We publish in another place a clipping taken from an editorial on "English at Harvard" in the New York Commercial Advertiser. The writer complains that the requirements for admission in English "indicate a peculiar narrowness of view on the part of those who made the selections and a curious tendency to run in ruts." This is clearly the opinion of a man who blindly judges from the Exeter or alone. Every English author could not be represented in the requirements for obvious reasons. And it has seemed best to "those who made the selections" to choose authors who are more or less known to begin on. Then, when a boy enters, he is free to choose from a large number of electives; and, if he desire, can cover the whole ground of English literature in his four years' course. The writer further complains that a boy who comes to Harvard "saturated" with knowledge of American authors is naturally surprised at failing in an examination because he happens to know nothing about Scott. This seems to us an argument in favor of, not against, our present system. For, if the boy is so "saturated" in American literature, is it not just as well that he should be expected to find out something in regard to the writers and masterpieces of England? There is a fallacy in the writer's argument here.

But, as a matter of fact, there are very few schools in the country where boys are taught the literature of America. This is a crying evil and should be remedied. The question is how to do it? The editorial quoted suggests the remedy. It lies with the colleges, not with the schools, for the latter shape their curriculum according to the requirements for admission to college. Let us require, then, in our entrance examinations a knowledge of one or two of the principal American authors. The schools cannot help following our lead in this matter, and it may be the means of lifting from the eyes of the average college student the mist of ignorance of the literature and history of his own country which now envelops him.