One criticism of existing conditions included in the report of the Scholarship Committee of the Student Council stands out preeminently. Objections as to lack of time for adequate answers, obsolete Honors systems, and inefficient oral examinations may seem very real to Seniors in the Spring but are unlikely to rouse any emotion among undergraduates in the Fall; the failure to extend the tutorial system, on the other hand, is as much of a grievance to the average undergraduate in September as to the rather exceptional Senior writing the report of the Committee in May.

"The need of establishing a tutorial system for men concentrating in literature becomes" in the words of the report "clearer every year." But however clear the need may have become, there has been up to the present no visible attempt to satisfy it. To expect students without tutorial guidance adequately to prepare themselves for examinations which are really general can have only two results; either the men will not be adequately prepared or the examinations will not be general. Actually both faults are common, and the chief value of the general examination--an impetus to extended and general reading--is likely to be lost in the hectic struggle of a two-weeks preparation.

"Make haste slowly" is a proverb of more than ordinary value in educational circles, but procrastination has little to excuse itself. The tutorial system has had years to prove its value in the Division of History, Government and Economics and its application to men concentrating in literature can be no cause for trepidation or fear of dire results.

The chief reason for the failure to institute the system has been said to lie in the lack of funds sufficient to employ the necessary tutors. This would seem to be a valid excuse, but it is to be regretted that, if such is the case, no more vigorous campaign has been conducted to raise the necessary fund. It seems both unfortunate and strange that among gifts to the University totaling nearly four and one half million dollars for the past year, nothing should have been given specifically for the extension of the tutorial system.

Speaking at the alumni exercises last June President Lowell declared that Harvard would not have tutors in other departments "until the departments are convinced that it is wise to have them." This would seem to indicate that the departments and divisions which have not adopted the tutorial system are not yet convinced of its value. If this is true, and the lack of funds is not the only reason for failure to extend the system, it is a little surprising that there has been no more frank avowal of the reasons for departmental opposition.

At all events the report of the Scholarship Committee forces attention to a situation which is becoming more and more distasteful. In all fairness undergraduates are entitled to an explanation of the reasons for failure or inability in the past to introduce the tutorial system in the literatures and to some indication of when this situation may be rectified in the future. If the latter is impossible, it is time to consider the abolition of the general examination for men concentrating in literature.