We believe that the experiment, lately inaugurated by the college, of granting liberty to seniors "of regulating their own conduct as regards attendance at church," has resulted satisfactorily; we see no reason to doubt its success. It has certainly been a popular reform in the regulations. Therefore we see no reasons why a like liberty should not be extended to juniors. All the arguments that apply in favor of granting it to seniors must apply equally well in favor of extending it to juniors. Statistics show that the average age of entrance into Harvard is nineteen years; therefore the average age of a Harvard student, upon entering his junior year, is twenty-one years. Surely no one will argue that what is permitted to a mature youth of twenty-two must be denied to a tender stripling of twenty-one. Far more naturally, liberty of choice in this matter should be given when one arrives at his majority. Of course there is no peculiar charm or virtue in one age over another, but, as we have said, if a limit must be set somewhere, the age of twenty-one and the junior class would seem to be a more natural limit than that which now prevails. However, for the matter of that, it is altogether impossible to see any satisfactory reason why attendance should be compulsory at all for any class. The caution used by the authorities in granting these concessions is, we think, extreme. When one step has been safely taken, it will surely be found that the next one will be neither revolutionary nor disastrous.