Go to Grosscup's for Oysters and Confectionery.
THE WEEKLY
UNIVERSITY COURIER.
THE LARGEST COLLEGE JOURNAL CIRCULATION IN THE UNITED STATES.
Published Every Friday Morning by the
COURIER COMPANY,
For Kansas University Students.
DENTON DUNN, R. J. CURDY,
President. Secretary.
EDITORIAL STAFF:
*CYRUS GRANE, EDITOR-in-Chief*
F. G CROWELL,
F. G FIELDLED,
F. A EWHEELER,
F. K CENK,
A. C CUNKLE,
A. C WHOFES.
*AGNES WRIGHT*
BUSINESS MANAGERS:
DENTON HOGE BM. OM./ EARLE L. SWOPE.
Entered at the post-office at Lawrence, Kansas as second-class matter.
University Directory.
PHI GAMMA DELTA - Meets Saturday nights
10.15 Mass, 3l. st. floor.
PHI KAPPA Psi-Meets Saturday nights. 30
door opera house block.
PHI DELTA THETA—Meets Saturday nights, A.
O. U, W.Hall.
SIGMA CHI - Meets Saturday nights, 2d floor
Opera House block.
BETA THEFT PI -Meets Saturday nights, 4th floor Opera House block.
STOIA NU-Meets Saturday nights, I. O. O. F.
block.
KAPA ALPHA THREA-Meets Saturday after noon, No. 715 Mass, St. 3d floor
KAPPA KAPPA GAMMA—Meets Saturday after
names at homes of members.
OREAD LITERARY SOCIETY—Meets Friday af ternoon in its hall, University building, south wing, 3d floor. Pres., Denton Dunn; see'y Ella Ropes.
OPHILIANLITERARY SOCIETY -Meets Friday afternoons in its hall, University building, north wing, 3d floor. Pres., A. L. Wilmoth; secy., Liu A. Arnett.
KENT CLUB, of Law Students—Meets Friday nights in Court House. Pres., J. W. Roberts; sec'y, A. Overton.
PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY—Meets Thursdays at 3 p.m in Prof. Sayre's lecture room. W, H. McBri e, president; M. A. Rice, see'y.
PHILOLOGY—Meets second Friday of the month in Greek lecture room, University building, Pres., Prof. Robinson; see'y, Prof. Wilcox.
MOOT SKENATE—Meets in Orophilian hall every Saturday afternoon. President, John Mushrush: oerck, L. A. Baldwin.
ATORICAL ASSOCIATION—Pres., E. G. Blair;
sec'y, A. L. Wilmoth; Board of Directors.
Frank (Trowell, Dent Dunn, V. G. Kellogg
COLLEGE BRANCH Y. M.C.A.—Pres., F.J.
Gardner; see'y, L.T. Smith; meets every
Friday night in rooms of city association.
COLLEGE BRANCH Y. W, C. A., meets Sunday afternoons at homes of members.
COURIER Company—Pres., L. A. Gilbe t; sec'y Miss Emma Hynes.
REVIEW Company—Pres., S. W. Shattock.
BASE Ball Association—Sec'y, F. E.Ne.
BALL BASE
HANDEL & HAYDN
Choral : Society.
CONCERT!
AT THE ARMORY.
Tuesday Evening, Feb. 22
Admission with reserved seats, 50c
Box sheet opens at Field's Monday.
Last Friday Ottawa was completely overrun with students. About one o'clock the delegations from the University, Topeka and Baldwin arrived and marched in solid phalanx from the depot to the center of the town All along the streets the native gathered in groups or appeared a the windows gazing with open-eyed wonder at the vast horde of students yelling and cheering every step on the way. All day long the visitor made things lively in the town, and the citizens good-naturedly let them enjoy themselves. The entire after noon was given up to gayiety of every kind. The bear-dance was performed repeatedly to admiring crowds. The shrieking hand orgar and the college yells turned the usual quiet of the town into a hideout pandemonium of sound. While from Armory hall came the sweet sound of orchestral music, in unison with which, the fair daughters of Bake and the valiant sons of the State University were tripping the light fantastic.
