AT a meeting of the Faculty early in the year the following vote

AT a meeting of the Faculty early in the year the following vote was adopted: “That with a view to the attainment of a more systematic and intelligent arrangement of courses, the encouragement of discussion of questions of common interest, the promotion of a broader scholarship and the increase in the dignity of our graduate degrees, a special committee be appointed to consider the advisability of a closer coordination of. work of allied departments, by the adoption of the division method of departmental organization or some similar system, and to report its conclusion to the Faculty." A committee wasappointed and after careful deliberation offered a plan, which has been adopted, for the organization of the Faculty into seven divisions for the discussion of problems and the formulation of plans of common interest to the departments represented. The division is intended to be essentially a consultative and a deliberative body. The scheme is not designed to deprive a department of its independence. In a matter vitally affecting its independence, the ultimate decision would of course rest with the department concerned, and it would accept only so far as it saw fit, the advice and opinions of associated departments. It is believed that the plan will be found in practice not only to add no administrative burdens, but on the other hand, to lighten many tasks, and simplify much of the Faculty's labor, through harmonious cooperation. It will, for example, bring to bear upon current problems the advice and suggestions of those peculiarly interested in their solution, and will relieve the Faculty and its committees of many questions of a specialized nature in which necessarily only a small group of the Faculty can be interested.

The specific advantages which the committee found in the plan proposed and adopted were classed under three heads:

1. The strengthening of the curriculum. Through the medium of the division meetings, conflicts can be avoided in the hours of courses of different departments which should properly be taken by students at the same time, duplications can be prevented, and closely related courses can be arranged so that they shall be taken in their proper order. In the division meetings, new courses can be discussed and their bearing upon existing, courses considered. By the division, announcements can be issued to serve as guides to students seeking training for specific careers, and in these announcements courses can properly be explained at length, thus relieving the annual catalogue of much of its present matter.

2. An aid to elections by students. This advantage has already been suggested. Whether we adopt the system of faculty advisers or continue our present system of independent election, it is obvious that the division organization will prove of value. An adviser will be far more efficient as a member of a division than merely as a member of an independent department, and even without advisers, the division announcements of courses and the cooperative spirit engendered by the division system will have a tendency to check the present happy-go-lucky method of securing a college degree.

3. The strengthening of the graduate work and the increase in dignity of the graduate degree. The chairman of the Graduate Committee recently expressed the opinion that the great advantage of our graduate work consisted in its influence as a stimulus to the faculty and an incentive to scholarship in the undergraduate body. It is thought that the division plan of organization will promote this object, for to the division Can be entrusted the formulation of a candidate's course of study, the general oversight of his work, the general criticism of his thesis, his examination, and his recommendation to the Graduate Committee for his appropriate degree. Beyond acting as a stimulus to the members of the Faculty engaged in the direction of this kind of work, and the broadening and strengthening of the work accomplished, the division organization will add dignity to the degree conferred by reason of the fact that the candidate will be endorsed by the entire division rather than by a single department. This plan does not contemplate any diminution of the powers of the. Graduate Committee. The latter still perforins its valuable function as the guardian of the integrity of the graduate degree.

The Faculty has been divided as follows :

1. Division of Classical Philology : Greek, Latin, Linguistics, Classical Archaeology.

Chairman, Professor J. K. Lord.

2. Division of Modern Languages andLiteratures: English, Romance Languages, German, Linguistics.

Chairman, Professor Emery.

3. Division of Mathematical Sciences: Mathematics, Graphics, Civil Engineering, Physics, Astronomy.

Chairman, Professor Worthen.

4. Division of Physical and NaturalSciences: Chemistry, Biology, Histology, Anatomy, Bacteriology, Physiology, Hygiene, Anthropology, Physics, Geology.

Chairman, Professor Patten.

5. Division of Social Sciences: History, Modern History, Political Science, Economics, Sociology.

Chairman, Professor Wells.

6. Division of Philosophy and the Historyof Religion : Philosophy, Education, Biblical Literature.

Chairman, Professor Campbell.

7. Division of Fine Arts: Fine Arts, Archaeology, Music, Aesthetics.

Chairman, Professor Morse.

