It will be observed that none of these arguments except the last, which is based on a mere verbal ambiguity, touches the two subjects discussed in Dr. Wood’s article—­namely, the need of reform and the methods by which, if practicable, it is to be effected.  Dr. Penrose does not venture to assert that the existing system is perfect, or to deny that the suggested changes are in the nature of improvements.  What he wishes us to believe is that the system, whatever its defects, is as good a one as Americans have a right to demand, and that it is so closely interwoven with our political and social institutions as to admit of no separate handling.  Similar arguments are frequently urged against the desire to raise the standard and widen the avenues of the “higher education.”  We are thus taught to regard ourselves as a poor and struggling nation with no claim to the possession of intellectual luxuries, or as having bound ourselves to forego any aspirations to an equality with other nations in respect of culture when we secured the advantages of popular government and its social concomitants.  It would seem, however, to be a sounder, as it is certainly a more gratifying belief, that precisely because we have attained these advantages it will be easier for us to appropriate all the benefits which civilization has to offer—­possible for us to make more rapid strides than have been made by other nations, impeded by a diversity of interests and conflicts between the government and the people.  No doubt the comparative youthfulness of the nation will account for our backward condition in certain respects; but surely it is time to abandon this and every similar plea as an argument against any attempt at progress.

We have not space, and for the reasons indicated we see no necessity, to discuss Dr. Penrose’s positions in detail.  It will be sufficient to notice generally what seems to us their inherent weakness.  His assertion that no changes are now demanded by the public or the profession is, he thinks, “clearly proved” by the fact that thirty years ago some that were introduced in the University of Pennsylvania at the suggestion of the American Medical Association ended in failure.  But what this experience really proves is, that the defects of the system were even then admitted, while the remedies are still to be applied.  At Harvard this has been done; and the question for other medical schools is whether they are to follow the example or to be deterred by a bugbear—­whether, for example, the University of Pennsylvania, after raising her scientific and art departments to a higher level, shall be content to let her medical school remain stationary.  It is the opinion of intelligent physicians who are not parties to this controversy that the experiment which failed in 1846 would succeed now.  The new plan adopted at Harvard, which exacts three years of study, and embraces lectures, recitations, clinical conferences and written examinations of the most stringent character, has, we are informed, attracted a class of very superior men.  Compared with the effort made here in 1846, this change may be described as a revolution, and it has proved a success.