We should have, I think, in our library training, the opportunity for specializing when the students are ready for it, but I believe that whatever position one is to occupy, whatever work in the library one may be fortunate enough to do, the solid, general training of one year in a library school is none too much as an introduction and basis. So that I believe that specialization in a one year course is not desirable, even if it were practicable, which it is not for at least two reasons: The time is too short and the expense too great. Such a suggestion reminds me of something which I heard President Eliot of Harvard say once upon a time at a meeting of school superintendents, on the subject of enriching and broadening the course in grammar schools. He argued in a very strong and interesting way for greater freedom for the brighter child to pass along more rapidly by means of special instruction. It was answered in various ways by the school men, but to me the answer was very clear, namely, that what Harvard university, with one instructor for eight or nine students, could do is not practicable in grade schools with one instructor for fifty students. So any attempt to specialize in a one year course would require an increase of cost for instruction greater than the result would be likely to justify. An important co-operation has been at various times suggested and discussed as follows: If the courses of the one year schools could be so closely approximated to the first year's work in the larger schools that students having completed the one year's course might afterwards, if able to meet the requirements, complete their work, specializing, if they chose, in the second and third years' work of the larger schools, this would seem a perfectly feasible and desirable thing.