EDITORS DAILY CRIMSON: - I think that D's criticism of section 27 of the "New Regulations" is very just. The new rule is, in my opinion, inconsistent with one of the principles underlying the elective system, - that equal excellence in every study cannot be attained by the same individual, but that some minds are so constituted that they can not pursue certain branches with success. Now this principle is recognized by the faculty elsewhere, as is evidenced by the following extract from the 1886-87 mathematical announcement; "It is unadvisable for students who have little taste or capacity for Mathematics to attempt the higher Mathematical electives." Is not that principle equally applicable to this case?

Furthermore, the new regulation offers a premium to students whose work is of uniform quality, but discourages those who are bright in one direction and below the average in some other direction. In other words, it strikes a blow at specialists; and this, I conceive, is inconsistent with our elective system. There are many men within the writer's acquaintance whose average for the first two years of their course has been far above 90 per cent. but who have received in Chemistry A below 50 per cent.; is it fair that men, who, under the old system, would be entitled to a degree summa cum laude should be denied a degree cum laude? If in the change of regulations a higher standard had been the object of the faculty, we should not complain; but since the faculty, in whose opinion the present standard is sufficiently high, have incidentally raised it by what practically amounts to 20 per cent., we think that it is unreasonable and call for a defence.

'88.