The return of Mr. Keyes, after two years spent in study abroad, to assume direction of the work to be undertaken in Fine Arts, and the provision in Dartmouth Hall for the development of this work, have called attention to this addition to the curriculum and its significance. At present the fundamental idea of the Department of Fine Arts is that the relation of these arts to human needs is as intimate as is that of literature, despite the fact that the study of the latter has long held the predominant, place in college curricula. The effect of either upon conduct is perhaps problematic; the fact remains that, while a man may divorce himself from literary influences, he is continually entering the domain of the fine arts. Home, office, school house, public building are the products of taste, good or bad; they bespeak the artistic feeling of individual or community. Taste can not be developed without contact with worthy criteria. The furnishing of criteria will be the first duty of the department, and this will be done by the introduction of courses both historical and theoretical, the one forming a definite background for the other. In matters such as this it is easy to confuse the general issue in the accumulation of detail. It will take some time and no little experiment to adapt the work of the department to the actual requirements of the student. It is one thing to teach names and dates and the location of pictures; quite another to make the highest ideals of art definitely a part of daily life and thought. As for equipment the department has quarters in Dartmouth Hall. The seminar room is sheathed in wood and covered with burlap, for the purpose of giving a proper setting to photographs and such other objects of art as may be acquired by the department. Work has been begun with an outfit of 1500 photographs, illustrative of Italian painting, and 500 or more illustrative of painting in Germany and the Netherlands. Thanks to the Moore fund, this modest beginning promises to find yearly increase through the acquirement of further photographs, stereopticon slides, and such books as would not otherwise find their way into the library.

The Dartmouth board on March 28 elected G. H. Howard '07, editor-in-chief for next year. Mr. Howard and Mr. Bartlett of the same class were the candidates for the position. Mr. Bartlett has been the Athletic Editor, while Mr. Howard has been the Alumni Editor. A committee had been appointed at a previous time to report upon the work of the candidates, and had reported in favor of Mr. Bartlett. The Dartmouth board, however, had specifically stated in a vote at the beginning of the year that it would not consider the recommendation of this committee mandatory. The defeated candidate is a man of much ability and genuine journalistic instincts. He has devoted his whole time practically to journalistic work. He has contributed to TheDartmouth much more material that has been used than has the editor elect. On the other hand, Mr. Howard is a man of wider activities. He was editor-in-chief of The Aegis this year, and he was a member of one of the College Debating teams. On a question of preference between these two good men, the board decided by a narrow majority in favor of Mr. Howard. The editor-in-chief for this year felt that an injustice had been done, and in the issue of March 30 wrote an editorial severely critical of the election, ending, "It is to be regretted that in a college which professes a belief in democratic principles true merit should not receive its just reward." At the request of Mr. Howard and Mr. Bartlett an investigating committee was appointed to review the case, consisting of Professors Richardson and Emery and Mr. Keyes. This committee went into all the circumstances carefully, and reported its opinion, that it found the election thoroughly legal and honorable.

This is the outline of the case about which there has been considerable inquiry, due to the editorial referred to before. Mr. Bartlett was given to understand by those in control of The Dartmouth that if he fulfilled certain conditions the election should rightly be his. He more than fulfilled these. Mr. Libby has edited The Dartmouth with care and ability, and wrote what he honestly thought, in his attack upon the justice of the election. It is not right, however, that Mr. Howard should stand misrepresented in this matter. He believed that a man with ability to write creditably, whose contributions had been regular, had a right to stand for election, though much less of his work might have been published. The board believed so too, and elected him. There is every reason to expect that the weekly will be edited with ability and satisfaction under his direction. The mistake in the affair was the editor's assumption that his definition of true merit was all inclusive and his publication of an editorial which had the appearance of carrying personal prejudice into public print, though this appearance belied his real purpose.

THE BI-MONTHLY gladly publishes in another column a communication from Professor Fay upon the editorial of the February issue about the Ph.D. degree. With the argument of this — namely, that college teaching should be regarded essentially as a profession, that those who practice it should have a proper preparation, and that proper preparation means careful and exact preparatory work—few would differ. Exception is taken, however, to Professor Fay's interpretation of certain statements of the editorial. “German methods" is a term which has a specific meaning in English and American educational nomenclature, and it does not signify breadth of general knowledge; neither does it signify, to the average man, painstaking and professional work of teacher with student. The Princeton system strives after all of these, and was, therefore, called a reaction against German methods. Again the editorial protested against the spirit of fetichism toward the degree, rather than against the degree itself, and had no wish to disparage the value of the degree when held by one like the writer of the communication. The proportion of preceptors at Princeton who hold the degree has little bearing upon the discussion, since they are avowedly picked men, and men who are eager to use their attainments in teaching.

