It becomes increasingly clear each year that scholastic work in the University is not of a nature to arouse the passionate enthusiasm of a majority of the undergraduates. This state of affairs is not peculiar to Harvard,--it is typical of the entire American system of education.

The subject will frequently be dismissed with the common maxim: "You get out of your college exactly what you put into it," and undoubtedly, the student himself is, in large measure to blame for his attitude. But we are inclined to believe that the fault does not rest entirely with the undergraduate. Of course, it is inevitable that some men will take a more active interest in scholarship than others; the point is to increase the average interest, and to break down the wall which now exists between the lecture room and life.

Under the present system there is no close relationship between instructor and student. A distinct advance could be made by extending the tutorial system now employed in the Division of History, Government and Economics to other departments. But this system should be made for more real and vital; it should be an essential part of the college course, rather than a forgotten fortnightly chore. This would enable the student to come into closer contact with the teacher, who could discuss with him subjects of immediate interest and link them up with his academic work. The tutor could also suggest and encourage reading in a more intimate way than can be done with a large class. Much benefit could be derived if it were possible for the most prominent members of the Faculty to act in a tutorial capacity. At Oxford, men of real ability are tutors, and the system there causes men to believe vitally in the reality of their studies. A frequent conference of one-half hour's duration is more valuable than hours spent in the lecture room, and hence it is very much to the point, that the best men devote some time to conferences even though this may mean reducing the number of hours they spend in lecturing.

The relations between advisor and advisee could very well be made more important. If the student discussed not only the courses he proposes to take, but why he wants to take them and what his interests are, he would be in a far better position to choose. He should be encouraged to meet more members of the Faculty. There are about half a dozen professors and instructors who meet students informally at definite hours in their homes, and their courses stimulate a larger number of undergraduates than do others. At present, some men go through College without talking to a single instructor and, know by sight, only those with whom they are obliged to take courses.

Both the system and the student attitude should be changed. The instructor can be less inaccessible,--the student more receptive and intelligent minded. Reforms to stimulate new interest in scholarship should be carefully discussed and considered before the changes in the system of instruction here at Harvard are finally decided.