Psychology Instructors Offer Suggestions In Regard To Tutorial System--Honors and Pass Degrees Are Favored

The Crimson continues its symposium on the tutorial system below with comments by members of the Psychology Department. Owing to the exigencies of space, the Crimson will be unable to run all the comments in each department.

I would suggest a system which would award an honors degree, with tutorial instruction and general examinations covering the field as at present, and a pass degree, the candidates for which would meet with a tuter to read and discuss only these parts of the field of concentration which really interest him. The aim would be the aronsal and development of a genuine interest in one or a few aspects of a field without the necessity of reading for general examinations.

The chief defect in tutorial work is its conflict with courses. Every student regards courses as more important (because of grades). Hence, the tuter cannot require very much written work or very much reading. But as a supplement to courses, the plan at present, especially with the aid of the Houses, seems to me to be working out very well. Probably it will never work at its best until grades in courses, hour exams, and course requirements are reduced or abolished.

I am not wholly satisfied with the Tutorial System. If would be a sad commentary on the System and myself if I were. But neither am I sure that drastic changes are in order. The system is relatively young, and expansive, and must gradually adapt itself to changing conditions. The chief difficulty of course is the expense. There should be many more tutors than there are at present. But tutors cost money and must also be given some liope of advancement. The next greatest difficulty is not with the system but with the students. Most students, I suppose, do not care to assume extra burden of tutorial work without the corresponding benefits of college courses, credits. Hence tutorial work is likely to be regarded by them as an infliction rather than an advantage. For that reason I should favor your proposal in Question Eleven.

I believe that the class of student that is distinctly not fitted for tutorial work is the class of those who go through college on the border-line between probation and low-standing. Their interests are not academic enough to metivate them to independent work, and their time is preoccupied with the effort of trying to keep out of trouble in course examinations. Unless tutorial were made a system of coaching for course work (which God forbid), it will never engage the interests of such students sufficiently to justify the time and expense that it now involves.

I am not sure, however, that I wholly favor the plan suggested in question eleven as an alternative to the present plan. There are students above the class of the border-line student who do profit by tutorial work and who engage in it with gratifying enthusiasm. But, in many instances, they do not wish to take the number of courses in one field now required for distinction--preferring rather to distribute their courses more liberally than the honors candidates. If a suggested revision of the tutorial plan were to prejudice their opportunity for tutorial work, I should be much disappointed. I favor simply the exclusion from tutorial of the obviously unfit for example, the exclusion of all students on probation or near it