Crimson Publishes Last of General Comments By Tutors On Questionnaire Concerning the Tutorial System at Harvard

I believe that all students should take the general examinations, but should be allowed 'o omit tutorial work, if they wish. I don't believe there should be a sharp division between honors students, who would be required to have tutorial week, and others, who would not have the privilege of working under tutors if they desired. Tutorial work should be open to all, but should be optional.

In a foreign literature, especially with students who do not read the language rapidly, it seems more profitable to have a student spend his time reading authors rather than in writing reports.

I should like to see the following changes:

1. Optional tutorial work.

I believe that the tutorial board should be more or less permanent, not varied be more or less permanent, not varied from year to year, as it is at present.

Also, there should be some disciplinary measures possible. I am a firm believer in the value of the general examinations for all men, whether candidates for Honors or not, and the tutorial system seems.

I am satisfied with the present arrangement. It is more just to find fault with the individual tutors, who are largely left to their own resources, rather than with the general plan.

In regard to question 11, I doubt that many students would take advantage of such an arrangement or would seriously benefit from it. Those who are not benefited by tutorial work are often not benefited by class instruction.

Question 9 startles me as I supposed the whole point of the tutorial system was to emphasize a subject rather than to rehash course work to cram for exams or to gossip.

I have only one practical objection to the honors vs. Pass-degree scheme. Some of my best honor men have not found the subject until the Sophomore year and have not awakened to recognition of their own power till their Junior year. Dare we risk losing such men even though to find them, we must drag along the intellectually uncurious? I should prefer to tutor every man as intensively as he desires, and then have no regrets over those who fail the divisional examinations. (But of course if the tutoring system is merely a substitute for the widow, I have the wrong slant on everything.)

1. No drastic changes, pleas.

2. Divided among the three.

3. Four and a half.

4. Four.

5. This question is of academic interest only, to those of us who teach full time.

6. (a) 1 to 3 hours.

(b) 1 hour.

(c) 1-2 hour.

7. 1 hour.

1-2 hour.

1-2 hour.

8. No.

10. 50 percent.

As a tutor who formerly studied under the tutorial system, I feel that this system is decidedly beneficial to one who intends to continue with graduate work, and that its benefits are in direct proportion to the time and effort which a student devotes to it. It appears to me that the only ones who do not benefit from tutorial instruction are those who do either no work, or an irreducible minimum. I do not believe that the sanctions on tutorial work, such as the general examinations, should be increased. Rather should the student be lead to enjoy this work, and to develop his own initiative along the lines of his special interest.

I suggest the following reforms in tutorial work:

1. Assuming that the University continues to put as large a proportion of its resources in tutorial work as previously, that less time be given to men who do not respond and more time to those who do respond.

2. A reduction of course requirements to twelve so that tutorial work will not be merely an addition.

3. The evolution of a prominent staff of tutors who divide their time between research, tutorial work, and course work. We are tending in this direction.

Less time should be devoted to course work and more to tutorial. Fewer required courses and few course theses would strengthen the tutorial system.

All students below group V should be denied the tutorial privileges.