It is truly amazing to what an extent undergraduate interest in a minor sport depends on the success of the team which represents it. For example, the University fencing team for five or six years ranked very low in the intercollegiate meet. Last year it was better, and so far this year it has done remarkable well; as a result the number of men who fence has increased from a dozen in 1908 to thirty in 1910-1911.

Now minor sports exist primarily for the pleasure and exercise of those who take part in them. Sport for the sake of victory alone has much in common with prize-fighting. It is valuable in all forms of sport to have system and definiteness; organized teams and outside contests are excellent means to obtain them, but they should be secondary. The tail has wagged the dog for a long time at Harvard.

The reason for the usual undergraduate view of this matter is not far to sock. Men want "activities" and "success." They forget that college is a place of training, where athletics are good in so far--and no farther--as they make for health of mind and body. Therefore success in a sport means no more than bodily health and a mind trained to do something well. When a man talks much about activities, it implies either a great deal of energy, or a desire to see his name in print. The reasons for estimating the value of a sport by Harvard's success in competitions are not good reasons. The very teams of which we speak would be immensely helped if every man that went out for them did so because he liked the game and wished to play it well. And the men who went our would be more steady in their pursuit of the object, appreciating better its true value to themselves.