Barr Ferree's criticism in _The Architectural Review,_ of the methods of
training pursued in the School of Fine Arts in Paris, have led to
several papers by adherents of the French system and to a
well-considered editorial in the same paper. But the most important
contribution to the question is that of Mr. Henry Rutgers Marshall in
the last number of _The Architectural Record,_ which also contains a
descriptive article upon the Royal Polytechnicum at Berlin and its
course of study.

There is very little in any of these articles which adds to the existing
knowledge on this largely discussed subject; it is what might be
considered a rethreshing of old straw, and the main value of all of the
articles is in the presentation, which may appeal to readers who have
not before thought of the matter in all of its bearings. The papers read
before the convention begin with the report of the committee on
education, by Mr. Henry Van Brunt. In this Mr. Van Brunt advocates the
careful and systematic study of architectural history; and it was the
purpose of the report to bring out discussion which might lead to
valuable suggestions to the architectural schools upon the study of
this subject. Mr. Geo. B. Post, of New York, Professor Ware, of Columbia
College, and several others took part in the discussion which resulted
in merely recommitting the question to the committee on education, as it
was not considered advisable to take any definite action which would
bind the Institute to a settled policy on this question. Mr. Louis H.
Sullivan, of Chicago, in a thoughtful paper complained that education
stifles and kills the spirit of modern architectural work, and that the
natural and spontaneous love for beauty found in all human beings gives
place, under our modern systems of instruction, to the dry formalities
of reproducing old and dead styles.