To the Editor of the Crimson:

I acknowledge with real gratitude your recent editorial "Dentists Take Their Medicine." I have read and written a good deal about the Harvard School of Dental Medicine during the past two years. A little of this material has been good; most of it has been distinctly, mediocre. Consequently, I congratulate the writer of this editorial as to a refreshing case of expression, a courageous use of adjectives, and a willingness to come to a conclusion, which, after all, is a purpose of editorial writing.

You have, however, reached your conclusions with what appears to me to be an inadequate knowledge of the aims of professional education. For example, I doubt if the Harvard Medical School curriculum is "readymade," within the meaning of your term. Its pattern changes too rapidly. Furthermore, there is a closer association between obstetrics and dentistry than you indicate. Obstetrics, unless I am mistaken, is the science and art of pre-natal care and delivery. The teeth discover a proved uterine existence early in embryonic life, a significant circumstance in attempting to control their normal development. We should be concerned as dentists with a very broad concept of the factors affecting dental disease to the end that your children may be less affected by dental disturbances.

May I, please, make one more comment? "The actual needs of the dentist" is one of your terminal phrases. I am sure that you will require only a reminder that any educational process has remote as well as immediate objectives. Immediate objectives are always visible and are relatively easily attained. Remote ends are, possibly, of even greater importance, although difficult for any of us fully to comprehend. John W. Cooke '16,   Member of committee on instruction, chairman of curriculum committee.