Faculty Weighs Three Advising Plans

Many Harvard undergraduates today are not well enough acquainted with even one faculty member to ask for a character reference. Professors and students alike have noticed this during the past few years, and felt it was a sign that something is going seriously wrong with the Harvard education. Last fall faculty committee took action. Under the chairmanship of Dean Bender, this group turned out the 133-page "Report on Advising in Harvard College" (the so-called Bender Report). About a month ago, the whole faculty unanimously upheld the underlying principle of the report--that some kind of tutorial system was necessary for the five largest departments to bring closer faculty-student contact. Many months of discussion will be needed to iron out the details of such a plan. The undergraduate will probaboy not notice any significant change in his study program until the fhall of 1952.

The total lack of acquaintance between faculty and undergraduate is a relatively new development. Only since World War II, after the University adopted the 1945 General Education Committee recommendation limiting tutorial to honors candidates, has this estrangement really developed. Before then, it was different.

During the austere early days of the College, undergraduates had a tutor. Tutor-student relations were close, although occasionally uncomfortable. The tutors were also responsible for discipline.

"New England's First Fruits in Respect to the Colledge and the proceedings of learning therin" (1642) has this to say:

". . . And if anything they (students) doubt, they fhall enquire . . . modeftly of their Tutors.

Avoid 'Diffolute Life'

6. None fhall under any pretence whatfoever, frequent the company and fociety of fuch men as lead an unfit and diffolute life.

Nor fhall, without his Tutors leave, (or, in his abfence) the call of Parents or Guardians, goe abroad to other Townes.

7. Every Scholar fhall be prefent in his Tutors chamber at the 7th. houre in the morning, immediately after the found of the Bell at his opening the Scripture and prayer, fo alfo at the 5th. houre at night, and then give account of his owne private reading. . . ."

Tutors were also required to be present in the Dining Hall "a meal times, to prevent disorders."

Gradually, the trend of Harvard education bore away from the rigidly defined classical preparation for he ministry. Electives, introduced over a century ago, reached their heyday 50 years later when a degree could be had merely by passing 18 courses, no two of which needed to be related.

'Low Born Rustics'

With this trend, came the estrangement of tutors. During the first days of the University, the feeling between undergraduate and tutor was generally friendly and intimate. Samuel Eliot Morison '03 in "Three Conturies of Harvard" comments on the change:

"But in the eighteenth cenutry, tutors had their own chambers, and during the disorderly period of the Revolution, if not before, the undergraduates began to look upon them as their natural enemies. A lad who treated his tutor as a friend was looked down upon as a 'fisherman', and the tutors regarded the undergraduates as inmates in a reformatory . . ."

One student of the period stated that tutors were "invariably low born despicable rustics, lately emerged from the dunghill, who, conscious of their own want of genius, were determined to discountenance all who possessed it."

Lowell Reforms

President Lowell 30-add years ago ushered in the general study program which undergraduates have come to expect today-separate fields of concentration, divisional examinations, and the like. With this came a revival and vast extension of tutorial. Tutoring was now a function that any faculty member performed, not merely the title for the lowest form of instructor. During the '30s, 95 percent of the College received tutorial.

Then, as now, skeptics insisted that the disadvantages of universal tutoring would outweigh the benefits. Morison again comments:

"Most students and alumni were against it, partly as a new burden, partly because it seemed a retrograde step from the free election of the Eliot era. (However, it was eventually alumni generosity that covered the large initial expenses.) Not many members of the faculty cared to undertake tutorial instruction, and new men had to pick up tutorial technique as best they could. . . . Gradually the personnel has improved, and, especially since the Houses have been built, a close personal and friendly relation between tutor and 'tutee' has been established. . . . The most surprising improvement has been the increasing number of undergraduates who undertake additional study in order to obtain honors at graduation."

Lowell Guessed Wrong

President Lowell confidently expected that the new tutorial son would become the core of all upperclass studies, and that the wide assortment of courses would diminish to a few large basic introductory ones. Here he was wrong. Departments still encouraged their new men by allowing them to add new courses in their particular specialties.

By 1945, the Committee on General Education was forced to announce that "the time has come for Harvard College to recognize the impossibility of carrying both an extraordinarily rich system of course instruction and a tutorial system under which every student is given the benefit of individual instruction."

The Overseers had reached the same conclusion 11 years earlier:

"At present it costs just as much by the hour to tutor the unresponsive students, as the responsive, and the drain on the tutor's energy is greater in one case than in the other. Since these are times when every expense must justify itself, common sense would suggest that tutoring should be in large measure reserved for those students who can really profit by it."

