BR TO LUCY M. DONNELLY, 8 MAY 1911
BRACERS 58510. ALS. McMaster
Edited by M. Forte. Proofread by K. Blackwell

<letterhead>
Trinity College,
Cambridge.1
May 8. 1911

My dear Lucy

I am returning the exam papers by Wednesday’s mail. I don’t think they are so bad as you led me to expect. I have made what general remarks I could on a separate sheet. The worst defect is unwillingness to say anything except what they think they have been taught. Miss Hudson seems to have given you a good dose of criticism — I should have thought she was scarcely in a position to criticize, considering the modesty of her own attainments. I don’t share her fears of the Germans — I suppose she reads Leo Maxse in the National Review: he is a monomaniac. As for our politics: everything is happening, but just as the General Election decided it must happen, so that there is not much interest, in spite of great importance. It seems to be thought the Lords will not put up much of a fight over the Parliament Bill, and that it will certainly become law this year. Lloyd George’s Insurance scheme is a vast measure, very important and beneficent, but in the main non-contentious. Suffrage has just secured a remarkably good second reading vote, and every one is wondering whether the Govt. will allow time for the Bill to become law. It seems not at all impossible that they may do so — all the Liberal papers advise them to do so.

I am very glad indeed to hear that you are so well and busy. I too am both in a high degree. Alys, as you will know, has lost her mother, which is a great blow to her. She is not in Cambridge this term, nor likely to be later on — we have at last more or less agreed to meet only occasionally, tho’ enough to keep up appearances more or less. But please don’t mention this even to Helen, as it is being put on the ground of health, and Alys will not wish it known — so please don’t let Alys know I told you. She was here last term, but it was not a success for either of us, and it seemed undesirable to continue such a waste of energy for both of us. — You write about coming to Cambridge. As you know, I should get the greatest pleasure from seeing you, but what I have just told you may make a difference. Moreover I shall not be here after the middle of June, except occasionally, until about the middle of August, when I dare say I shall come back. Until then I shall be in London, in the country, abroad perhaps, but probably not here. So I am rather afraid that from the point of view of seeing you I should not get much good by your coming here. I don’t think it would be selfish to avoid Helen. You ought to give your nerves a rest. And as you say, her unhappiness is a malady for which there is no lasting cure. I am very sorry about it, but you ought not to sacrifice your health to it. — I am shocked about Miss Scott, and amused at your all breaking out in Carey’s absence. — Gilbert’s Neprekepta is not very interesting, I thought, and the Oedipus seemed to me poor. — It is late and I must stop. Take care of yourself and let me hear from you soon again.

Yours affectionately
Bertrand Russell.

<on a separate sheet:>

By way of general comments, the following remarks occurred to me. In the first place, it was obvious that most of the questions were on subjects on which lectures had been given; now I should have thought the object of such questions was only secured by making them a test of what people have done independently of lectures. In the second place, it was often obvious that there was very little knowledge except what had been gathered from half a lecture at the beginning of some course — e.g. on Europe and Asia, the dates went wrong in a way impossible to people who had even the faintest knowledge of early Mohammedan times; also on the present state of the Far East they seemed very ignorant. The questions on Socialism and on Mendel’s law were singularly bad — the former, however, not in the case of No. 11, who amused me by apologizing for her answer, on the ground that it didn’t come out of a College course.

There was a tendency, which I should have thought teaching would eradicate, to give stacks of irrelevant information; also a painfully frank sentimentalism. Another fault was diffuseness: I should make them all practise re-writing till, with no omissions, they said everything in a quarter of the space. Moreover it did not seem that originality was sought after — there was a desire to repeat the correct opinion rather than one’s own. Nevertheless, I do not think the papers bad, considering the age of the students. They can express what they know, and their knowledge covers a wide range.

I found it difficult to place the papers as wholes in order of merit, so I marked each separate answer — α+, α−, β+, β−, γ+, γ−. One might add up marks by giving 3, 2, 1, −1, −2, −3 for these. This would give No. 2, −7; No. 3, +11; No. 4, +12; No. 9, −7; No. 11, −3; No. 41, +1; No. 42, −5; No. 43, −10; No. 45, −7; No. 46, +5; No. 48, +13; No. 56, −8; No. 60, +5. But I doubt if this would be at all the real order of merit.

• 1

  [document] Proofread against the original letter and enclosure.