LECTURERS AND TUTORS

In denying that the ultimate goal of the Harvard tutorial system is identical with the Oxford system, Assistant Professor R. M. Eaton has merely repeated and emphasized the attitude which President Lowell made clear in his Annual Report for 1925-1926. In that document the President said that "courses are an invaluable means to the end and there is no intention of abandoning them in favor of the more exclusively tutorial system of Oxford and Cambridge." In view of this position, those who have heretofore looked upon the Harvard plan as but the rudimentary shoots of an eventual Oxford replica may well consider the University's system not in the light of an evolving thing--although of course its mechanics are still in the process of evolution and probably will remain, so for some time--but as one whose broader outlines, the lecture-tutorial regime, are permanent.

It is the CRIMSON's belief that such a view--maintenance of the lecture system in conjunction with tutorial work--is most logical in consideration of the lower standards of the American secondary schools. Furthermore the plan has the merits of joining the best features of the lecture regime with the indubitable benefits of conferences with one's tutor. While it is seldom wise to make generalizations, one might say that the American student mind is less fitted than the English for wholesale tutorial assistance to the exclusion of the course system. A larger percentage of American youth goes to college and consequently, in reality if not in theory, a smaller percentage is really equipped with an academic point of view. The evils of the increase in university enrollments have been dwelt upon sufficiently; it is enough to say that in the present case the reward of merit goes to the English: in accentuating the scholastic rather than the social, economic or whatnot aspect of education they have earned the right to more liberal educational methods Meanwhile America is not suffering unduly, for she is gradually changing her system to meet her own requirements.

Not in the theory of the lecture-tutorial plan but in the apparatus are there weaknesses. Granted, the machinery is as yet on trial; nevertheless without criticism by tutors themselves, lecturers, and tutees that machinery will never be adjusted to perfection. Professor Eaton is quoted as saying that the tutor should endeavor to humanize and unify the student's grasp of his field. Others have made the same remark and all have been quite correct. Unfortunately the results have been disappointing in some respects. The disappointments have been far less noticeable than the successes of the movement; but the former have been and are present, however, and the sooner the relationship of the tutor to his tutee and the relationship between the student and his course requirements are made clear, the sooner will the system reach its best development.

Since both lectures and the tutorial system are to form the bases of Harvard's educational plan, the question arises as to the proportionate contribution of each. It has been made clear that the tutorial work will never completely swallow that accomplished by lectures; then, what establishes the line of demarcation? Is the lecture side to dominate and the tutorial to assist, or, will the opposite hold true? Or is it possible to have an equal division of labor?

The best solution appears to be the last named, that of the happy medium. Obviously the quickest method of accomplishing this aim is to copy the Oxford idea of Pass men and Honor men. But, excluding discussion as to whether or not this would ever be advisable with the American undergraduate, it may be pointed out that in those institutions which have tried this arrangement-- Columbia and Smith--the tendency has been toward a decrease in the number of Honor men, a contrary reaction from what might be expected. This is of course undesirable, especially when there are other means of meeting the situation. Those means are, namely, the privileges accorded Junior and Senior candidates for Distinction.

Under the rules now in effect in the College a man eligible for Distinction may be exempted from one course in his Junior and one course in his Senior year, providing he has presented a satisfactory equivalent. That equivalent is realized by additional tutorial work, work more in the line of individual research than the usual tutorial assistance. This fits in admirably in balancing the lecture system with the tutorial, making the former of less importance as far as credits are concerned and emphasizing the value of the latter.

This reduction of courses, coupled with the extremely important Reading Periods, is the one definite step which the College has made in lessening the importance of courses and course grades. It is to be praised and it is to be commended for pursuance. The tutors are thus given an added degree of eminence in the mind of the tutee, and the student is given a further opportunity to prove his self-reliance and his abilities for creative work. The saving grace of the whole scheme of both lectures and tutorial work lies in such a mediative policy, for at present the tutorial and needs strengthening and the course requirements need to be made less stringent. The balance between the two methods once attained, Harvard's plan of education will be as effective in the American locale as is Oxford's in the English.