Biology and Sociology Tutors Discuss System In Answer To Crimson Questionnaire

It is true that certain students are not stimulated by tutorial work. In some instances I am quite sure that it is due to an unhappy combination of tutor and tutee. In other instances I fancy departments and divisions,--I feel that it has been so in our own in certain instances, I believe capable instructors have not done justice to their tutorial work because of what they have allowed to become major interests--the desire of obtaining a Ph.D., an interest in research, inherent or fostered because of an anxiety for promotion and recognition.

I am a profound believer in research and in tutors carrying on some research. There is a spontaneity of enthusiasm that can then be passed on to a student. If the man be mature enough to put a sufficient check on his major interest so that the student may get a broader view of the field, and yet be led to see the problems it contains, I believe the research aspect is wholesome and stimulating. Personally I am afraid tutorial guidance is often factual alone, and becomes a "hum-drum" to the student--just one more piece of work. On that plane, tutorial instruction is not necessary stimulating. If the student receives, it is due to his own enthusiasm and not that of the tutor. Before considering a necessity for two degrees, would it not be worth while to investigate thoroughly the possibilities of improving our present system? I realize that there are financial difficulties, and also problems in getting real tutors, yet I do not believe they are insurmountable.

It is already recognized that some students are not benefited by the tutorial system, but these are not necessarily poor students. Some good students feel themselves superior to the system and do not avail themselves of its opportunities. Some poor students derive much assistance from their tutors in course work and in preparation for general examinations.

An Honors Degree and a Pass degree exist, practically speaking, at the present time. I do not believe that the general examinations should be abolished for any class of students. Tutorial instruction has always been optional. This is the most important feature of the system. It allows students who do not feel themselves benefited (sic) to use their time otherwise and if thereby gives the tutor more time to devote to students who are using the instruction to advantage.

I should like to have tutorial work limited or reduced in the case of pass men, but they ought to be given a chance to develop an intersect with the tutor. I think everyone ought to pass a general examination, but there might possibly be an advanced part for honors men. I should like to see course teaching limited to cases where the lecturer has subjects to treat of personal interest in which he is active, and to a few elementary courses. In general I should like to see the tutorial work replace as far as possible.

Certain elementary courses are indispensable and a certain amount of routine laboratory training is essential; likewise, certain sets of advanced lectures are very stimulating. But in a great many courses of intermediate rank a change to the tutorial method would, in my opinion be desirable.

In conducting any such survey it is of little real value to consider only those phrases which seems to be unsatisfactory, for there always such in almost any system and perhaps we can not hope to satisfy everyone. Changes may not be justified if they are sponsored by only a few when they are sponsored by only a few when the majority seem to be serious in their satisfaction. The few are always ready to make a loud noise but often this common deserves only what it provokes it, a smile.

As regards the Department of Biology, I belive it is safe to say that with the recent introduction of research courses and Biology C the honors student is able to obtain the additional individual instruction which is suggested in statement 11, while the tutorial work is quite optional for those students only mildly interested in biology.

I feel that it should be recognized quite clearly that comments upon the Tutorial system in general are likely to be quite misleading unless it be recognized that the effective technique is, and should be, quite different in science Department of Fine Arts or Comparative Literature.

For other reasons, any answer to your second question may be quite misleading, because in the life of a scholar who occupies an academic position it is frequently impossible, and in the ideal case should be impossible, to make any real distinction between such things as "course work" and "research"; the whole problem of the philosophy of teaching is involved in this capable of telling the truth.

I am answering your questionnaire as briefly as possible, but I will ask that in evaluating the replies these considerations be kept in mind. I should also mention that although I have been very deeply interested in the Tutorial system as it is worked out in the Division of Biology, my direct contact with it has extended the Tutorial system in such a way as to bridge over the gap between the treatment of mature undergraduates and graduate students.

From the standpoint of instruction I am interested in both course and tutorial work, and believe each to be significant. In the sciences the integration of these two forms of instruction is beset by difficulties which are being overcome. A specific bridge to the gap exists in laboratory work, where a kind of informal tutorial work has been going on ever since laboratory courses were given. In science, moreover, the tutor's interest in research is a necessary part of his equipment as a scientist. It is s futile effort (in a scientific field) to separate tutors into teachers and research workers. In my opinion your question two is meaningless for a scientist.

In regard to question nine, again no answer of the type "x marks the spot where" can be given. In my experience any one of these categories might predominate depending on the interests and abilities of the student. The most important category of all you have omitted, namely that of working on or developing the interests of the student in some theoretical aspect of the field.

I would answer "no" at once to question eleven if I did not think you would fall to read the following comment. Some of our best students are frequently not Honors candidates, and these men get much from tutorial work. I therefore regard the two degree suggestion as highly undesirable, in placing an unwarranted emphasis on formal candidacy for Honors.

Sociology Department

No teacher should be satisfied with the Tutorial System or any other device for university education can be improved currently. Drastic changes may not be necessary. The achievements of a Tutorial System lie rather more in the purposes and personalities of the tutors than in organization.

I look upon the tutorial system as the student's major opportunity to overcome his deficiencies and develop his capacities. All students should have the advantage of the tutorial system. The best relation between tutor and student is dissatisfied he should have opportunity to transfer to another tutor, precisely as a patient who is dissatisfied may change his physician.

I do not like your questionnaire because of its implications. The primary purpose of the Tutorial System, as I see it is not to discuss course work, prepare for examinations, or study topics outside of the field. It is rather to help the student to discover himself and his aptitudes, overcome deficiencies in past training, coordinate and systematize his studies, develop discrimination, judgement and reasoning capacity, fill in the gaps in his general culture, arouse latent interests, discover the inter-relations of his various fields of study acquire scholarly habits of study learn how to take notes and to use libraries and source material--but primarily to learn to do independent thinking; recognize and overcome stereotypes, develop his native capacities and learn how to use them most effectively.

The student should have a great deal of latitude in deciding what he shall read and study under the Tutorial System, and should be much more concerned with self-mastery and self-development than with stuffing his memory with information that will get him by his divisionals. If he concerns himself with the former, he should be safe so far as the divisionals are concerned. This applies to all students, and not merely to candidates for honors. Honors are empty if acquired only thorough a process of stuffing.