Which?

Princeton's decision to permit her students to engage in intercollegiate athletics--sport of the sort was dropped at Princeton when we entered the war--has excited both adverse criticism and applause. As the writer understands it, Princeton has no idea of a restoration of the former spectacular displays as staged at the Yale Bowl, at Cambridge, and at Princeton, but, on the contrary, a sane and economical indulgence in games against teams of other colleges. There are now some seven hundred upper classmen in Princeton who, under conditions that have obtained for nearly a year, have been debarred from anything but intramural sport. The freshmen, on the other hand, have been permitted to play against their natural rivals, Yale and Harvard, and have also gone in for contests against preparatory school teams. Why intercollegiate sport should be bad for upper classmen, and at the same time good for freshmen, would require abler inductive resources than the writer possesses to determine. Harvard and Yale, which stand rigidly against university teams made up of upper classmen, have permitted their freshmen to organize and conduct intercollegiate contests and have never attempted to explain this inconsistency. Intramural sport is an excellent, in fact a vitally necessary, adjunct to college life, but there is reason to believe that without the stimulus of intercollegiate competition on the part of 'varsity teams the interest of students in athletics wanes, with the result that the general participation of students in various games is a difficult thing to bring about. A Le Gore, a Mahan, a Howard Miller, a Hobey Baker, does more to stimulate the average student to emulate the example of these stars in ways however humble than any amount of theoretical dogma designed to show that athletic exercise in the open air is good for mind and body. --LAWRENCE PERRY, IN THE NEW YORK EVENING POST.