known by him to be ineligible under the above rules to represent the University upon such organization, or to represent it individually under the auspices of such organization; nor shall any manager or captain of any athletic team permit any person to train for such team without first obtaining the necessary certificate of satisfactory physical condition.

As freshman under the above rules are not allowed to represent the University on a 'Varsity Athletic Team, the question arose as to whether it was the policy of the University to grant leaves of absence to freshman teams to compete in intercollegiate contests. This question was referred to the University Faculty and on October 12th, 1906, the Faculty voted that the Committee on Student Organizations be authorized to grant leaves of absence to freshman teams to compete in intercollegiate athletic contests under such conditions and restrictions as the committee may deem wise and proper.

In accordance with this action of the Faculty, the Committee on Student Organizations has granted permission to the freshman football, baseball, and track teams to engage in one intercollegiate contest respectively outside of Ithaca.

The object of the University in forbidding students in their first year of residence to represent the University on a 'Varsity Athletic Team was to avoid the distraction from study, incident to training in competition in such major branches of sport as rowing, baseball, football, etc. Some of the minor sports such as hockey, golf, cricket, and association football are not open to these objections, and the Faculty voted on the 12th of October, 1906, that the Committee on Student Organizations be authorized to waive rule III, b, in case of students in their first year of residence other than freshman, who wish to engage in any minor sport except basketball and lacrosse. Subsequently on April 5th, 1907, the University Faculty passed a general rule allowing freshmen to play on 'Varsity cricket and association football teams. The question arose as to the application of Rule IV, c, to students who were undergraduates at the time the rule went into effect, but whose class graduated before that time; and to students who were undergraduates at the time the rule took effect, but whose class had not yet graduated. The President ruled that Rule IV, c, applies to both the cases mentioned, and the ruling was sustained by the Faculty. By this ruling a student whose

class graduated in 1906 was declared ineligible to represent the University, although the rule was passed while he was an undergraduate.

3.

COMMITTEE ON STUDENT CONDUCT

For the constitution of the Committee on Student Conduct see Dean's Report, 1902-1903, p. XI.

On March 8th, 1907, Professor F. Irvine resigned from the Committee on Student Conduct and on April 5th, Professor W. L. Drew was duly elected to fill his place. The principal duty of the Committee on Student Conduct has been to deal with cases of fraud in examination. Their jurisdiction in such cases has been somewhat limited by the establishment in some of the Colleges of the so-called "honor system" in examinations. The movement began by the withdrawal of several Colleges from the usual system of final examinations held during a fixed period at the end each term, known as block week, and on December 19th, 1906, the University Faculty empowered each College Faculty to conduct its examinations in such manner as it may deem wise. This action has been attended by much inconvenience and inconsistency. The question has arisen as to the method of procedure to be followed in the examination of classes consisting of students in various Colleges of the University. In some of these Colleges the so-called "honor system" has been adopted, in others the old system is still in vogue. In some Colleges cases of fraud in examination would be reported to the Committee, in others they would be settled by a committee of the students. The chairman of the Committee on Student Conduct called the attention of the University Faculty to the above state of affairs, and asked to have the jurisdiction of the committee defined by the Faculty. After some discussion the President of the University ruled that the jurisdiction of the Committee on Student Conduct was not impaired by the action of the Faculty taken December 19th, 1906, by which each Faculty was empowered to conduct its examinations in such manner as it deemed wise. The fact, however, remains that the jurisdiction of the Committee in cases of fraud in examination has been limited to those Colleges which have not adopted the "honor system" in examinations. For in the Colleges which have adopted the "honor system " cases of fraud in examination will be dealt with by the students themselves and will not be reported to the Committee on Student Conduct. The Committee naturally does not desire to oppose any movement which seems likely to raise the standard of honor among the students in regard to examinations, and

J

the University Faculty apparently takes the same view. The present lack of uniformity in the conduct of examinations will therefore continue until it seems possible to adopt a new system applicable to all of the Colleges of the University. Cases of disorderly conduct on the part of students have been very rare during the present year, and on the whole the conduct of the great mass of students, both within and without the University, has been exemplary.

