OUR RANKING SYSTEM.

High scholarship is supposed to show itself in high collegiate standing. The student's sincere desire for the one and his ambition for the other ought harmoniously to work together in urging him on to do his best. Probably this idea was never realized in fact, even when all members of a class in college took the same studies throughout their course; under the elective system it is directly contrary to fact. The Harvard student today, in choosing his electives, finds that, in three several ways, the two motives which ought to act in unison are wholly antagonistic.

First.-Six hours a week of the average student's time will gain in certain courses a mark much higher than in certain other courses; yet all three hour courses are counted equal. The student is therefore tempted to elect easy courses in preference to harder and more profitable ones.

Second.-The rank list is made up from the marks of each student in four elective courses. No account is made of any other elective which he may have taken, even though he has done as faithful work in an extra as in his regular courses. Every hour not devoted to the required four electives, however well spent in other courses, must tend to lower the student's rank. He is thus discouraged from taking any more electives than the number absolutely necessary for his degree.

Third.-After the first year of elective study, the student can gain higher marks by electing courses closely connected with those which he has already taken, than by taking up new branches of knowledge. He is thus tempted to elect courses which will not afford him a proper amount of work and benefit.

To summarize, the student's desire for broad, full learning prompts him to select the most profitable courses; to take as many of them each year as he can study to advantage; to take at least one course in each of the chief divisions of knowledge. His ambition for collegiate distinction prompts him to select easy courses; to take no more of them than he is obliged to take; to spend his time on one or two branches of study, neglecting all others entirely. This antagonism is truly lamentable; no one will deny that it should be removed if possible. To do this will necessitate radical changes in the system of ranking; but it should be noted that a radical, although gradual change has taken place from the prescribed to the elective system of study. Is it not time to make a corresponding change in the system of ranking?

We suggest the following changes to correct the evils enumerated above.

First.-Instead of valuing the various electives according to the number of hours of instruction per week, make the values proportional to the amount of work necessary on the part of the student. It would be difficult to determine this value for each elective exactly, but it would probably be very closely represented by the ratio between the average marks of the students of an elective for their freshman year, and their average marks in the elective. The former would be the nearest representation of the ability and industry of the members of the elective; the latter the result of the application of that ability and industry to the work of the elective. In the ideal elective the ratio would be 1, in difficult courses, above 1; in easy courses, below 1. Assuming 100 as the standard, some courses might count as high as 120; others probably as low as 80. The value of any course thus determined would vary but little from year to year, and by averaging the values for several successive years, a value would be determined that could be allowed to stand a decide without injustice-at least with infinitely less injustice than under the present system. In this way the undue attractiveness of easy courses would certainly be remedied.

Second.-This evil can be avoided only by considering, in making up the rank list, amount of work, as well as proficiency. Let the general rank list be made up by averaging two rank lists: one, the present list, representing proficiency; the other, representing amount of work, made up as follows. Find for each student the values of the electives in which he has received a certain per cent. (By fixing this per cent. at 60, 70, or 80, the tendency to superficial work could be repressed.) Arrange the students in the order of superiority, and assign to each position in this list, the per cent. which won the same relative position in the proficiency list. This plan, it is evident, gives as much importance to the quantity, as to the quality of work. It seems strange at first, but it is reasonable, and it would correct the evil.

Third.-For this evil there seems to be no radical cure; but it would be discouraged by recognizing fully the fact that a full course may afford only partial work to a student who has already taken a kindred elective. This is now partially recognized by prohibiting certain courses (as German 1 and 2, and Italian 1) to students who have taken other electives in the same branches. Now extend this principle to other courses; not excluding advanced students, but letting them count it only two-thirds, one-half, or one-third of their ordinary value, in proportion to the work which they ought to require from the student.

These three reforms in the ranking system would change the whole influence of the rank list. Collegiate distinction would count, as it should, as an encouragement to the very best work. L.