "extra-curricular activities." Some people have argued that men tend, more than women, to join undergraduate organizations. Admittedly, the 'Cliffe does not have organized sports. However, nearly all groups here are merged and in many, the U.N. Council for example, there are almost as many Cliffies as Harvard students. Radcliffe members of extra-curricular groups exert more than a proportional influence-and, a higher percentage of girls are involved in activities.

Girls Given Ultimate Edge

In the final analysis, it seems Harvard must face the facts: Girls do hold a slight edge in areas such as grades and the percentage of Honors degrees conferred. But the differential cannot be explained solely by any difference in sheer intellectual power, as the Cliffies claim. More than anything, their conscientiousness in the mechanical aspects of a course accounts for their favorable results.

But perhaps a final vindication is the fact that Cliffies will not, by and large, earn their living on the basis of their educational experience. Few Radcliffe graduates enter professional life, while their husbands-seventy per cent of whom are Harvard graduates-must earn a living for at least two. Radcliffe brains may grace a home; Harvard brains must buy it.