In my previous report I have stated that the only serious breach of good order had been in connection with the annual freshman banquet, and I have pointed out the difficulty of dealing with the matter. Last year the University Faculty referred the matter to the President with the request to prohibit the banquet unless assurances should be given of all cessation of interference on the part of sophomores or other students. As no such assurances were given the banquet was abandoned by the freshmen. Some slight disorder resulted from a desire on the part of the under classes to show their disapproval of the action of the Faculty, but in general the action of the Faculty was accepted by the large mass of students without opposition. At the same time the members of the freshmen class felt very deeply that they had been deprived of an opportunity of becoming more intimately acquainted with each other and of strengthening the bonds of good fellowship. On March 1, 1907, a proposition was made to the Faculty by certain students for the freshman banquet to be held under certain restrictions similar to those governing the contest between the sophomore and freshman class held each fall under the supervision of the upper classes: This proposition was at first rejected by the University Faculty, but at a subsequent meeting the Faculty voted to grant in principle the proposition of the students in regard to the freshman banquet and referred the adjustment of details to the Committee on Student Conduct with power. The banquet took place in the Armory on Saturday, March 16th, and was preceded by an organized contest under the supervision of a committee of the upper classes. All of the events connected with the freshman banquet were conducted entirely on the Campus and did not begin until 1:30 P. M. on the day of the banquet. The personal liberty of no one was restricted, since every freshman was allowed to choose whether he would participate in the contest or not. If he did not desire to engage in the contest, he was at liberty to attend the banquet. The result of these restrictions was entire absence of disturbance in the town or of disorderly conduct on the part of the two under classes, or of interruption of University exercises, or of

interference with personal liberty. The contest passed off with perfect good nature and friendly feeling, and the example set by the present sophomore and freshmen classes will undoubtedly be followed in the future to the advantage of good order and friendly feeling.

In view of the satisfactory result of the supervision of the freshman banquet by the Committee on Student Conduct, the following motion was introduced into the University Faculty:

"Resolved, That the Committee on University Policy be instructed to confer with the Committee on Student Conduct with the view to ascertaining whether any changes in the name or the scope of the latter committee might assist it in the discharge of its functions as a committee of guidance and conference."

For some years the University Faculty has referred the management of "Spring Day" to the Dean with power. It would be better in the future to refer this matter also to the Committee on Student Conduct. If, as seems likely, the scope of the Committee on Student Conduct should be somewhat enlarged it would be very desirable to have some representative body of students with which the Committee could confer from time to time on matters concerning order and conduct as well as questions interesting both to Faculty and students. At all events, the experience of the past year has shown the importance and value of conference between representatives of the Faculty and of the student body. For many years the freshman banquet was a source of disorder and ill-feeling and often brought discredit on the University. All these objections have now been removed, and the freshman banquet of the future will be an unobjectionable and pleasant incident of college life.

4. GRADUATE DEPARTMENT

In my last report (page XIV) I stated that on April 11th, 1906, a special commission of the University Faculty considered the subject of the needs and prospects of the graduate department, and a special committee was appointed to consider and report upon the following matters in relation to the graduate department:

(a) The publication of a separate announcement of courses for the graduate department.

(b) A more thorough organization of the department.

(c) Deficiencies in professorships and equipment to meet the just demands of graduate students.

(d) The utility and the need of fellowships and scholarships. (e) Publication of investigations.

On February 8, 1907, the above committee recommended to the Faculty the adoption of the following resolution :

"Resolved, That the University Faculty recommend to the Board of Trustees the establishment of a graduate school under the administration of a separate Faculty, to consist of the professors in those departments in which graduate work is offered.'

After a brief debate it was moved and carried that the report of the committee be accepted and the committee discharged. It was apparent from the report that the committee felt that of the five topics referred to them to consider and report, the second was the most important and the others could be considered later.

At present the graduate work of the University is by statute placed under the direction of the University Faculty, and the Standing Committee on Graduate Work and Advanced Degrees has charge of the details of this work. In other words, there is no compactly organized graduate school or department, and the supervision of graduate work is only one of the many functions of the University Faculty. The Dean of the University Faculty, it is true, is ex-officio chairman of the Committee on Graduate Work, but he is also chairman of the other standing committees of the Faculty and it is impossible for him to devote himself exclusively to the interests of graduate work. A considerable part of his time is, however, absorbed in the details of admission to the graduate department and the routine work connected with the progress and graduation of students in that department. The efficiency of the graduate department would undoubtedly be increased if it were placed in charge of some officer directly responsible for its conduct, and whose energies were not divided among other interests. Whether this could be brought about by a smaller and more compact body of the University Faculty consisting of the professors in those departments in which graduate work is offered, with a dean or chairman of its own, is a question.

Some improvement might I think be made by entrusting to the various Colleges the management of advanced degrees which are purely technical in their nature. That is to say, the degrees of Master of Science in Agriculture, Master of Science in Architecture, Master of Civil Engineering, and Master of Mechanical Engineering. These degrees are purely technical, and concern not only the entire University but also especially the College with which they are inseparably connected. It is more difficult to arrange the details of the admission of candidates for these technical advanced degrees