FORMER OXFORD TUTOR DEFENDS TUTORIAL SYSTEM IN REPLY TO BRINTON'S ARTICLE

The following article describing certain phases of the tutorial system at Oxford was written especially for the CRIMSON by Deane Jones, a former tutor at Oxford who is now residing in Cambridge.

--

I was much interested in an article which appeared in the CRIMSON on last Saturday, May 16, in which the methods and manners of Oxford tutors were described with kindly justice by Dr. Brinton. His rapid and clear survey gives a vivid picture of Oxford life and it is a considerable achievement to have simplified without distortion the mass of inconsistencies and inefficiencies which is Oxford. I can only recall one neater sketch. It is this:--

"Five things that Oxford teaches to revere;

Beef, noise, the Church, vulgarity and beer."

Dr. Brinton is more benevolent than this anonymous satirist--perhaps more benevolent than accurate in his praise of college beer. But then, I should remember that dryness lends enchantment to the taste, if you will pardon the truism.

Hard things have been said of college tutors, none harder than by the modern Juvenal I have just quoted. For example:--

"Vile is the scout (college servant) who steals the student's dole,

But viler still the don who steals the soul,

Takes the fair youth of England fresh from school

And turns him hence a pedant or a fool."

Despite this indictment I confess myself an Oxford tutor, and as such I feel compelled to criticise a little this model of a historical essay, and then to use it, as all tutors should, for the basis of my own suggestions.

Oxford Students Movie Fans

My first criticism is based partly on personal resentment and partly on impersonal jealousy for the honor of the Science of History. Your learned contributor, I hear, is a historian, and I am therefore astonished to see that he has neglected to fortify, his statements by declaring his sources. He forces me to claim the distinction of being an original source--"Tutor est fons animatus", lest any of your readers should imagine that all Oxford dons are movie fans. I admit that it is highly desirable that they should be but I fear that such a state of things is ideal and as yet outside the range of practical academies. So I must claim undisputed paternity of the essay-title he mentions on the cinema as a form of art, while denying stoutly that I encourage the evils which he implies in the mysterious term "Distribution". On the contrary, movie-going is the common, if not the unique form of concentration exercised by Oxford undergraduates; and accepting that fact without moan, I wanted to discover whether they considered it necessary that mental processes should be entirely atrophied to secure proper enjoyment of the spectacle. I was relieved to find that some of them applied the same canons of aesthetic criticism to a film as to a painting, a building or a theatrical revue.

Develop Independent Criticism

In general, I think Dr. Brinton exaggerates the dangers of distribution and concentration at Oxford. The general essays he describes as existing at one of the best colleges (for which adjective I thank him) are not meant to contradict the general principle of relating all studies to one main field, such as history or philosophy. We assume, perhaps rashly, that men who seek honors do not spend all their working hours on studies that are prostituted to the requirements of their final examinations, and that they find relief in other aspects of thought, art, or literature. We then more rashly assume that they would like to discuss their intellectual hobbies with their tutors, and we arrange that they come twice a term and discuss questions of their own choice with various tutors, so that they have a chance to unmask the minds of other men besides their regular adviser. This is not a distraction from study, but is meant to encourage men's critical faculties to play on all human activities and not to be confined in subject-tight compartments. For the one important thing that Oxford has and cares to give is the development of independent criticism.

The concentration involved in taking a final Honour course is not very straitlaced, as Dr. Brinton's own example shows. The much abused word "history" includes economics, political philosophy and constitutional law; and in practice a wide knowledge of the literature and art of the periods studied is expected and catered for by the examiners. On the other hand, the study of botany together with biblical exegesis and Roman law is discouraged as not conducive to assimilation by the intellect whereby men see life steadly and see it whole.

Oxford Tutorial System a Myth

My chief complaint, however, against Dr. Brinton is that he perpetuates, although in quotation marks, the myth of the "Oxford tutorial system". Until I reached this country I was not aware that I was a cog of any such imposing machine. I had imagined hitherto that I was living and working in an academic and therefore respectable anarchy, in which tutors and pupils were at the mercy of each others' whims and weaknesses--a situation which engenders self-reliance if nothing else. But in America I have been asked to formulate methods and recite the Tutorial Code and Catechism, and I very much fear that in confusion and in shame of my inefficiency I have been tempted to invent them. In practice, a great deal depends upon the individual tutor's strength or weakness, permanent or periodical; and much more depends on the pupil's capacity to excite the tutor's anger, interest or fear according to the nature of the essay of the following discussion. Only two rules can be stated with certainty:--

(1) that controversy is the breath of the tutorial spirit,

(2) that respect of the pupil for his tutor is fatal to both.

Tutor Has Closer Contact

Herein lies the difference between the methods of the tutor and the lecturer; for no lecturer can ever be wholly honest. He assumes a position of superiority and omniscience and he addresses his audience out of the fullness thereof; he demands attention and at least superficial respect; and he is forced by public opinion and by that of Dr. Brinton to use the arts and devices of public speaking. He introduces, classifies and perorates and cannot be tripped up at the right moment by any skeptical listener. Whereas a tutor cannot declaim to one man, and he can be heckled; and he does not start from the resources of his own mind, but from those of his pupil's, so that there is more possibility of intellectual contact than between a lecturer and his audience.

This may serve to explain the Oxford man's innate suspicion of education by lectures, which he regards as a form of persecution depriving him of the right to hit back when provoked. The essence of his own method of education is best expressed by the common phrase that So-and-so is "reading" for honours in history; it may also be illustrated by the statement in "Who's Who" of a distinguished scholar hailing from Eton and Oxford that he was "self-educated".

The only other correction which I should make in Dr. Brinton's account concerns his assertion that "a certain amount of work is usually done in the vacations". I would emend "in the vacations" to "in term time"; people work quite hard away from the distractions of Oxford.

Have Lectures For the Stupid

After these captious criticisms I hesitate to expose myself to counterattack by making positive suggestions on the subject of Harvard's tutorial system. The conditions under which the Harvard and Oxford tutors work are so different that comparisons are not very profitable. The Harvard tutor is not as yet the jealous deity typified by the Oxford tutor, who will have no other gods save him and assumes complete responsibility for the doings of his pupils. The former is therefore in greater danger of being misused as a coach, in order to fill up gaps in knowledge just before the examinations and thus turn second-class men into first-class examinees. And his spirit may often be crushed by stupid men who strike no spark in him and in whom no spark can be struck. Lecturers are best suited to deal with such men; for they ask no questions, no, nor answer any.

Two things are necessary if any tutor is to give of his best and not waste his gift;--first, a clear distinction between men who seek honours in their course and men who come to the university to obtain a degree, a letter, an atmosphere or some such token which does not necessitate individual discussion and critical treatment of their studies.

Secondly, the tutor must have the responsible supervision of his pupil's academic career throughout his undergraduate days; in order that he may unify his studies, and see that his development is not thwarted amid the mazes and pitfalls of grades, courses, and similar disturbances of the peace.

I might add that he should not be expected to turn all his geese into swans; but he should care tenderly for his geese and develop all the finer qualities of their geesehood.

Such maxims as these are not the monopoly of any local system, but are indigenous to any place where the growth of a liberal culture is fostered. There is no earthly reason why Harvard should lay the blame on Oxford.