CASH AND CARRY

The announcement of the series of so-called voluntary lectures to be delivered this year by younger members of the Government department directs attention to the long steps which Harvard has taken during the past two years toward a recognition of the tutorial system as at least equal in importance to the lecture as a method of college instruction. It will be profitable at this time, to review the steps.

1. Attendance records have been abandoned in courses frequented by Juniors and Seniors.

2. April and November grades in all courses save those open to Freshmen are no longer returned to the Deans.

3. There is no longer a public rank list for upperclassmen.

4. The course requirement for degrees has been dropped from 16 to 15.

5. Phi Beta Kappa has altered its election program to choose 40 instead of 25 of the Senior class after General examinations records are in.

In addition to these accomplishments in the name of tutoring, there have appeared in high sources, notably Dean Hanford's report of last year, important suggestions which would strengthen the tutorial staffs, count in tutorial work in making up honor lists and awarding scholarships, perhaps consider tutorial work as even more a part of the degree requirement than is indicated by the reduction of the requirement to 15 courses.

It becomes apparent that a revolution is taking place in Harvard's class-room methods when lecture halls are no longer to be kept filled by the ministrations of a monitor and the shadow of a "parrot" examination. It is an interesting sign that the young government instructors, all of them tutors, who have volunteered the new series of lectures, regard the series as a valuable experiment in the technique of presentation. Harvard is to be treated to a view of what spirited informal and purely extra-curricular lectures can accomplish in the way of presenting information. At least so much is certain: the lectures cannot cover text book material; and they must be well given.

Now, while the undergraduate feels that there is much evidence to back his claim to greater responsibility and his request for more academic freedom, there are those who regard his zeal in this direction as suspiciously comparable to that of a high-schooler contemplating recess. In all common sense it must be admitted that the truth is probably half way between the two points of view. The fact that this truth is unpalatable, makes it none the less true. And the conditions which make it fact, constitute one of the most pressing problems to be met by American educators today.

Last spring Mr. Robert Hutchins enunciated in his own loud and clear manner the opinion that there is only one difference between the nature of study during the Freshman year at an American college and at a preparatory school, and that is that preparatory school students are better instructed. It is impossible of course, to swallow this remark whole, but the lesson of his exaggeration is none the less sound. That Harvard is no exception to the general rule is a fact which finds ample demonstration in the Deans' reports and in the annual emphasis placed upon the conferences between college and secondary school educators. The average Harvard undergraduate is simply not ready to undertake tutorial work at the end of his Freshman year. There are those, indeed, who will insist that his enlightenment as to the essential purposes and methods of a college education does not come until well in the Junior year.

It is the habit, while discussing this matter, to lay the blame on the doorstep of the Freshman adviser. This is convenient, easy, and unfair. For the province of the adviser is bounded by the limitations of the word advice, by his own business, and most of all by the initiative of his charges. Further, since he is thus constricted it becomes evident that the adviser can play no great part in any plan to matriculate the Freshman more completely, and more speedily.

Ten barrels of advice are worth in short, about half a barrel of actual experience with college tools. It is here argued, therefore, that Freshman courses should be required to put greater emphasis upon the kind of work which will be expected of the men in their later college years, which is to say, upon original reading, and upon papers written from moderately original research. The experience and records of Freshmen who have been so fortunate as to be included in the conference groups of History 1, for example, might be worth investigating as evidence of the value of such work.

Ideally, of course, the Freshman would come to college prepared to take up college work, and would not out of necessity be condemned to a year of polishing. That is, however, an ideal which, although pretty enough, will be long in the coming. The definite imposition of more mature work in the Freshman courses would be a reasonable step in the direction of more stringent entrance requirements, helping all the while to bridge the present gap between the first and second college years.