DEAN LEIGHTON'S REPORT

An eighteen or nineteen year old Freshman, if he goes to a graduate school, may never complete his formal education until he is twenty-seven, old enough to be Vice President of a First National Bank. Dean Leighton, after proving beyond all argument that seventeen year olds do quite as well as their elders in the Freshman Class, suggests that the age level of graduates from preparatory schools, especially private schools, be lowered.

This, of course, is much the most logical solution to the age problem. But it will take more than perfect logic to convince the private schools to give up their boys a year earlier; they have a vested interest, backed by all the weight of tradition, in that seventeenth year, and will not quickly give it up.

If the schools continue to graduate their boys at 18 and 19, the pressure on the college will be great to make a three year college course available to larger and larger numbers. Already the "progressive" universities, under the leadership of Chicago, have made it easier for students to cut the length of their courses, even in some cases to two years. If Harvard cannot induce or cajole the schools to send their men here at an earlier age, she will be forced gradually to make a shorter course easier for future graduate scholars.

This alternative between getting Freshmen at an earlier age, and devising a three year course, boils down to a choice between a year at a school and a year at college around the age of seventeen. Which of the two is preferable? Dean Leighton assumes, and proves negatively, that the year at college is preferable at seventeen. If so, it is extremely important that during the next few years Harvard should break down the resistance of the schools, and progressively lower the age level of their graduates. This solution seems far better than cutting the length and fullness of the college course.