But at length the day wore away, and the night of the Fourth Oratorical Contest of Kansas colleges came. By eight o'clock the opera house was packed. After some delay consequent upon securing a judge, J. L. Bristow, vice-president of the association appeared on the stage accompanied by Dr. Hoss. The orchestra played a tune after which Dr. Hoss made the invocation. Music again by the orchestra and then the first speaker, L. H. Hibbard of Emporia college, was announced. Mr. Hibbard's subject was: "The Prejudice for Antiquity." He showed how time changes the ideas and opinions of men. He then discoursed at length upon the merit and worth of the old man with the bald head, the hour glass and the scythe. It was certainly a very queer topic for an oration but was well worked up and showed care in its preparation. Mr. Hibbard's delivery was easy but his voice weak and his gestures angular.
Otis Holmes, of the State Normal, gave the second oration, subject: "Of These Things Upon Which We Now Sleep, We Shall Some Day Cease to Dream." Mr. Holmes began with Lord Macaulay's prediction in regard to the future of this country. He poirted out the great danger of indifference in matters of legislation yet no one can deny that such indifference exists. He closed with the sentence which he used for the subject of his oration. Mr. Holmes' delivery was graceful and forcible, this, together with the excellence of his production made him a favorite with the audience; in the opinion of many he deserved even a higher place than was awarded him.
Arthur W. Brewster of Washburn College, was the third speaker. Mr. Brewster spoke on "Patriotism." The subject was of course an old one, and many thought that this would tell against him. But, on the contrary, it found favor with the judges. The oration was well written and finely delivered. Mr. Brewster is magnetic and fiercible and with the eradication of a few faults will undoubtedly make an excellent speaker. He was
awarded second place.
Next came our own representatives H. B. Hamilton. He delivered substantially the same oration with which he won the local contest, "Labor ai dLove,"which was undoubtedly the best production of the evening in point of thought, logical arrangement and care of preparation, and this much was conceded by a large majority of the audience. After the program was finished the Lawrence delegation was as confident of victory as ever. But ___
Ottawa was represented for the third time by a young lady, Miss Jennie Sherman, who spoke on "England's Injustice to Ireland." The subject shows plainly the drift of the oration. Miss Sherman's delivery was earnest, but somewhat monotonous.
P. P. Campbell of Baker, the last speaker, chose as his subject "What of the Republic." Mr. Campbell had another old subject but his manner of treatment was different from college writers in general. He showed ths reasons why he thought that national perpetuity was an established fact. He took a very cheerful view of the situation, and this probably gained him favor with the judges. Mr. Campbell's delivery was excellent in many respects. His voice is rich and deep, his enunciation clear and his gestures graceful, though too numerous to be powerful. Mr. Campbell was given first place and will represent Kansas in the Inter-State contest.
The judges were Hon. R. Hatfield, Senator A. L. Redden and ex-Gov. Thos. A. Osborne. Senator Redden was unable to be present, but his marks on thought and composition were used and Dr. Gullett of Ottawa, marked on delivery. While the president and secretary were figuring the grades, the audience was entertained by the Ottawa and Washburn quartettes, Dan Crew and the orchestra. After a tedious period of waiting, the decision giving Baker first and Washburn second was announced and was received with ap plause by the audience and with vociferous cheers and yells by the Baldwin students. After the contest a reception was given at the Baptist church.
THE MARKS Senator Redden.
Contestants Thought Composition Delivery Average Rank Final Rank
Hibbard . . . . .
R. Hatfield.
Hibbard ... 87  91  75  84  4
Holmes ... 87  91  75  84  3
Hamilton ... 87  91  75  87  4
Hamilton ... 80  85  87  84  4
Sherman ... 80  85  87  84  5
Campbell ... 88  95  90  93  3
Hibbard ... 65 75 79 76 5
Holmes ... 82 81 80 81 3
Hamilton ... 82 81 80 81 4
Sherman ... 78 90 89 82 4
Carmichael ... 75 70 80 83 4
Canell ... 82 81 80 83 4
T. A. Osborne.
THE MARKING SYSTEM
An Excellent Communication from Prof. Marsh.
LAWRENCE, KANSAS, FEB. 14, '87.
LAWRENCE, KANSAS, FEB. 14, '87.
