.5 10.1 53.1 36.2

Here the same pronounced tendency is disclosed for the occurrence of
other subsequent failures in the subjects closely similar. But for this
distribution of grades, secured without any preceding repetitions, the
unsuccessful result is 2.2 per cent lower than that found for those who
had repeated. This group is not so large in numbers as the one above,
and undoubtedly there is some distinct element of pupil selection
involved, for it is not easy to believe that the repetition should work
a positive injury to the later grades. Nevertheless, our faith in the
worth of unconditional repetitions should properly be disturbed by such
disclosures.

_c. The Grades in Repeated Subjects and in the New Work, for the Same
Semester and the Same Pupils_

If it is granted that the teachers of the repeaters are equally good as
compared with the others, then the previous familiarity with the work
that is being repeated might be expected to serve as an advantage in
its favor when compared with the new and advanced work in other
subjects. But the grades for the new and advanced work as presented
below, and the grades for the repeated subjects as presented earlier in
this chapter (section 1), deny the validity of such an assumption and
give us a different version of the facts.

THE GRADES SECURED IN NEW WORK, AT SAME TIME AND BY SAME PUPILS
AS THE GRADES SECURED IN THE REPEATED SUBJECTS

Total A B C D

11,029 Boys 256 2225 5543 3005
11,941 Girls 198 2064 6604 3075

Per Cent of Total 1.9 18.6 53.1 26.4

The facts not only show a lower percentage (by 6.9 per cent) of
unsuccessful grades in the new work, but they also show a higher
percentage of A's, of B's, and of C's than for the repeated subjects.
There is definite suggestion here that often the particular subject of
failure may be more responsible and more at fault than the particular
pupil. Certainly uniformity and an arbitrary routine of tasks ignore
the individual differences of interests and abilities. But by their
greater and their repeated failures in the same deficient subjects (see
p. 66) these pupils seem to have reasserted stoutly the facts ignored.
They have been asked to repeat and repeat again subjects which they
have already indicated their unfitness to