The Nation in its last issue publishes an article on athletics, fair and harmless in its tone, but, while not incorrect in certain ideas, it takes, it seems to us, a mistaken view of some points, albeit the writer, from impartiality and greater experience, may be in a good position to judge.

We are inclined to agree with the writer that athletics have grown to be an ideal too predominating and overmastering in our colleges; that physical education with college men has become, perhaps, too interesting and absorbing to the neglect of mental education. We do not mean to undervalue athletics, to cry against them or advocate less interest in them. They are important factors of a college life, in bettering health and morals, and, by intercollegiate contests, bringing colleges into a desirable closer contact with each other. But the recognition that college athletics predominate too much is not confined only to outsiders; we ourselves can see the faults of their predominance. Yet we would not plead for less interest in athletics among students but for a corresponding interest in scholarly attainments; not that the "glorification of athletics," if it indeed be too great, should be lessened, but that the "glorification of letters" should be made equal.

The writer of this article apparently forgets that the number of men composing athletic teams, the eleven, crew, nine and others, is comparatively small, and that the large mass of college students take little active part in collegiate contests. It seems otherwise because athletics by nature force themselves into prominence more quickly than scholarly attainments. Athletics seem to be more absorbing and time taking than they actually are because those in them work in the sight of the public who can know how well they work and can follow their progress. With the student however, it is different; he works secretly and slowly, we cannot know, except periodically, the progress he makes and it is longer before he obtains recognition.

We cannot seriously agree with the writer when he refers to "the distorted conception of life, the false standard of individual and college distinction and the evident retarding of young men in arriving at serious and worthy ideals, all of which have been involved in the increasing "glorification of college athletics." If, as is very likely, there is a distorted conception of life among college men, it hardly seems due to the glorification of athletics. It is due to the immaturity and inexperience of the average student; but whether that immaturity itself is at all due to the glorification of athletics from the time of the "boy in kilts" to that of the man in college is another question, though it hardly seems very important. Again the question whether athletic men after graduation are slower than others in settling down to the serious work of life is an open one. It is true that loyalty and the pressing call of undergraduates often draw them back, and we shall ever be grateful beyond measure to them for coming back. But beyond the fact that this may interrupt the course of their business we do not think, judging from our own college past athletics that this difficulty of settling down to the serious work of life is so great, or that the interruption to their business is, in most cases, disastrous.

We have not the space to carry on an extended or a satisfactory discussion of this subject; columns could be devoted to it and then, perhaps, no serviceable conclusion would be reached. The arguments on both sides are many and long; and in this instance we can refer only briefly to a few points in an article which seems, upon the whole, very fair and sensible.