Yesterday's editorial entitled "King Grade" was destructive in its criticism. It deplored the present over-emphasis on the grading system; and it pointed out that as long as the College office does not recognize the tutorial work performed by a student in judging his scholastic rank, there is no motive urging him to do the reading suggested by his tutor. The result is that the tutorial system tends to lead a cramped and somewhat unhealthy existence. Once the truth of this observation becomes apparent, the way is open for constructive thought.

The problem of the College authorities is to devise a machinery of academic administration which is adjusted to the capacity and temper of the undergraduates with which it must deal. The student body is quite naturally inclined to place an estimate of higher worth on that capacity than does the faculty. But both will accept as psychologically sound the observation that the average student will do no or little scholastic work for which he receives no or little official credit. It is because of this complex that the tutorial system can not develop properly at present; and it is this same psychology which must be used in the future to foster its growth.

A plan must be devised whereby a student's scholastic standing depends as much upon his tutorial work as upon his course record. One such suggests itself: Have each tutor hand in to the office at the end of the half year a report on each of his students--satisfactory," "barely satisfactory," or "unsatisfactory." When the time comes for the question of academic discipline or honors count this tutorial record as fully as one or two courses. Extend the number of satisfactory grades and reports required, so that no man who does totally unsatisfactory tutorial work can remain in good scholastic standing. Just so, let no man receive a recognition of distinction through a scholarship or Phi Beta Kappa which is not justified by both his course and his tutorial record.

There is abundant room for discrimination in such a plan. "Satisfactory" will be reported only after a consideration of all factors by the tutors. Nor have classifications the discouraging rigidity of an alphabetical grade system. In time, when the present overemphasis on course grades becomes a memory only a student's scholastic rank will rest simply upon a report of "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" on both his course and his tutorial work. The absurd preoccupation with delicately shaded course grades which now descends like a plague on the College at examination periods will them be a horror of the past. Some system of judging a man's work is necessary, but there is no reason why the present unbalanced and unjust machinery should be allowed to operate forever.