The attempt to incorporate in Harvard the advantages of the English tutorial system and at the same time retain the distinguishing characteristics of American education has become a problem which domands a clear definition of aims on the part of the Harvard faculty. As Mr. Perkins indicates in his article in today's CRIMSON, the process of self development and gradual growth here has led to an impass. If the tutorial system is to continue it must cease to be a nebulous liason between the student and teacher and adopt the definite form of actual intellectual development.

The American difficulties in the tutorial system are primarily a result of inadequate preparation. The American college has been too long a supplement to the preparatory school. The work of Harvard tutors has become merely an effort to fill in, those gaps that secondary education has left unfilled so that the student can pass the General and Divisional examinations at the end of the Senior year. The true raison d'etre of the tutorial system is to aid the student in his self education in that field which he has selected as that most fitted to him. To accomplish this it is imperative that the student have a foundation that will permit him to work in his field as a specialist. In the light of present preparatory inadequacies this is impossible.

An example of how late an undergraduate at Harvard is expected to have acquired his foundations can be seen in the present system of holding examinations in the Ancient Authors at the beginning of the Senior year. In the final analysis, this means that it is only during the final year in college that a student of literature can be expected to be grounded on the barest essentials of his field.

Again, the necessity of requiring distribution of courses in various fields reflects the characteristic inadequacies of American secondary education. The result is that a graduate of a college has accomplished little more than a smattering of knowledge that can only be construed as ground work for building a real education.

It may be true that a wholesale adoption of the English system is impossible in America. Certainly under the present practices it is beyond any realization; for no one is sufficiently prepared to enter into the advanced forms of this English system. If the Harvard tutorial system is to continue, and the forms of this advanced foreign education are to remain, every effort must be made to make it more than an empty shell which has merely the appearance and not the substance. The tutorial system is an excellent thing and it can be made into a valuable contribution to American education, but both the quality of the individual tutors must be improved and the preparation must be adequate. The adoption of the House Plan as an outgrowth of the Tutorial system and in addition the General and Divisional examinations would indicate that this project is to continue. But half way measures must be discontinued if a "noble experiment" is not to dwindle into the muddled wreckage of half realized dreams.