The injustice of Harvard's reputation in certain quarters for snobbishness and for indifference has long been keenly felt by those connected in any way which the University. The editorials reprinted below seem to indicate that what remains of a widespread popular feeling is being broken up, and that the University is at last coming to her own in the eyes of the public.

Harvard Most democratic

"Perhaps from the very fact of its comparative antiquity and a certain dignity and aristocracy that naturally comes there from, and from Harvard's recognized primacy among educational institutions has come the rather general belief that Harvard is exclusive expensive attainable only to rich men and indulgent of vices common to the gilded youth. In truth, however Harvard with its non-sectarianism. Its enormous cosmopolitan attendance its prohibition of secret societies with their caste and clannishness, its diversified course of study in the college proper and the many special schools that make-up the University is the most democratic of educational institutions: and the fact that there are some 1,600 students in the academic department of College proper alone, working their way through, unaided or with help from the College and that $300 is deemed a sufficient scholarship fund, should be proof that the expense of a course at Harvard cannot be greater than at any other of the large colleges and universities. Wealth secures to its possessor anywhere luxuries and the means of indulgence and dissipation, but dissipation is as unlikely to be tolerated under a college head like President Eliot or President Lowell as it is to permit one who gives himself up to such a course to meet the rigid demands of the high standard of scholarship which the University has always maintained. Student life a Harvard is as serious and as purposeful and the standard of deportment and of manhood as high, as at any college in the world, and the rake, rich or poor, is not prominent in that life"--Charleston; W. Va., gazette.

That Yale Victory Again

"Harvard's victory over Yale inspires two instructive conclusions. In the first place it sustains the general opinion that Harvard has definitely cased to be Yale's doormat. The new Harvard spirit seems to be nearly as invincible as the old Yale spirit was in years gone by. In all the important branches of sport Harvard is now winning with a regularity which is disheartening to the loyal supporters of the Blue. It is truely, largely a matter of spirit. In Yale's athletic heyday, her democracy was her most cherished asset. There is now in Harvard athletics a democracy even more democratic than that of Yale. Yale may not have grown more aristocratic, as her critics allege. She may merely have stood still, while Harvard has passed her.

"The second thought which arises from a contemplation of the 15 to 5 score is that the old football which to those of us who are not fresh from college knew and admired, is beyond resuscitation. A decade or two decades ago the field goal was an unusual method of scoring. Such a score was a result of the peculiar skill of a single player, and in the old days the skill of a single player was of much less importance than it is now. The teams worked without individual stars assuming any monopoly of usefulness or attention. Eleven men, working as a unit, crashed down the field in their march to the opposition goal line, and when the touchdown was scored there was no particular glory for the player who happened to carry the ball.

"The game of today, with its forward passes and its other vagaries o new football, places a premium on individual excellence and minimizes the value of team-work. In acquiring points team effort is no longer required. Once with in striking distance of the goal the team does not strike. Instead, it calls upon its expert kicker and useless effort is avoided. Ten husky warriors stand aside and permit one man, who possesses a peculiarly skillful foot to do the work that eleven men would have done in the old days.

"The victory of Harvard is essentially a victory of one man. It is not that Brickley scored all the points. When the old game was in vogue one man might have scored all the points and be by no means the star of a team which had won by united effort. The glorification of Brickley at the expense of his colleagues is justified because of the method of scoring. He did what the others could have done. He won the game by his own skill, and not merely as the man who chanced to carry the ball on the final rush.

"Had Yale been able to score even one touchdown, Harvard's--or rather Brickley's--victory would have left a sour taste in Harvard mouths. But Yale tried to play the same game; she matched the skill of her individual expert against the skill of the Harvard past master, and lost fairly and squarely in what was a dual rather than a battle of twenty-two warriors."--Cleveland Plan Dealer