EDITOR COURIER:—Dear Sir:—In the Courier of Saturday last I was glad to find what seemed to me a
fair and courteous editorial on the marking system. It is not so long since my own student days that I have forgotten how real a grievance an apparently unjust or uneven marking system is. And since I am led by an item in the same Coulier to suppose that I am one of the chief sinners in the way that students esteem over severe marking, I am very glad of the opportunity your editorial affords me to say my say on the subject. Nothing seems to me of more importance than that there should be a full understanding between students and professors as to this matter, in which perhaps the strain is greatest on the relations between them.
Let me preface discussion of the subject by saying that I can speak for no member of the faculty except myself; and further, that every student is far better able to judge of the comparative severity of various professors, than is the individual professor. I do not pretend to know whether my own marking is more or less severe than that of others, except in so far as I can judge from what is said by students. I must not, therefore, be taken as extolling or criticising the methods of marking of others. I am absolutely ignorant of what those methods are. I have had to consider the question for myself, as indeed all instructors have to do, and my system of marking is the result of my inquiries. The question was to get as natural a method as was possible,—I mean a method as near as possible to the natural judgment of the performances of men, which we find in the world at large. I shall here set down the course of my reasonings for the benefit of those who believe as I do, that this question should be very fully discussed by both faculty and students.
There are two possible methods, speaking broadly, by which the work of students may be graded. The first is according to the student; the second according to results. Using the first method, an instructor makes up his mind as to the student's mental capacity. Then if the student does a fair amount of regular work, and if he produces results corresponding with the instructor's estimate of his capacity, he gets a first grade mark. In short, in this system a first grade mark means that the student has on the whole done as much as was expected of him. It is to be noticed that this method purposely brings it about that differences in capacity and in previous mental training shall not show in the results. The grade-one student may be of very meagre capacity and very inferior training, or of excellent capacity and training; in either case his mark will only tell him that he has done as much as his instructors thought him capable of.
Using the second method, on the other hand, the instructor makes up his mind from his experience of students and of others, as to what results may be expected from a student of first rate abilities and of first rate previous training, with regard to the particular subject in hand. Results like these he takes as constituting a right to a first grade. And those
students who fail to approach this standard he places in lower grades according to their several merits. Comparatively few students will approach this standard. I should say from my own experience of students, that out of any ten students as they run, it would be tair to expect one to attain a first grade, three a second grade, five a third grade, and one to fail. I say this is what it would be fair to expect, supposing that all have been subjected to the same severity of examination in the previous stages of their student life, and that the class is not any respect phenomenal.
Now I say frankly that the second of the above methods is that which has seemed to me most natural, and which I have myself adopted. I have not found that in the world at large men are judged by their several capacities,—no, but by the results they obtain. A. of slender ability and poor training, though he accomplishes all that can fairly be expected of him is not put in the same category with B of first rate powers and training, who accomplishes all that can be expected of him. On the contrary, A must make far more than ordinary exertions, he must make up in some degree his deficiencies, in order to stand anywhere near B in people's estimation. Furthermore I cannot see how I could possibly carry the first method to its logical conclusion. Instructors are often asked to recommend their students. The logical thing to do, whether one marks by the first or by the second method, is to recommend equally all first-grade students, or a'all second grade students, and so on. But it is simply impossible in practice for an instructor marking by the individual to do this. Here are M and N, both first-grade students. Both, so far as they know, have a right to be put on a par in recommendation. But M is first rate in ability and training, besides faithful; N is third-rate in ability and training, though as faithful as M. Can there be any doubt that the instructor will feel M's superiority and that he will recommend him in preference to N?
Is it not then, fairer to students themselves to mark them by results? Should N be made to think that his work is as good as M's? Is it not in the long run, more satisfactory to N to know that, judged by the standard of first-rate students, he is getting only moderate results? Indeed, I do not see how students can make their marks a means of education for themselves, unless they are treated with this perfect openness. Many a student has found his failure, when thus marked by a severe professor, the making of his intellectual life. He has thus been shown that something was wrong with him—capacity or training, or industry—and he has set himself to work with even greater determination than before and has in the end made up those deficiencies under which he labored.
I had meant to speak of some other points, but I have been too long already. I earnestly hope the discussion may be continued in the Courier in the temper in which it has been begun. It will be of service to faculty as well as students. I am, sir, Very truly yours,
ARTHUR RICHMOND MARSH.
A. G. Menger's is Headquarters for Boots and Shoes.