(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be withheld. Only letters under 400 words can be printed because of space limitations.)

To the Editor of the Crimson:

May I commend your analysis of the suggested proposal for the broadening of the university approach to the study of law in your editorial entitled the "Seven Year Itch." One possible misunderstanding, however, may underlic that analysis and that is your assumption that in the sixth and seventh years of study work will be divided between Law on the one hand and Government and Economics on the other. If by the phrase, Government and Economics, you imply a narrowing of that area of choice now open to college seniors concentrating in the fields of history, government, economics, and history and literature, you inadvertently misdescribe the plan. An equal opportunity for breadth exists under the new scheme as the old; the only difference lies in the equipment and orientation that the new plan gives the new student which, one hopes, will make for a more profound attack upon the complex problems with which he then will seek to deal.

One more thought. In pointing to the fact that the plan, perhaps, is designed for the training of "future Corcorans and Landises," did you perchance suggest that those of a different political faith needed no keener appreciation of the pressures of the civilization out of which the law of tomorrow must be forged? If so, surely my good friends of the party of Lincoln and Taft will take umbrage. Or should I rush to their defense. James M. Landis.