To the Editors of the CRIMSON:
The CRIMSON has criticized the SCCEP report on Sophomore Standing because "its conclusions are certainly not supported by the poll," and because it did not mention that a substantial majority of those answering favored continuation of the program.
A large portion of the report is derived directly from the poll. Particularly, we said, "The Committee's poll revealed extraordinary shallowness in students' perceptions of the program." As indicated in the report, this impression was derived not only from four questionnaires quoted directly, but from careful reading of the entire response.
Again, in the appendix to the report, we cited figures showing that of the 133 respondents:
38 accepted for "flexibility in course selection." But a student familiar with the College knows a freshman can enter almost any course for which he is remotely qualified. The only flexibility comes for a student staying four years, but supposedly the exemptions are granted solely in order to permit acceleration.
19 were interested in prestige.
22 wished to escape physical training.
23 accepted because they weren't familiar enough with the program to feel that there were reasons for turning it down.
29 entered in order to escape lower level General Education--an aim flatly inconsistent with the avowed purpose of Sophomore Standing.
Finally, we referred to the questionnaire at length in reaching the conclusion that the issue of acceleration was really not paramount in students' entering the program. Only 22 out of 133 definitely intended to graduate in three years.
The assertion that the questionnaire does not support the report is untenable if the report is read with any care. Implying that student support of the program makes the report inconsistent with the questionnaire ignores the fact that academic policy is not and should not be made by student vote. George A. Ranney '62, Chairman, Student Council Committee on Educational Policy.