A reply is offered to Joseph Pechman and Ira Sharkansky, who have refuted the contentions of the authors in their book, "Benefits, Costs, and Finance of Public Higher Education," which deals with the size and distribution of costs and benefits. Pechman and Sharkansky's critique, "The Distributional Effects of Public Higher Education in California," appears in the "Journal of Human Resources," v5 n3 page 361-370, Summer 1970. The Hansen-Weisbrod approach involved comparing the distributional pattern of subsidies for higher education in California with the distribution of state and local taxes. It was emphasized that the final work as to the redistributional effects of all government programs cannot be written on the basis of a study of any one public service. A major objection of Pechman and Sharkansky centered on the authors' treatment of the distribution of the burden of taxes that support higher education. This issue is discussed, along with those of classifying beneficiaries and general policy implications. (LBH)