NO. (1.
KDnOUIALS.
12!)
mucli the same way us individuals; and
v Jlu'fi'g uy tnc development ot lite lust
few months, we think thai own Universi
ty has been afllictcd most sorely in this
manner. Perhaps we should say, not by
the friends of the University so much as by
those of the two factions, whatever that
means, or of the two parties, whoever they
may be. Some outside friends, on each side,
scorn to think that the diiVcrcnccs within
the University could not be settled except
by their interference. They seem to have
forgotten that the parties engaged in it
were gentlemen and scholars: and, if they
did differ on a few, or even on many
points, thc had sclf-rcspcct and forbear
ance enough to settle or at least to drop
such questions. These oflicious friends
have widened a difference that never
should have come to the public; and
have given many people a kind of dis
gust with the University and with higher
education in general. The students arc,
on the whole, well suited with the work
the University is doing; and if certain
ovcr-zcalous friends will exercise a little
more judgment, or keep hands off entire
ly, they certainly will receive the thanks
of the students.
Now we do not wish to be understood
as denying the right of criticism to such
as think it is necessary; but we do claim
that vituperation and personal abuse is
beneath the dignity of anyone claiming
the name of gentleman. If there is any
occasion for change in the University, let
the reasons lie given in a gentlemanly and
straightforward manner; then, no doubt,
the desired end may be gained: but as
long as the slang dictionary is the princi
pal means of attack, harm only can result.
SYSTEMS OF EXAMINATIONS.
Within the limits of the present year,
so many irregularities have occured in
examinations, that a little attention is
demanded from both professors and stu
dents in the University. Wo are aware
that the question of discarding the exami
nations has been agitated by educators
for some time; and that some of the best
colleges in this country have thrown up
every system of marking that has been
known and practiced.
As to the wisdom of so radical a change
we arc not prepared to decide. The
great objection made by educators to the
idea of abandoning the system of marking
is that too frequently justice, dependent
upon the judgment of the professor, is
not always meted out in due proportion.
The teacher, it is said, has no method by
which he can know the real knowledge
of the student; we accept this argument
for what it is worth. But we are of the
opinion that those teachers are few who
cannot tell at the end of a term who will
pass and who will fail.
The argument for examinations might
be infallible, however, if in the uatuic of
the case, justice could be guaranteed by
a system of marking. But experience has
as frequently taught the professor and
the student that justice cannot be wholly
dependent upon mere marks; but as well
upon judgment and impartiality in the
class-room. But when judgment is lack
ing and prejudice and partiality reign
supreme, justice to a student is impossi
ble. The systems of examinations in the
University are many; each professor hav
ing his favorite way of marking. Some
mark the student in all cases much higher
than others. Hence, should class honors
be given, one can readily sec that his
grade would depend not so much upon
his true scholarship as upon the studies
ho had completed under the high mark
ing. An impartial judgment is perhaps
as true a mark as any student may desire,
but where that judgment, so vital to a
gentleman and a scholar, is deficient, tlien
marks must take its place and subserve
the ends of examinations.
If the time has now come in the Univer
sity, when a single objection on the part
of a professor utterly destroys the recog-
