is only when the student loses favor or standing or caste with his mates through dishonesty that he will take the matter of cribbing seriously. A student can stand anything else better than to be distrusted or disliked by his own undergraduate associates.
Not long ago we had in control of our student paper one who could find little to approve of in our university organization and control. Everything was wrong: the system of teaching, the development of research, the construction of buildings, the supervision of student activities, the general attitude and composition of the faculty, were all hopelessly and irrevocably wrong. He stirred a good deal of feeling among the authorities, he irritated and offended scores of our faculty, but the more opposition he aroused the better he liked it, for it gave him the feeling of a reformer. He had a considerable following of undergraduate sympathizers, he won the approval of a certain number of instructors who were glad to have him voice the sentiments that they might have been afraid themselves to utter, and he did not care a picayune what the administration thought of him. But one day he entered upon another field. Delighted with his success as a stirrer up of trouble among the faculty, he began a heavy onslaught upon a disreputable student practice. He was somewhat surprised on the day following the appearance of his editorial to find that his old friends were not so cordial; his former acquaintances looked at him coldly as they passed him or crossed to the other side of the street to avoid meeting him; the cold shoulder was given him wherever he went. It was all right to criticize the faculty; the criticism of their own personal