It would be the height of folly to argue against the advantages of three years of graduate work for the man who is to make college teaching his profession. If THE BI-MONTHLY had undertaken, however, to question whether these three years may be more profitably spent in working within the confines of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree than otherwise it would have found the question open to discussion and being discussed. Specialized scholarship, with all its advantages, means, in too many cases the narrowing of a man's interests, and these tendencies in specialization seem to be at their maximum in the requirements for the Ph.D. degree. Many men avoid the logical results, but the tendencies are strong nevertheless. Speaking of Professor Shaler's death at Harvard, The Outlook says editorially in the issue of April 12: "His death diminishes the altogether too small number of men in whom specialized scholarship has not made impossible broad culture and human sympathy." The Nation of April 12 has an editorial on “Teaching literature in Colleges." It says, speaking of the training for the doctor's degree in this country:

"If a doctor emerges from the purlieus of Anglo-Saxon devotional translations, or of Middle English doggerel romance, with any capacity for forming or conveying general ideas, say, on Shakesperian drama or the poetry of Wordsworth, why, that is so much good luck; it is nowise nominated in his bond of appointment. Not only are hundreds of our graduate students untrained as regards literature they are also expressly trained away from any fruitful thinking on that topic.

"Research, falsely so called, and scientific method have tyrannized over our university education chiefly because they afford a ready road by which mediocrity may proceed to academic honors."

Then, after commending the requirements in France for the degree of Docteur ès Lettres, this editorial goes on to say:

“Compare with this decent, orderly, and progressive course that of the average American university student of letters. He spends three or four years studying subjects that he will rarely teach, and which, in bulk, he will repudiate on the day of his liberation. He produces under stress, and merely to gain the needful hallmark of a Doctorate of Philosophy, an inchoate dissertation that preposterously passes for a contribution to the sum of human knowledge.'"

The good teacher is a better teacher the greater his preparation. Old truths can be better taught if a man is searching for new ones. But as between a man who is master of the subject he is to teach and who has a teacher's instinct, and the man who has no taste for teaching but has a degree won by three years of accumulation of unavailable facts, there can be no question concerning relative values as far as colleges are concerned. A very great teacher said many years ago “I had rather speak five words with my Understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."

The union of the Dartmouth and the Washington arms is a subject of heraldry in which many Dartmouth men are interested. A recent discovery along this line adds its evidence to that so carefully collected heretofore by Mr. Charles T. Gallagher. Among the interesting books in the College Library is a copy, "The Reports of Sir Edward Coke, London, 1776." The set formerly was owned by the Honorable Jeremiah Mason, whose autograph appears on the title pages and on the blank leaves in the fronts of the volumes. Under the name of Judge Mason is that of the Honorable jeremiah Smith, 1793, showing that the work previously had been in his possession. Upon the end-paper opposite appears the name of Wm. Amory, showing, doubtless, a still earlier ownership. Recently, as the autograph of Judge Mason was being compared with the handwriting of his brief in the Dartmouth College Case, in order to ascertain if this also is the original autograph, the outlines of a book-plate under the end-paper were discovered. Upon the removal of this paper, there was disclosed the finely engraved exlibris of “The Honorable Heneage Legge, Esq.," with the Washington arms quartered in the Dartmouth escutcheon, in a form different from that heretofore known. Thus this old book tells the interesting history of the connection of the Washington and the Dartmouth families, and of the successive ownership of the volumes: first by an uncle of the Lord Dartmouth who gave his name to the College; then by Jeremiah Smith, one of the counsel in the Dartmouth College Case; afterwards by Jeremiah Mason, who doubtless used it in the preparation of his great argument in this case; and .finally by the College whose history is so intimately associated with these illustrious names. The present Lord Dartmouth claims the right to quarter his arms with those of the Washington family, but the only other instance of their combination known to the College is on a tablet to the memory of William Legge in the wall of the Church of the Holy Trinity in the Minories, London. Here the quarterings are limited to the stag's head of the Dartmouth escutcheon and the mullets and bars of the Washington arms.

TUCK SCHOOL BUILDING