To the Editors of The Crimson:
As a member of the History Department's Undergraduate Curriculum Committee and of the sub-committee which had special responsibility for drafting the Committee's proposal for a revision of the General Examination in History, I should like to correct a mistaken impression which some readers may get from the April 18 Crimson story on that proposal.
The fact that several students failed last year's General Examination was seldom even mentioned in the Committee's lengthy deliberation on the Generals; it played no role in the shaping of our proposal. Since our proposal would replace a one-shot exam by a three-part General Examination spread over the entire senior year, the likelihood of failures probably would be reduced. But that is a by-product of our suggestions, not the purpose of them. The Committee's proposal was not designed to keep a handful of students from flunking but to convert a General Examination of dubious value into a really useful educational experience for all history concentrators. I hope students and faculty alike will judge it on that basis. James Turner Teaching Fellow in History