To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

It is unfortunate that Dean Griswold has seen fit to suggest restrictions against those applicants to the Law School who have had a "specialized" training. As a graduate of a state university with a degree in Urban Land Economics--and what could be more specialized--I feel I must be within the group mentioned. The goal desired by Dean Griswold, that of "cultured" lawyers, is a laudable one, but the means by which he hopes to attain this goal is at least questionable from three standpoints.

First, the "specialized" student is not necessarily a narrow one. Along with Real Estate Appraising and Corporation Finance, admittedly "specialized" subjects, I have had courses in Philosophy, American and English History, Literature, Mathematics, Chemistry, Rhetoric, Opera Appreciation, Psychology, Drama, and Political Science. Furthermore, extra-curricular activities on an undergraduate level are an excellent broadening influence.

Second, the vast majority of potential and would-be lawyers are not sure at the time they enter college that they will, in four years, have the interest and the aptitude, let alone the necessary finances, to attend law school. It is natural for a student primarily, though not exclusively interested in the law to choose an alternative professional or business field as a major area of study. This scarcely prevents him from developing into a thoughtful lawyer.

Third, the Harvard Law School has developed a well deserved reputation as a meeting ground for students of varying backgrounds, educational as well as geographical. A number of law students with such varying backgrounds can contribute far more to the overall broad view of a topic than can an equal number of "well-bred" Liberal Arts students. Dean Griswold's aim would sacrifice this important aspect of legal training.

Those are certainly not the only objections to Dean Griswold's recommendations but only the ones which come first to my mind. And each point is undoubtedly worth far more than this superficial observation. If I have misunderstood the CRIMSON article or if I have attributed to Dean Griswold opinions be does not hold, I apologize. On the other hand, if those are indeed the views of our law school's chief executive, the apologies should not come from this quarter. Ed Levin 1L