Quite Right

(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer will names be withheld.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

I have no doubt whatever that the writer of your leading article on History 2 in today's number of the CRIMSON was actuated solely by the desire to offer constructive criticism. The criticism I would accept with greater alacrity if it were better fortified with accurate factual and statistical data. Almost every statement made in the editorial appears to me to be erroneous or misleading. Marriott's Revolution of 1848 was in no sense a prescribed book, and every member of--the course was free to read something else on the same subject. Now that I know that all members of the course were eager to read this particular work I appreciate the necessity of getting additional copies for the library. Since there has never been a complaint on this matter before, I take it that the great increase in the enrollment has created an unexpected difficulty. But let me pass to other points. Your writer states that there are approximately 200 men in the course. In reality there are only 160, so that your writer is rather wide of the mark. He is also rather misleading when he says that the thesis is due the week following the examination. This may be technically true, but permit me to state that the examination took place on December 9 and the thesis is due on December 20, giving a span of eleven days. Finally, your article describes a question on the examination as "covering one fourth of the time treated in the first half year." This statement is not exactly clear to me, but I fear it may give rise to an erroneous impression. The subject-matter of the question was discussed in two lectures out of more than thirty, and constituted about one fifth of one reading assignment.

These are all points of factual detail, but the treatment given them in your article is not such as will inspire confidence that the second question called for an essay on the July Monarchy, but it is clear to me from his further remarks, that he understood this to mean that he was to write the history of the July Monarchy in twenty minutes. His estimate of my judgment seems to be desperately low, but let that pass. My real purpose was to find out what the members of the course would say about the July. Monarchy if they had only fifteen minutes to say it. I believe and I still maintain that it is quite possible to give a brief characterization of the regime of Louis Philippe in the time allotted, provided the student knows enough about it to be able to distinguish what is important from what is unimportant. The misapprehension of your contributor seems to me like evidence that there is still a pronounced tendency on the part of some students to take a very literal and narrow view of their course work. William L. Langer.