Our good friend, the Princetonian, takes issue with us agian on the elective system. In the last editorial on this subject, however, the main point asserted in an earlier article is abandoned, and it is admitted that "men can and do work hard and earnestly at Harvard," in spite of the "notorious" tendency of her students to make life as easy as possible by selecting soft courses. After making this admission, the Princetonian enters on a discussion of the main question, and makes the following stock objections to the Harvard regime. It is maintained in the first place that work "in a set of studies that are not rationally connected, *** is wholly without value as a matter of consistent mental discipline." This claim is partly true, but we object to its application to the work done in our college. It is an objection to a possible abuse of the elective system and not to the system itself. As students realize more and more fully the true meaning of a free choice of studies, and give more and more thought to their selections, the evils resulting from an inconsistent combination will grow less and less. A study of the records of the college for the last few years will convince any candid reader that this thoughtless union of irrationally connected subjects is fast becoming a very unimportant exception to the general rule.

The words of the Princetonian can, in fact, be applied to the system in vogue at her own college. The prescribed system unites studies that are inconsistent with each other for the purpose and dispositions of many students.

The next charge made against our system is that students who follow consistent courses, may become "onesided and erratic." This charge again is true, and in its truth do we find the excellence of our plan. When a student has acquired a certain roundness, it should be the next step for that student to develop some especial talent with which he is endowed. This is made possible in a greater degree under an elective than a prescribed system, and in this possibility of "one sided" intellects becoming still more "one sided" is the virtue of the new regime.

It is finally asked how the student fares who has a "constitutional aversion" to study, under the elective system. How does he fare under a prescribed system? Is it better that he should be goaded on in those studies which are distasteful to such students, or that he should be allowed to find some agreeable study, and make progress in it? The elective system was not planned for this class of students. The majority of college men have not a constitutional aversion to study, and it is for them that an elective system presents peculiar advantages.