In 1946, tutorial was limited to honors candidates. But the General Education Report had made it clear that non-honors men not receiving tutorial, should at least be counselled by a thorough advising system. This never happened.

Bender, Brinton Plans

This year there major proposals have been offered--all designed to close the breach between faculty members and non-honors men. All were set up for operation within available resources (although opinion differed as to the extent of these): and all concern the five largest departments--History, Government, Economics, English, and Social Relations--where mass production education is most noticeable.

The Bender Report proposed solving the problem by giving bi-weekly group tutorial to all undergraduates. The Bender Committee felt that these groups, to be successful could not exceed five men. To keep costs within reason, individual tutorial would be eliminated except for a handful of honors seniors.

Departmental reaction to this portion of the Bender Report was immediate and, adverse. An unofficial committee headed by History Department Chairman C. Crane Brinton '19, countered that individual senior honors tutorial rated top priority. If anything should go, they felt, it should be the five man limitation on the groups. The Brinton proposals suggested that eight to twelve man seminars would fulfill the needs of all but honors seniors.

Student Council Reacts

The Student Council reacted a month ago. It unanimously approved "Tutorial at Harvard," the report of a subcommittee headed by Donald L. M. Blackmer '52. The Blackmer Report took the middle and expensive view. Seniors should receive individual thesis attention, it says, but the five man limit on the groups must remain.

A new feature of the Blackmer Report, not found in the two faculty proposals, is the heavy emphasis on essay writing as a part of a tutorial. The General Education Report had said:

". . . Tutorial discussion, particularly when combined with the writing and critical analysis fo essays, does more than give coherence to a particular field of study; it can also help to give a greatly increased breadth of view and maturity of judgment."

The Council echoed this sentiment, pointing out that upperclassmen at present have little chance to develop writing skill.

The Bender Report make three major provisions to carry out its non-honors tutorial program. First, that the present Dean's office be decentralized to the Houses, so that both in advising and in disciplinary matters, personal factors will be considered that cannot now receive attention.

Principles Generally Accepted

Second, the Bender Committee felt that each student should expect to take tutortial, and his work be evaluated. This measure would be in the form of a short comment and would not be used in reckoning academic standing.

Lastly, the report states that in assignment study topics for the groups, departments should allow tutors freedom to assign work fitting the interests of the group. However, broad departmental direction is deemed necessary to prevent either overspectalization or advance to following individual course lines.

These three proposals have been heartily approved in principle by the Student Council, the CRIMSON, and most of the faculty. Although some of the faculty have reservations concerning details of operation, eventual agreement seems likely.

Two kinds of obstacles seem to block the way of tutorial extension in certain of the five large departments. In one case it is actual shortage of money and teachers; in other cases departments feel they cannot afford to use time and energy on large-scale tutorial in preference to research, writing, and graduate work.

The History and Government departments present the most favorable picture: they are comparatively well-staffed and well-heeled. But most important, they are enthusiastic. The Government faculty, almost to a man, is willing to take on tutorial assignments. Only three or four senior professors refuse to tutor in History.

English and Economics Cool

Both English and Economics are long established, financially sound departments. But the senior men in each--for different reasons--are cool toward any all-out installation of group tutorial. The English Department has long offered individual instruction to all its Group-III-and-above men. In general, it tends to view and drastic change of this, in order to boost less promising non-honors men, as a move in the wrong direction. Further, only four of the senior professors can seem to find time for tutoring.

Economics, on the other hand, has had a sporadic tutorial record. But again, most of the senior men here are preoccupied outside of courses--either with research or government work.

The Social Relations Department is a special case. While great enthusiasm exists for closer faculty-student relations, a fairly large amount of money is still needed. This is because the department's budget has been unable to keep pace with the great increase in Social Relations concentrators over the past few years. Also, Social Relations always employs a large number of guest lecturers who can never tutor as well as permanent faculty members.

Prospects Good

Department - by - department glances show that the prospects for installing even the more expensive Blackmer plan are surprisingly good. A few professors have already offered to bracket one of their courses (giving it in alternate years) in order to devote more time to tutoring. If everyone shows this willingness, most of the problem will be solved.

The Provost also receives over $100,000 each year unrestricted from the Harvard Fund. While this money must cover many projects, tutorial for everyone seems to be high on the list.

Even if money and staffing problems can be solved, however, many faculty members still have one final reservation about the whole idea; they want a program which will be flexible enough to drop complete malcontents and to encourage promising underclassmen with individual attention.

Next year will be one of discussion and experimenting. But if all important differences are found out, the fall of 1953 will see the most significant improvement in the Harvard education since the war.