EDITORS HERALD-CRIMAON.-If the correspondence resulting from your article of February 8 upon "Our Ranking System" has not already proceeded far enough to be wearisome to your readers, I should like to explain to your correspondent of February 13, the use I made, in your issue of February 11, of the words specialist and superficialist. Your correspondent questions my right to use the words as I did, in raising the remarkable question whether "a man who is not a specialist must be a superficialist." I certainly did not intend to say that a man who does not devote his attention to one subject only, can have no depth of knowledge whatever. There are, of course, minds which are capable of making more progress in various directions than other minds in a single direction, but I think it can hardly be disputed that the same mind will obtain a more superficial knowledge when directed to many diverse subjects than when concentrated upon one only. It was this distinction between two equally intellectual men, employing their power, the one in a single direction, and the other in many different directions, that I meant to express by specialist and superficialist. Superficiality as only comparative, as what is profound to the uneducated man may seem entirely superficial to the specialist upon that subject. Your correspondent has certainly been very unfortunate in his experience with the "specialists of college," since he professes to have found them equally superficial with those who, in accordance with "third reform" take but one course in each "branch of knowledge." If this be so, it seems to argue that the college only affords the one course, in each "branch," that is of any value, and that the seeker after a "broad education" is always fortunate enough to know how to select this course. It is surely encouraging to find that one can learn all that the college can teach, without studying the numerous courses that she offers.

G. W. L.