Now that the hectic fury of the Yale game week-end is a thing of the past and even the wettest clothes have been dried, the question of ticket allotment seems almost remote and petty. It is something of a compliment to the Athletic Association that it should be so, for it was certainly not merely the unpleasant day that made the spectator at least tolerably well satisfied even with his seat in the front row of the wooden stands. When all is said and done the fact remains that more wisdom and fairness was shown in this year's allotment than had ever been possible before; and, as a result, there was noticeably less criticism.

The Athletic Association and the Committee whose report has been the basis of this year's allotment both deserve commendation. It is true as last year's report stated, that "no plan of distribution can satisfactorily solve the seating problem", since there simply are not enough seats to go around. But with the situation as it is the Athletic Association has done admirably. The system of seating graduate classes in general by lot, whether or not classes holding reunions are to be favored, the reductions in the "privileged list", and the noticeable attempt to place single-seat applicants together with men whom they are likely to know, are all very praiseworthy and have received general approval.

When there is so much to commend, it is perhaps captious to find anything to criticize. But come complaints there have been which as such deserve attention even if the grounds on which they are based are invalid. Some undergraduates have found fault with the arrangement by which Graduate School one-seat applicants have been seated next to the cheering section and in a better location than the majority of undergraduates. Such an objection is perfectly natural on the part of undergraduates who feel that the center of the field should be reserved for those who are naturally most interested in the team and who are its most loyal supporters. But it neglects the justice of the case. Graduate School students at Harvard are notoriously out of touch with the College. To erect any more bars and to discriminate any further would be unfortunate. If the undergraduate neglects his opportunity of sitting in the cheering section, he has little right to begrudge another man a better seat.

It is a more reasonable criticism that the distinction between the Faculty of the College and the Faculties of the various Graduate Schools is largely arbitrary. Perhaps it might be wise to include both Faculties in a special category, following the graduates of the college and entitled to one seat at all events and to two seats if enough are left over after the undergraduate and graduate two-seat applications had been filled.

Complaints are, of course, inevitable: And it was certainly unfortunate that 2000 tickets had to be allotted at such a late date, necessarily involving some unfairness. But taken all in all the system adopted this year has proved its worth and its main provisions ought not to be tampered with. What is needed now is careful application of principles.