Radcliffe Likes Reading Period, Survey of Student Body Shows

Prevailing sentiment among the Radcliffe student body favors a continuation of Reading Period with little or no change, according to a report released yesterday.

The report analyzes the results of a questionnaire issued to the three upper classes at Radcliffe by a Student Government committee headed by Elizabeth Herrlich '57.

Out of 408 students who answered the questionnaire only five were in favor of abolishing Reading Period and four of those were in the Natural Sciences, in which most courses do not observe the period anyway.

One third of the students questioned requested a longer Reading Period, while many would like to see it divided into two equal parts, one occurring after midterms.

The chief positive values of the Reading Period, according to most of the answers, is the chance to integrate the previous material and to do individual unrequired work. Although many lamented the fact that they often utilized the time "just to catch up," this was blamed on "their own bad management" and not on the system itself.

Most girls, especially those in the Natural Sciences, thought that the purpose of Reading Period was defeated when some courses continued to meet, since one of the main advantages of the period is an uninterrupted time in which to concentrate.

The assignment of papers during Reading Period was universally condemned.

Since Reading Period was felt to be of little value in science, language, and fine arts courses, many students recommended a few days between the end of Reading and Examination Periods in which no classes of any type would meet, so that students in the above mentioned fields would not be so handicapped in regard to early examinations.