In regard to the communication in another column on the marking system, we can only state that our contributor makes the mistake of assuming that the men who substitute theses for forensic are relieved from some share of the year's work. The amount of work required in the preparation of a thesis is supposed to be fully equal to that required in writing the forensics. The fact that the mark given in a special course on a thesis differs from that given in the English department can be explained by the fact that although in a forensic matter is regarded of prime impostance, still form is also to be taken into consideration, and more than this original research can hardly be expected in a forensic. In the case of honor theses, this is not true. Although a man is not always expected to advance new and startling theories, still an amount of original work and study of authorities is expected which can easily explain why a theses that is worth the maximum mark regarded as a forensic, is worth but eighty-two per cent. of that mark regarded as an honor thesis. As inconsistent and unfair as the marking system really is in many of its features, we believe that our contributor has gone a little out of his way in attributing to it faults and abuses which are characteristic more of individual instructors than of the system.

We understand that several departments of the university have endeavored to bring about the substitution of theses for forensics in the case of men who are not candidates for honors, but their efforts have not as yet met with success owing to the fear that the study of English proper might suffer. This fear, however, seems to us ungrounded, when we consider how much greater care is generally given to the preparation of theses than of forensics. Another reason for confining this privilege to candidates for honors may be that it is meant as an additional inducement to students to try for honors. We cannot see, however, that anything but good could result from extending this privilege to all.