WORDS FLY FAST IN LIMITATION DEBATE

By a vote of 35 to 21 the Debating Union last night expressed a decided opinion in favor of limitation of enrollment in Harvard College by a change in scholastic requirements for entrance. More than 60 men were present and a large number entered the discussion.

With both sides agreeing on the need of some limitation, the debate centred upon the basis for discrimination to be adopted. J. D. Du Bois '24 and Corliss Lamont '24, on the affirmative, put forth, in brief, this plan: that the Freshman class be kept under 850 in number by preventing the repeated enrolment of dropped students without a second examination, by discouraging transfer students from other colleges, and, above all, by discontinuing fall entrance examinations, which are responsible, they maintained, for 75 percent of the Freshmen who go on probation. Further, they advocated an additional general examination designed to test the candidate's ability, potentiality, and breadth of culture instead of his acquisitive power.

Opponents Find Fault

Against this proposition, the negative, represented in the main speeches by E. St. R. Reynal '24 and Oliver La Farge '24, urged two objections.

Any examination system, they declared, operates against students outside of New England, where there are inferior opportunities for preparing for the examinations, and, in addition, it fails to measure the significant qualities of character and potentiality. Declaring that "requirements of character are needed rather than mere set mechanical requirements," they proposed to attach more weight to opinions of headmasters on prospective entrants and to interview personally each candidate.

Both sides found numerous critics and supporters in the discussion from the floor.