One hundred and twenty-six tutors, or approximately 50 per cent of the total number, have to date answered the questionnaires on the tutorial system sent out before Christmas by the Crimson,

Starting with the English department in today's issue, the Crimson will print such appropriate general comments on the tutorial system as were made by members of the various departments.

No complete tabulation of answers to the separate questions will be run until after the general comments have been completed.

In accordance with the statement in the questionnaire and circular letter, which are reprinted in today's issue, no mention is or will be made of the names of the tutors who have sent in their answers or general comments.

In the next issue of the Crimson on Tuesday morning, the general comments of members of the departments of Government and Physics will be printed. Extracts from the 1931 Student Council report on the Tutorial System will also be given, space permitting.

The difficulty with the tutorial system is twofold; first as regards the tutees and, second, as regards the tutors. The average Sophomore thinks the tutorial work is unimportant because no grades are given in it. If he has to neglect something. It will be tutorial work. It is easier to bluff in that than in anything else, and he is inclined to view it as a lot of extra work that does not help much. As divisionals get closer the interest in the tutorial work increases, but a lot of time has been thrown away. On the other hand, the tutors do not give as much time to preparing for conferences as they do for composing lectures, and are pat to spend much time in discussing irrelevant topics.

I believe that the tutorial work should be put on the same footing as course work. The tutee and the tutor should select the field they want to cover. There should be a reading list, quizzes and examinations, and a grade should be turned in. Then both tutors and tutees would take the work more seriously. It should be more valuable to the student than a class, as the instruction can be adjusted to the progress the student makes and individual difficulties can be dealt with as they arise.

Some of your questions are misleading. I heartily endorse the suggestion of establishing two degrees. I doubt whether we should follow Oxford and Cambridge in placing virtually the whole responsibility for a student's instruction upon his tutor, but I think we might well place at least a third to a half of the responsibility there, in the case of honors men, and not much less than a third in the case of any student who, for any reason, is thought worthy of tutorial instruction. Instruction which involves drill, as in elementary work generally, can be done best in courses. I favor the abolition of the distribution requirement; in any case a reduction of it; and the reduction of the number of courses required for the degree to ten, including English A. The student night then be expected to do work amounting to an honest equivalent of two courses per year for his tutor in his sophomore, junior, and senior years.

I see no reason for the romantic theory governing tutorial discipline at present, according to which no measures can be taken against a student for slackness, except in extreme cases. The tutor should report periodically satisfactory or unsatisfactory the work of each student, with comments, and his report should be given the same consideration by the dean as course grades. Tutors at present have too many students, and students have not time to do sufficiently through work to benefit to any extent by tutorial instruction.

Your question No. 9 raises an important issue. Tutorial instruction ought to be directed toward preparation for the general examinations--provided these examinations are, as they ought to be, and can be, a fair test of a man's mastery of his subject. In my department they are improving from year to year, and I look for continued improvement in the future. It is nonsense to ask a student to read for a tutor only with the indeterminate end in view of gaining a liberal education--nonsense to ask a student to read for a tutor only with the indeterminate end in view of gaining a liberal education--nonsense to warn his tutor against cramming. Nobody can cram for an intelligent examination--such as the Cambridge Tripos in English--and until we provide examinations which demand and measure intelligent work, tutors will continue either to cram their students or, as the case may be, to struggle against catering to the student's practical needs in an effort to conform to a highly unsatisfactory system.

I feel that more emphasis might well be laid on tutorial work and less on course work, with, of course, the obvious necessity of appointing highly qualified tutors. I also feel strongly that if tutorial work is to be really effective, it should be put on a level with the highest quality of faculty instruction. To my mind the position of tutor should be an end in itself, rather than a means to an end, i.e., a more advanced faculty appointment, which it now patently is. Moreover, I should like to see a Tutorial Board which had its generous representation of non-scholars: the office of tutor now implies either a Ph.D. "in cursa," a full fledge Ph.D., or some other "negotiable" scholastic achievement. One need not point out the limitations of many tutors, due to required or voluntary restriction within some special field of their own. A balance of Ph.D.s, Faculty Instructors and variously ranked Professors, together with critics, teachers of composition, etc., seems to me eminently desirable.

I do not favor drastic changes, but the system is not yet so successful as it might be. Tutorial work is most successful with the serious student (he need not be brilliant), and this suggest that the student is more often to blame for the failure of the system than the tutor.

Very often the student who is not out for honors benefits from tutorial work as much if not more than the student who is out for honors. It would not be fair to deny a student tutorial work, simply because, as often happens, his grades keep him from being a candidate for honors. If the privilege is denied him, it should be because his is indifferent to the work.

The tutorial system, taken all in all, is moving ahead at just about as fast a rate as is healthy for it, but I believe that it will never work at its best until all undergraduates are relieved of most of their regular course requirements and all honors men made entirely free, that is, until course lectures, exams, grades, etc., are made optional as they are today for honors students in many progressive American colleges; until, in a word the undergraduate is made an independent self-educator.

Your tutor is neither a lecturer, researcher nor a don; he is all three daily by the necessity of his calling, and you cannot divide him. Moreover, as he is at work on the main business of his career you cannot separate him, his work, and his tastes from the obligations of this career. Can you say to any man: Discounting the problem of your getting ahead and expect an honest and at the same time an informative reply? I think not.