News
Harvard Medical School Cancels Student Groups’ Pro-Palestine Vigil
News
Former FTC Chair Lina Khan Urges Democrats to Rethink Federal Agency Function at IOP Forum
News
Cyanobacteria Advisory Expected To Lift Before Head of the Charles Regatta
News
After QuOffice’s Closure, Its Staff Are No Longer Confidential Resources for Students Reporting Sexual Misconduct
News
Harvard Still On Track To Reach Fossil Fuel-Neutral Status by 2026, Sustainability Report Finds
The Crimson's criticism of conditions in crew has been variously received. But it is as true today as it was yesterday that these conditions exist and demand criticism. It is, of course, easy to point out faults that appear on the surface, but it is more important to discover the fundamental weakness that lies deeper.
In the past three years the University has had the benefit of three coaching systems, all of them directed by men of known reputation. During the same period the University has had its full share of good material. But so far Harvard has been almost invariably unsuccessful.
What then is the answer? If coaching staff and material are both of high calibre and a crew fails to win, where does the fault lie? Does it not consist perhaps in the unique relation in Harvard rowing between captain, and advisory committee and coach?
No one would reason that coaching in football is the same as coaching in crew. But it seems only reasonable that a system of organization which has proved successful in other sports, might solve the problem in crew. The other four major sports have had success under unified control; crew has failed under an anomalous system of control.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.