The Marking System.

The radical defect of our present marking system is that it ignores the basis of Harvard's educational system, - individuality in work and self-development. Our mathematical scale, based on an average of per cents, is really no basis for class-rank, under the elective system; for such an estimate of individual proficiency assumes, first, the absolute equality of studies different in kind, and then, as a natural consequence, the infallibility of per cents as a common measure of knowledge of these different studies. Both these assumptions are so plainly absurd and inconsistent with our theory of education, and the unjust character of their actual operation is so well known, that I will not stop here to prove the inadequacy of our present system of marking and ranking. But the very absurdity of the system will serve to point out the way to reform.

The main object of all our examinations is to test individual proficiency with sufficient definiteness to enable the university to bestow its degrees and honors. Any such testing, however, must evidently be based on the character of individual work; otherwise it is not merely unjust, but it is a farce, pretending to represent what it really ignores. Now the character of individual work at Harvard varies with every man, and is resolvable only into the nature of the several courses he pursues. We must, therefore, lay down as a general rule for every examination, that it shall represent, in its method and character, the nature of the subject on which it is held. Then the examination will be a true test, and its results will constitute the proper basis for the university's certificates. No matter what combination of courses a student pursues, he will be credited with just the kind of acknowledgment which his work demands.

Now as to the application of this principle and its results. We may remark at once, that the present written examination system has been an indispensable accompaniment and tool of the percentage-marking now in vogue. The scale is too fine, in any case, but is less easily applied to other means of testing, such as recitations, than to an examination paper; some scale, of course, is necessary, but it must be coarse enough to be applied justly to every kind of test. With these mutual limits, then, let us define to some extent our test; then our marking system will be practically developed also. Many studies, and most of our courses, can properly be tested only in part, - and that often a very small part, - by means of written examinations. For instance, one of the extreme follies of the present system can be seen in our examination papers on Elocution; for this subject, it need hardly be said, should be tested by declamations and readings. And so with many other subjects. In each case the tests should represent the work, should be a part of the work of the course itself. The number and delicacy of experiments, in Experimental Physics or Chemistry; the accuracy and improvement in pronunciation, in speaking foreign tongues; the excellence of original composition, in some of our English and musical courses; - all these are natural tests, and are also a part of the regular work of such studies. Such tests are, indeed, in many cases, already used, as a matter of necessity, by many instructors, thus proving the soundness of our principle in the very face of the present marking system. For no teachers more than these appreciate the utter inadequacy and injustice of the percentage scale, with its general average. Here, all feel the necessity of a coarse scale, say, with 5 or 10 as the maximum mark.

But it is also very true, that certain parts of many studies can be best tested by written examinations. Let us then accept written examinations without hesitation in these cases; but let the general coarse scale be applied here too; for it is still necessary, and we cannot fairly distinguish, in marks, between different parts of the same subject, or between different subjects. But, - and this is a most important consideration, - as Harvard grows and takes on a more university character, written examinations tend steadily to disappear. For this means of testing is only suited to the technical, elementary, or detailed parts of our studies; and the courses of Harvard are gradually losing these characteristics, and acquiring the broad, university aspect which befits us.

Therefore we need some general substitute, not only for written examinations, but for the special tests, already suggested, which may soon be diminished in many courses, owing to a corresponding change in the nature of these studies. Moreover, these substitutes must be in each case fitted to the particular character of the subject. This seems a hard problem, and perhaps would be, had it not, like many other urgent questions, begun to solve itself. Everyone has noticed the growing importance of thesis-writing in college; it is now acknowledged to be necessary to the pursuit of such studies as Philosophy and Political Economy, and its field is gradually widening. The languages, History, and (at least in the mathematical seminars) Mathematics, are all beginning to recognize the use and need of this exponent of knowledge; while last year's list of forensic topics shows how well adapted theses are to deal with other subjects, as Natural History. Now, theses writing tends to become necessary in just the degree in which written examinations tend to become useless, - in proportion to the advent of a more general character in our studies. Wherever, then, theses became useful, they would form a proper test; and I believe that they will become the chief means of examination for this very reason. But here, again, a coarse scale of marking is absolutely necessary; only an approximately definite mark could be given for the year's work, as any corrector of theses will certify. But the test will be thorough, and will exactly represent individual work in each case.

So we see that, whatever combination of studies we have to deal with, individual marks and averages must be on a coarse scale; the system I suggest will be less definite, but more correct and just, than the present system. And it will serve the purposes of the university in determining degrees and honors. But it will do away entirely with our system of class ranking, because no such individual comparison can be justly made under an elective system. Each man will simply get credit for what he has done, and he will therefore aim at true proficiency, in place of any false, superficial honor. The objection will here be made, that scholarships cannot be assigned with accuracy. And to this I reply, first, that in considering a university's system of education, the assignments of scholarships is an entirely incidental matter, and should therefore be subordinated to the general policy. If the system proposed serves the purposes of the university, that is sufficient to maintain it, and to overthrow other objections. And, as a matter of fact, the few highest scholars will get their deserts anyway; and the doubt only rests with the remaining applicants for scholarships. Here, indeed, decision will be difficult, but it will be rendered on a just basis, and will therefore be more satisfactory than at present. In giving up the present marking system, we must forfeit some incidental conveniences, in behalf of justice and consistency in educational matters. The present system is strong by its definiteness, but this convenience serves no true university end; while the scheme here roughly suggested is not only consistent with Harvard's educational theory, but grows naturally and inevitably out of it. J. W. R.