We published yesterday a communication which is worthy of notice. The writer complained that whereas the degree of A. M. at Harvard may be obtained by any graduate who pursues a course of study-generally consisting of four electives-for one year, yet men who pass three years in the Law School are obliged to work an extra year before they can obtain their A. M.-if they desire it. The writer further contends "that the courses of any one year at the Law School are fully equal in the amount of work required to the total amount demanded of the postgraduate." This may be all very true, but our correspondent evidently is oblivious of the fact that a great many men come to the Law School direct from preparatory schools. They come to prepare for the pursuit of a particular profession; and, although they may shine in the bright galaxy of that profession, yet it does not at all follow that they are all that a degree of Master of Arts would require them to be, or would represent them to be. The degree of A. M. is not what it used to be, but it certainly is not meant to be conferred on men who may not have studied the "Arts" at all.

On the other hand it seems perfectly just and natural that the college graduate should receive the degree of A. M. after pursuing a little further the studies which have occupied him during his college course. We all hope to receive the degree of Bachelor of Arts some day, and it is but a natural step from that to the degree of Master of Arts. There is no incongruity in it either.

Further, there is no reason why even a college graduate pursuing the study of law should receive a degree which the nature of his work does not entitle him to. The courses in law may be a thousand times more difficult than those of a post-graduate, but they are not in the same direction. We might just as well assert that because a man had pursued a course of study in the Medical School-which is fully as difficult as the Law School-therefore he ought to receive the degree of L. L. B. We cannot help thinking that there is a fallacy in our correspondent's complaint.