Promotion of Capable Tutors Is Advocated by Overseer's Report as Matter of Sound Policy

Another significant consequence of the failure to recognize tutoring as a valuable and necessary function of the College deserves mention. It has to do with current ideas and attitudes. The younger members of the Faculty, who in all likelihood were full-time tutors in their early career, tend as they move up the academic ladder to show a marked preference for lecturing over tutoring. It is commonly believed that he who gives a course has won a badge of distinction. The traditional idea often persists that a professor is one who lectures, carries on research, and writes books; if he also takes on a few tutees, he does so out of the goodness of his heart. But why might not a professor also be defined, in theory as well as in practice, as one who tutors, carries on research, and writes books. In short, if a man has a genius for tutoring, and prefers not to give courses, he ought to feel assured that he will be able to exercise his peculiar gifts as an educator without being penalized.

There is no real conflict between the lecture system and the tutorial system. In the Harvard plan of education each has its place. Why, then, this preference for the one over the other? No doubt many factors enter in: one of them seems to be the almost universal assumption that lecturing is more important than tutoring. Men will always strive to do the things which they think will advance their interests. As long as the false idea persists that the giving of a course may improve a man's chance of promotion, while tutoring does not, ambitious young members of the Faculty will drop tutoring in favor of course work at the first opportunity.

The foregoing paragraphs have argued for the promotion of able tutors as a matter of sound, long-range policy. It remains to mention a reason why it is expedient as well as wise.