THE TUTORIAL SYSTEM

With the publication of this morning's statistical array the CRIMSON has printed the last of the answers to the tutorial System Questionnaire which was mailed to the tutors late in December. Despite many complaints relative to the nature of the direct questions which were sused, and despite the palpably incomplete character of the returns, the CRIMSON feels that the investigation has proved satisfactory. The statistical queries were not intended to duplicate the work of the admirable student council report of 1931; they were designed to foster student discussions of the system and to draw general expressions of opinion from the Tutors. The response has been spirited and should serve as a valuable source of information on the development of the system since 1931, and as an indication of the lines on which it can be improved.

The first to govern in visions of incipient reformers is that of caution. The development of the Tutorial System, though not above criticism, has in general received wise guidance. It has been a measurable force in rapid growth of undergraduate taste for things intellectual. In the face of such a record, drastic changes would be unwise. With these limitations in mind, the CRIMSON wishes to indicate briefly a few alterations which, lit believes, would increase the value of the tutorial System for both Tutor and Tutee. It is admittedly hazardous, in view of the separate needs of the various departments, to suggest broad outlines, but the following appear basic and applicable to the system as a whole.

The matter of personnel is obviously of prime importance. And it is here, in the keystone of the whole edifice, that one finds most of the complaints centered. There is a strong feeling that tutors must be more mature and experienced, must give more time to tutees and less to course work and research, if the system is to develop to full advantage. This is of course, subject to qualifications: many are the active Professors and intent scholars who make excellent Tutors, and no man can be expected to concentrate entirely on Tutorial work. But there is justice in the assertion that the average run of Tutors can be definitely improved. Broadly speaking, an improvement in the quality of tutors is definitely dependent on an increase in salaries heads to attract the best men into the System. In days characterized by bright red balance sheets, such a proposal is naturally incongruous; for the increase in expense must be considerable. But if any improvement is to be made in this direction, and it is obvious that there must be a good deal, the office of Tutor must become less of a stepping stone, and more of a definite, recognized career.

The difficulty of giving recalcitrant or stupid Tutees the benefit of the system without detriment to others more worthy has been a bone of contention over since the tutorial method of instruction was put into effect. The broad outlines of the problem should be familiar to all. The CRIMSON wishes merely to set forth its conclusions on the matter. First of all, it is apparent that the general examination should be a prerequisite to the A.B. degree. Individual course grades indicate practically nothing as to a student's mastery of his field. In consideration of the standards which it has the right to require that every man should give definite proof of his mastery of at least one field; in consideration of the dull student who has been permitted to enter and to pay for his education the same price charged every other man, the college is bound to give him, or even to force upon him, every possible opportunity for improvement. To deny the justice of these claims is to deny the principles upon which Harvard's under graduate education rests today. Argument relative to the validity of those principles is singularly futile; long experience has demonstrated their value. The general examination must confront all applicants for the A.B.; the Tutorial System must be compulsory.

If the slower men are to be retained in the Tutorial System, there must obviously be a more specific control by the tutor over the curriculum of his Tutees. Quite dogmatically, at least for the present; the CRIMSON proposes the following methods of control, which some departments have adopted in part, and which others might examine with profit. In the first place, although all men should be given a fair chance to "react favorably" to individual tutorial instruction during the Sophomore year, there should be a definite prestige given to such instruction in the last two years. Late in the Sophomore year, or during the first part of the Junior year, the goats should be sorted out and placed in group conferences, while the sheep continue as before. The advantages of the division would, in the first instance, be treble: individual conferences would be made the privilege of eager or able men: the Tutor's strength and energy could be used where it would be of most service; the number of Tutees per tutor could be increased and a consequent economy effected.

Tutors are practically unanimous in their opinion that course requirements should be drastically reduced. In the case of able men who can cover the work thoroughly by outside reading, this is a good recommendation. At any rate, the amount of reduction allowed any one man should be determined by his Tutor and should be roughly in inverse proportion to the amount and quality of his Tutorial work. The third means by which a Tutor could exert authority over his Tutees would be through a detailed report to University Hall. Such a report should be given consideration equal to that conceded course grades in assigning any degree of honors, in awarding financial aids, and in determining generally the man's worth and relation to the college.

These three methods of control, in order to be effective and just, must rest upon two conditions: they must depend upon a reasonable dignity and responsibility in the Tutors themselves: they must depend, upon the ability of a Tutee freely to change to another Tutor if he is dissatisfied or unable to get along with the one originally assigned to him.

Many minor details have been omitted from this sketchy summary of the above reforms, and the whole may justly be charged with superficiality. But the broad proposal stand upon firm ground. Through them alone can the "Superimposition" of the Tutorial System on the present Course system be corrected. It the next few weeks the CRIMSON will discuss in greater detail the major points at issue.