EDITORS HERALD-CRIMSON.-The author of "Our Ranking System" feels under obligation to his reviewer for vouchsafing his approval to the two more vital reforms; the third, had it been clearly stated, would also, the author believes, have received his reviewer's sanction. The "reformer's" opinions are not so different from the reviewer's own as the latter imagines.

"Broad education" and "specialism" are both good in their respective ways: without the former, the world would be a chaotic mass of egotism; without the latter, progress would be dead. Young men coming to Harvard should be allowed to choose for themselves whether to continue their general education, or to launch at once into some one branch of study. The ranking system should place no premium on either plan; an unbiased choice should be allowed, free from all unworthy motives.

No one could be farther than is the writer, from desiring to discourage those men, (far too few in numbers), "who come to Harvard for thorough study in some particular branch of knowledge." The reform is urged only for the sake of removing the temptation, which now exists, to take one's electives from a single branch of study, not with the purpose of making it a life work, but from motives of indolence, or from ambition for collegiate distinction.

Most of the electives (including all that are "arranged in a sequence of progression") give a full years' work to those who take them. It is only in exceptional courses that the reform is needed, for instance in Greek 3 and in French 4. These courses may be taken in three successive years. Certainly a student taking such a course a third time need devote no more than half as much work to it as is necessary from a sophomore; then it ought not to count more than a half course.

To determine whether any, and, if any, what distinction should be made between the members of a particular elective would in some cases be a delicate matter; the advanced student ought always to have the benefit of the doubt. L.