THE WAY IN WHICH the yeshiva was administered largely reflected the personality and values of its leaders. There was no supervisory body, and the staff had wide leeway in determining goals and procedure, though there were often practical limitations on what could be done. In fact, it was the gap between reality and aspiration that determined much of what went on in the yeshiva.

Supervision and the Assessment of Progress

Supervision and the assessment of progress are common elements of educational programmes. In most Western educational institutions the teacher is also the assessor. There are formal ways of evaluating achievement such as tests or papers, and these are often the cause of tension between students and teachers. The yeshiva framework was very different: the rashei yeshivah's principal activity was giving shiurim, not assessing achievement. Examinations occupied a very peripheral place in yeshiva life, and there were long periods when there was no formal testing at all. Tests were certainly not a central factor in establishing the relationship between students and teachers, and in fact the absence of formal grading was conducive to strengthening ties between them because it eliminated an obvious source of tension.

There were good reasons for the lack of emphasis on testing.Where teaching is based on lectures and when it is assumed that the function of teaching is to transmit knowledge or skills, examinations are necessary. Students in such conditions are basically passive participants in the educational process and teachers find it difficult to assess comprehension or success.The teacher knows best what was taught and therefore the teacher is the best person to test the students. If a student demonstrates knowledge or ability, the educational process is assumed to have succeeded—irrespective of whether the student invested any major effort to achieve this level. The system in Volozhin was quite different: the shiur was not a forum for transmitting information, like a university lecture, but rather a framework for discussion. Students were active participants, and this gave ample opportunity for the demonstration of ability and knowledge without the need for examination. This public participation created a general consensus as to who was more knowledgeable or perceptive and who was less so.