(We invite all men in the University to submit communications on subjects of timely interest.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The editorial in Saturday's CRIMSON in regard to the method of conducting section meetings seems to me to be very good as far as it goes, but I do not think that it reaches the real root of the evil. I believe the true source of the trouble lies not so much in the method of conducting these meetings, as in the section men themselves. To these men is often entrusted the whole conduct of the course. They read the weekly papers, grade the hour examinations, theses, and finals. The professor often gives these men absolute power over the grades. This is particularly true in courses in Applied Economics.

The assistants are, more often than not, men of only too limited scope and ability. Their knowledge of the subject matter of the course is often gained by doing the reading required of the students themselves, whom they are supposed to assist in solving the knotty problems of the course. Obviously one in such a position is not a fit person to exercise complete jurisdiction over a large body of mature students.

From the facts stated above, it becomes clear that a radical change in the system of conducting such courses is imperative. There are two alternatives open, one of which must be adopted. Either an effort should be made to secure more capable assistants, or else the professor should feel it his duty to exercise a closer supervision over the students in his course. 1911.