To the Editors of the Crimson:

I should like to say a few words in reply to the communication which appeared in yesterday's CRIMSON and which condemned in such unmeasured terms my letter of Nov. 20.

Mr. Gentner having pronounced judgment against my logic, it seems almost presumptuous on my part to attempt any defense. I will, however, venture to say that he has apparently failed to understand both the meaning and purpose of my letter.

In the first place I did not undertake to prove the truth of my statement, but merely called attention to a fact that is recognized as true by almost every man with whom I have talked. I have not the slightest desire to convince any one who has not agreed with me from the first.

I am also perfectly well aware of the difficulty of marking a large number of briefs, and of the possibility of frequent mistakes. When, however, an instructor announces in class that he has given E to over half the work which has been handed in, it seems evident that the low marks are duo to his severity.

The point which I thought I had made clear was this. When an instructor has such original views on the subject of marking, the work of men in his section must compare unfavorably with other work marked by teachers who have adopted the system generally in use at Harvard.

It is almost unnecessary to contradict so absurdly untrue a charge as that

(Continued on sixth page.)