The experience of all students who are candid with themselves, must lead them to oppose exact numerical marking. Princeton, Pennsylvania, Ann Arbor, and Johns Hopkins, have discarded it, adopting grading by classes. Why is Harvard so backward? Why is it that this college dedicated to truth clings with such tenacity to an outgrown institution? The students should raise a voice condemning this evil. And this voice should be heard in the conference with no uncertain sound. The resolution which was tabled expressing a foregone conclusion, should have been passed, and ought certainly to be passed at the next meeting. With this expression of student opinion, the need of a change will be felt more strongly in the faculty, and a change may thereby be hastened.
Another meeting of the Conference has been held, and the result can be summed up in the one word discussion. A mass of information has been received, which throws much light upon the subject of discussion, - the marking system; but beyond this one accomplishment, nothing has been done. This seems unfortunate. The marking system in our college is unfitted for the elective system. It works injustice to the students, encourages an unscholar-like tendency to work for marks, and prevents the establishment of high motives for study. Students are dwarfed by it, to the low stature of grinds for marks. Injudicious selections of courses are encouraged by it. Cribbing thrives under it. The marking system is based on an absurdity, and a just application of it is impossible.