TEXTBOOKS AND TUTORING

Dean Hanford, in an affidavit given the courts in the Tutoring Bureau case, has set forth the views of University Hall on the use of outlines, abridgements, and all similar intellectual crutches. He points out that the use of summaries is the direct opposite of that which the word "education," in the Lowellian sense, implies. It is added, moreover, that it may become necessary to abolish the reading periods if the work is not done from the assigned books. Delivered of these powerful arguments against the Bureau, Dean Hanford proceeds further to demolish it by remarking that the use of short cuts tends to persuade the students that "the important thing in college is to pass examinations," or "encourages a certain type of student to even more questionable methods of passing the examinations." Finally, he concludes, the publication of these epitomes is unfair to the authors of the books in question.

There is no question but that the employment of abridgements is subversive to the aims of the higher education; the policy of Harvard, however, and of other large universities, has been to allow the undergraduate to decide for himself just how much he will put into his work, so long as his grades are reasonably good. Dean Hanford's argument against the methods of the Bureau is, in this case, a well-founded one, from a theoretical standpoint; from the point of view of practice, it is useless, for even if the court in this particular instance should be swayed by it, the tutoring establishments will continue their ways along other lines.

The point, that the sale of outlines infringes on the rights of authors, is not only a justifiable one, but opens the sole practicable line of attack against the tutoring bureaus. The argument, however, remains justifiable only so long as the books assigned in courses remain suitable. This they have not altogether been: in some cases the books recommended or required in various fields are ridiculously expensive; in other cases, they are wretchedly written, far too long, and almost demand an auxiliary outline in order successfully to be utilized. When such conditions arise, the bureaus are almost justified, in their claims that their summaries are not an infringement but an assistance; further, students can hardly be expected to expend thirty or forty dollars on confusing books when useful outlines can be obtained for a much lower price.

In general, the affidavit, regarded as a statement of policy, is little more than a welter of idealistic impracticalities. The students should do their work completely and critically; but many of them will never do so while they are assigned unwieldy tomos, which waste their time, and many of them will never do so in any case. The tutoring bureaus should stop helping the undergraduate down the path of intellectual disintegration; but the experience of Harvard and others has shown that they will not stop, and cannot be stopped.