History and Literature

Ever since its inception, History and Literature has had the problems of any new field. Although, in recent years, the field has attracted more concentrators than many of the departments, it could never be called a department, but retained the elegant name of a "Committee on Degrees in History and Literature."

Not being a department explains many of the difficulties which have become apparent. Without doubt, the wide choice of research opportunities justifiably attracts a steady stream of good students who want to enjoy the benefits of a liberal education without committing themselves permanently to any specific field.

But many concentrators have also found a dearth of competent and experienced tutors, particularly in the out-of-the-way branches of History and Lit., which are advertised as being offered by the Committee.

In other departments, a senior honors candidate can at least hope for a tutorial with a professor well-versed in his field. Not so in History and Lit., where (although a great majority of concentrators are honors candiates) most of the tutors are young instructors or graduate students, and where students are often assigned to a tutor with a different special field of interest than their own.

The fast turnover and apparent scarcity of tutors is reputedly due, first of all, to the Committee's lack of funds which prohibits the acquisition of the best men in a field. It is rare to find a Comparative Literature professor tutoring in History and Lit., although much of the field deals with this subject.

Also, the Committee finds difficulty in keeping the tutors it does have. Every year, tutors leave to take more important posts in their own departments. The French, English or German Departments consume their real interest: History and Lit. is merely a rest stop.

The Board of Tutors, apparently aware of the growth of the good student to good tutor ratio, decided to eliminate some of the students, thus raising standards for honors while bettering tutorial. The Committee told the bottom quarter of junior concentrators last spring that they had failed their general exams and would not be able to write theses. The previous year, no junior failed on his History and Lit. generals.

Sorry for giving what they admitted was a "loaded" exam and seeing that many concentrators with honor grades could no longer go out for honors and write theses, the tutors pulled a complete about face. They promised to recommend each concentrator, who failed, for a senior-year course reduction, in which he or she could write a protothesis--a thesis-length term paper. This move did not greatly ease the tutor shortage.

And now, the Class of '59 waits with baited breath for next spring. Will the tutors once again eliminate the bottom quarter of the class? Or will they, having given every one a good scare, assume that this class is working harder? Will they return to the old system of not flunking anybody?

Admission to History and Lit. has always been considered a privilege. But it will only remain a privilege if the concentrators can be taught and tutored properly. Freshman year is the time to decide how many members of the class can receive first-rate instruction. The number of those admitted and the fields offered ought to be limited, so that each concentrator can be adequately tutored.

On the level of the University, greater administrative cooperation between departments would be of untold benefit to the undergraduate. If red tape were loosened far enough to encourage the occasional loan of the history and literary professors for History and Lit. tutorials, the College and the concentrator in History and Lit. would benefit.