Sophistries?

The Harvard Crimson assumes no responsibility for the sentiments expressed by correspondents, and reserves the right to exclude any communication whose publication may for any reason seem undesirable. Except by special arrangement, communications cannot be published anonymously.

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

President Lowell is quoted in this morning's papers upon various subjects of concern to the students and alumni of Harvard University. One assumes that his enthusiasms are genuine, yet hesitates at being convinced of their validity, especially in the matter of the supposed benefits of the matter of the supposed benefits of the tutorial system.

There are usually three types of student at any college: the energetic (in the Aristotelian sense), the dilettante, and the social. The first, being serious by nature, aims at true culture or specialization, in either case accomplishing his end by self-willed study. The second does not pursue any one subject for any length of time, but flits about from Boccaccio to George Moore, takes all the "appreciation" courses, and possibly athletics. The third has no interest in the intellectual life proper, being too much occupied with the pleasure of clothes, tobacco, alcohol, the atres, clubs, and so on. I believe that all these types exist at Harvard, although it must be remembered that strict classification is specious and that hybrids also are present.

Which of the three, then does the tutorial system help? One would hardly suggest the second or third. Do the tutors really help the first? Not unless the object of education has really been changed. The system under which most of the professors now at Harvard were educated was one which involved learning, by self-wiled energy. The tutorial system at Harvard today has as its object a species of synthetic feeling, whereby the tutor puts an intellectual yeast-cake into the brew of the student's thoughts as an aid to mental fermentation. The test of potency is applied in the divisional examinations, when the display of knowledge shows itself truly effervescent, in some cases even explosive.

Are the divisional examinations justifiable? To the serious student, they are merely a proof of his general knowledge, and subordinate to his higher aims. To the other types of student they are an additional burden, a source of anxiety, or an unmitigated hore. Divisional examinations can never show brilliance of intellect, except of the synthetic variety, as they are too inclusive, and frequently contain questions that are properly subjects for books. Would President Lowell grant a degree to a man who wrote an excellent divisional examination and also failed to obtain in his Senior year the required number of credits? Such procedure seems hardly probable.

For my own part, I must in all fairness leave these questions open as neither the tutorial system nor the divisional examinations directly concern me. Such observations as I have made are based on my acquaintance and opinions of both tutors and undergraduates whom I have met. I hope that this letter may provoke some thought on this important matter, and to that end I quote from President Lowell: "This year every department has tutors and, although it requires additional work on the part of the students, the funny thing is they like it." Allen H. Gleason 1G