THE CRISIS Of the modern language instruction at our universities seems to be quickly coming to a head. While its first phase was characterized by a general inertia, an attitude of indifference by almost all concerned, the second phase, which we entered upon with the establishment of the short-lived A.S.T. Program on our campuses, is marked by a sudden outburst of violent activity which, unfortunately, gives every indication of being a turn for the worse. Our departments have started the hard work of reconstruction, hoping to prepare the educational soil for the post-war crop, but this reconstruction which should be the outcome of sober considerations, which should be made with utmost care in weighing all elements at hand, is being carried out to a great extent by over-enthusiastic advocates of a new system, an educational pattern in vogue right now but by no means tested sufficiently and hardly proved to be the long-awaited solution to our dilemma. The following has been written out of the sincere desire to help check the flood of unwarranted optimism with regard to the A.S.T.P. experience and to contribute toward a clarification of our tasks and objectives. What will be stated here is mainly the result of my experience with the Army Specialized Training Program at the University of Iowa. But in order to compare my observations with those made at other institutions, I have sent out a short questionnaire to 16 major institutions which have had A.S.T.P. sections in German; these questionnaires were answered and returned to me by 13 departments which, of course, were not always in a position to answer every question I had asked. Although I am well aware that a survey of such small range cannot claim to be exhaustive (I did not intend to duplicate the work of well established agencies), I must admit that the answers were much more conclusive than I had expected. For various and obvious reasons I cannot discuss them in detail, but I shall try to give a brief report of the main data obtained before formulating my own observations. There have been units of various sizes at these institutions, ranging anywhere from 27 to 170 men per unit, with an average of 75. These units were subdivided into sections which again differed considerably in size and character: they ranged from 5 to 29 men per