We published recently a communication censuring the instructor in sophomore theme work because the practice of allowing the themes to be corrected by members of the class had not been continued after its initial trial. The writer demanded the reason of the discontinuance of a plan which he claimed enabled the students "to improve his style beyond recognition." It is only just to say that we have been informed by the instructor in question why the practice was discontinued, and that the reasons are perfectly satisfactory both from the standpoint of convenience upon which our correspondent laid great stress, and also from the more scholarly standpoint of improvement in sophomore theme work. In the first particular the machinery involved was too cumbersome, and was ill-fitted to accomplish the purpose for which it was employed, - to provoke good critical work carefully done. In the second particular the practice is one which distinctly does not tend to improve the student's style. Improvement of style is not to be attained by a perusal of laborious, crude, and often abortive college compositions, but by a study, and a hard study at that, of the best works of the masters of English prose. Arnold, Shelley (letters), Fielding, Huxley and Webster may be read and studied to advantage if improvement is desired in the power of criticism, description, narration, exposition and argumentative composition. There is far too little "college reading." Our four courses are not, after all, the whole substance of a good year's work at college. But space forbids further discussion at this point. We trust, however, that the matter will soon be presented more cogently and at greater length.