THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.

EDITORS DAILY CRIMSON. - Now that the Conference Committee has ended its consideration of the marking system, the question may fairly be asked, how far it has fulfilled its purposes; to what extent it has satisfied student expectation. We see that much criticism of its non action has been ill-timed, when we recognize the difficulties connected with the subject with which it has to deal. Before any conclusion leading to an improvement of our status could be arrived at, much time necessarily was consumed. Hasty action would have been very undesirable. But we did expect the committee, taking all the time it wanted, ultimately to arrive at some conclusion, to suggest some remedy. What are the facts? Two resolutions have been passed that represent in their tenor student opinion, it is true, but only in a manner that any self-evident assertions would. We surely did not need a Conference Committee to tell us, after three months of discussion, that the present marking system of the university is unjust, and that it ought to be changed. What we wanted, what we expected was a recommendation to the faculty of a plan decreasing the present evils. This would have been an indication of student opinion. To the argument that "students cannot expect to originate a plan that will recommend itself to professors who have lived for years in an atmosphere of marks," we should answer that one of the purposes for the committee's existence is to stir the faculty up from the sterile atmosphere of extreme conservatism, and that we believe students can, by representing student sentiment, greatly assist intelligent faculty legislation, especially as five members of the committee are prominent members of the faculty.

If the proposed system "met with general approval," why was it not recommended to the faculty as a possible improvement over our present system? The difficulty is that the student members as a whole do not realize what is expected of them. Why does the committee exist unless for action, as well as discussion? Discussion without resulting action is practically worthless. To this fact that they do not appreciate their powers is due the result that three months of conference have produced two resolutions that, as regards weight of thought, could just as well have been passed at the first as at the last meeting. By results students at large must judge the committee. It is surely to be regretted that results thus far have been unsatisfactory.

* * *