STANDARDIZATION.

The trend of recent years at Harvard has with little doubt been towards greater control of undergraduate work on the part of "the Office." Some alumni and friends of the University view with disapproval all changes making towards paternalism, towards a lessening of individual responsibility and freedom. But the tendency of the day is universally towards guidance and help to the average man at the possible expense of the single genius. The "make or break" theory is no longer in fashion. Therefore, all innovations making for a higher general average of undergraduate efficiency and success are to be considered as in line with progress.

But in such innovations there lies a considerable danger unless the changes are consistently carried out with due regard for all possible effects. Half measures are very often worse than no measures.

The chief benefit of the rule requiring the selection by May 1 of a list of courses for the following year is more deliberate and careful consideration by the average undergraduate of his work for the future. Such additional forethought is only of value, however, if it is spent in consideration of the kind and not of the amount of work.

If great differences exist between courses, the stiffening up of the office requirements can only result in over-emphasizing the advantages of the easier courses. Many men are of course, not influenced in their choice of courses by the amount of work; but these are not the men for whom the minimum requirements are being raised.

Much has been accomplished in recent years towards the elimination of the more notorious "snap" courses. But because of the influence of other changes, even more remains to be done.

There are certainly limits beyond which it is neither possible nor desirable to carry standardization. For some men fifty pages of economics requires an amount of time and effort equivalent to a hundred of English; for other men the ratio is quite different. In many cases the change should be towards a lessening and not an increase in the amount of work. But the fact remains that in any case there is great room for improvement. Every undergraduate is well acquainted with the existence of a large number of "snaps"; he is subject to the constant temptation to elect them in spite of the knowledge that to him they will be of little value. Certain whole departments--notably that of Philosophy--are the worst offenders. If the principles of scientific management and standardization are to be introduced at all, they should be adopted consistently.