The visit of a couple of West Point instructors to the college some few weeks ago, on a tour of inspection in order to discover, if possible, any new methods or improvements in teaching which might be introduced at West Point, will be remembered. After visiting Harvard, Yale, and some few other colleges, these gentlemen have returned to their posts of duty and have made their report on what they have observed and learned. The Army and Navy Journal publishes this report, which furnishes some decidedly interesting reading. The gentlemen declare themselves to be perfectly satisfied with the methods in vogue at West Point, and say that they have obtained very few ideas from their tour. This is, indeed, very gratifying, and the nation at large can certainly be congratulated that the wisdom of its one military school so far surpasses the combined wisdom and experience of the foremost colleges of the country. Perfect self-satisfaction, it must be admitted, is the surest test of progress and enlightened ideas, and in this respect West Point should be awarded the palm. These gentlemen in their report have passed some overt but severe criticisms upon our colleges, some of which are no doubt very just, but others it must be said smack strongly of that military arrogance and self-sufficiency for which West Point has always been notorious. "They are thoroughly convinced," they say, "that the methods of instruction and the thoroughness of the teaching of the various parts of the curriculum of the military academy are not equalled, certainly not excelled, by any of the institutions visited by them. In several cases they found that standard scientific subjects were taught without the use of any text-books whatever, and the students learned only what little they could retain from short lectures on the subject. At other places there seemed to be a lack of a sufficient number of instructors * * *. In some cases the selection of studies and the attendance at recitations were entirely optional with the students. In all of these particulars we feel that we greatly excel our neighbors, but a great part of our strength is our being able to divide classes into small sections of from eight to twelve each, and our enforced obedience to regular habits." There can be no doubt that in many cases there is a decided advantage, as here claimed, in small sections for the purpose of the most successful teaching, and in this respect it must be admitted that the comparative poverty of most of our colleges puts them behind West Point. But the heiniousness of teaching a scientific subject without the use of any specified text-book we fear will not be fully appreciated by the leading educators and teachers of the land. The careless, off-hand way in which these military gentlemen wave aside the elective system as admittedly inferior and second-rate, is quite refreshing. Harvard surely must blush for her shortcomings.