AFTERMATH

Post-mortems over the General Examinations will be heard intermittently until the results are announced. Meanwhile, it may be profitable to summarize the impression which last week's experiences have left. In the departments where the system has become well established and where the tutorial machinery is in working order, little complaint has been heard. In fact the History and the Economics examinations, though difficult, have been generally praised for their fairness. The Romance Languages, too, have been recognized as satisfactory. English, the field in which the largest number concentrated, has naturally roused the most comment, and deserves larger consideration.

Three definite points seem to stand out in the welter of criticism: 1. The choice of questions did not seem proportional between prose, poetry, and drama. 2. Without tutors or competent faculty advisers, most students have not been impressed with the importance of beginning their preparations early, nor have they been given the necessary guidance in planning it. 3. The nature of the questions this year required a moderately minute knowledge equally distributed over the whole field of literature; whereas a student's preparation would naturally provide a more thorough knowledge of one or two periods, and only a general knowledge of the rest.

The first complaint was due to an accident that will not be repeated next year. The second is a strong argument in favor of the Tutorial System in the English Department. At present the Divisional is tacked on to the regular work with nothing to make it effective. The consequence is wasted effort, haphazard preparation and many failures that might have been avoided. Until tutors are available the only recourse is to call upon faculty advisers for more active service, and to reiterate the advice that has been heaped upon Freshmen this year. Distribution must be completed early: English 28 should ordinarily be limited to students concentrating in other fields: general courses like English 41 should be taken not earlier than Sophomore and preferably Junior year, when they can be fully appreciated; and the work of Concentration, with those courses as a basis, should be emphasized in the Senior year.

Point number 3 is the most pertinent. The present examination calls for a fairly complete knowledge of the whole field. Why would it not be better to demand a thorough study of one or two periods, and a general survey of the rest, such as can be contained in a course like English 41? Clearly, most undergraduates cannot be expected to answer in detail such questions as "Langland as a Reformer", "Chronicle History Plays to 1616", "Diarists of the Restoration", and similarly minute subjects in each period. It would seem more reasonable to answer two of these completely and the others in less detail; but the present division of time and emphasis does not permit that choice.

The remedy is simple. Each student should signify which two periods he chooses for special study. Each of the present five periods should be divided into two types of questions, the first slightly more general, the second even more specific than at present. Then in two of the five periods each student would choose a question of the second type, and in the others one of the first type. A similar scheme should be carried out in the rest of the paper, though the Committee can doubtless devise simpler machinery to produce the same result, such as operates already in the French examination. The object, at all events, is to provide both easier questions and harder questions, and to apportion the emphasis between the two. The present compromise is satisfactory neither to the good student nor the poor, the specialist in one period nor the man who runs over the whole field. The proposed change will not make the examination easier nor the preparation less; it will simply make the aim of study clearer, and eliminate some of the uncertainty and injustice to individuals.