EDITORS HERALD-CRIMSON.-The article in your issue of February 8th upon "Our Ranking System," reminds one very forcibly of the fact that it is quite easy to find fault with a system and suggest remedies, but unfortunately what seems a remedy to one appears as an injustice to another. I refer to the "third reform" which the author of the above mentioned article suggests, which is essentially as follows: that, since the fact of having taken one course in any branch of knowledge, renders a student more fitted to advance in other courses of that branch, this should be discouraged by making these advanced courses only count one or two-thirds of the standard value to that student. The author of "Our Ranking System" thus declares himself as a champion of a "broad education." Let him be this if he will, but he must not attempt to make "reforms" which shall do injustice to the specialist, nor should he forget that the various courses in the several branches of knowledge are arranged in a sequence of progression, and that a student is not expected to enter a higher course, until he has prepared for it by taking those which come before. If he should take the higher first and then the easier, has he not done the same amount of work as in the reverse case?

This reformer is evidently one who does not appreciate our dearly cherished elective system, since he would destroy its advantages by placing a premium upon a superficial education, such as is to be obtained in the prescribed course which most. American colleges require. It certainly would seem an injustice toward those who come to Harvard for thorough study in some particular branch of knowledge, that those courses which are included in their specialty should only count for them a fraction of their standard value-simply that some superficialist may have the possibility, thus denied to the specialist, of attaining a high rank.

Under the "reform" which is suggested, the specialist is triumphed over by the superficialist, which is exactly contrary to the tendency of modern progress.

The specialist who loves his study may devote all possible time and energy to a course, and pass perfect examinations, and yet his work count less than that of this favored superficialist, who has spent less time on the course, but receives the higher mark because he has taken no other course in the same branch.

With the two other "reforms" suggested, I have no fault to find, but, on the contrary, believe they might have the desired effect of improving our ranking system.

G. W. L.