Mechanics, 1 Physics, chemistry, and cosmography, 2 -- 3 _Fifth Sitting._ Hours. Applied analysis, 1½ German exercise, 1½ ----- 3 _Sixth Sitting._ Solution of a triangle by logarithms 3 _Seventh Sitting._ Drawing 4 -------------- Total 24 hours Next, each candidate is examined orally for three-quarters of an hour, on two successive days, by each of the two examiners separately, and each examiner makes a note of the admissibility or non-admissibility of the candidate. At the close of this oral examination, the notes relating to the various candidates are compared, and if the examiners differ as to the admissibility of any candidate, he is recalled, further orally examined, and his written exercises carefully referred to, both examiners being present. A final decision is then made. The preliminary examiners then supply the others with a list of the candidates who are entitled to be admitted to the second oral examination. On this occasion each candidate is separately examined for one hour and a half by each examiner, but care is taken that in all the principal subjects of study the candidate is examined by at least two out of the three examiners. Each examiner records his opinion of the merits of every candidate in replying, orally and in writing, by awarding him a credit varying between O and 20, the highest number indicating a very superior result. This scale of merit is employed to express the value of the oral replies, written answers, or drawings. It has the following signification, and appears to be generally in use in the French military schools:-- 20 denotes perfect. 19} 18} “ very good. 17} 16} “ good. 15} 14} 13} “ passable. 12} 11} 10} “ middling. 9} 8} 7} “ bad. 6} 5} 4} “ very bad. 3} 2} 1} “ almost nothing. 0} “ nothing. Considerable latitude is granted to the examiner engaged in deciding upon the amount of credit to be allowed to the student, for the manner in which he replies to the various questions. He is expected to bear in mind the temperament of the candidate, his confidence or timidity, as well as the difficulty of the questions, when judging of the quality of the reply, more value being given for an imperfect answer to a difficult question than for a more perfect reply to an easy one.