To the Editor of the CRIMSON:
I was interested in the editorial on History 2 which you printed, and in Professor Langer's reply. It is perhaps superfluous to reopen the subject, as I have nothing in particular to offer, but I do wish to express the fact that the course aroused in myself at times something of the spirit in which I believe your editorial was written. It may not, as Professor Langer demonstrates, accord with the facts, but there was certainly much about the course to exasperate the student. The combination of assignments of considerable, though not for this university unique, length, with breath-taking and nerve-wracking examinations and a considerable strictness in correcting and grading appealed more to gambling instincts than to anything else. There was at times a pleasant exhilaration about it, but it readily gave place to discouragement, even for a person who considered himself at least passably prepared. I will gladly maintain that the sweets of the course still outweigh the bitters, but that conclusion is coloured by the fact that I received a passing grade, which was not the fortune of everyone in the course.
These opinions can no more be supported by facts than your editorial, but I am convinced that, for an undergraduate course, History 2 offers rather a hard front to the student.