Letters To The Editor - One-Third - Not One-Half

I am much pleased by your presentation of my article and flattered to the extent that the cover design refers to it. Incidentally, as between folks who like to work with words, refer to line 6, second full paragraph, page 773 (August Mining Engineering) Would "for" preceding technological have changed the percentages in lines two and three of the bold-face heading on page 770? The intent was coequality among three, (studies of mankind, of science, and of technological empirics). Thirty-three pct for "man" studies is a pretty big bite for engineering schoolmen; 50 pct they won't even examine, let alone nibble at. Arthur F. Taggart For those of you without a copy of the August issue handy, the sentence referred to read: The plea herein is to make the overall time allotment for studies of mankind coequal with those, for science and technological empirics.... Professor Taggart suggests that insertion of the word "for" would clarify the intent of coequality among three divisions of study: The plea herein is ... for studies of mankind coequal with those for science and (for) technological empirics. Editor.