Conferences are devoted to discussion of work assigned, which never intentionally duplicates course work, and which, before the senior year, has no particular regard to general examinations. In the first two years. I make some attempt to ascertain the student's interests and abilities, and to help him start work in those fields he is best adapted to: we fill in b background, and pursue literary hobbies, establishing a method of study. In the senior year the impending examinations demand that we fill obvious gaps in the field as a whole, so that the student has nodding acquaintance with all the major writers.

I am not convinced that the dividing line suggested in question 11 is a good one, for often the poorer men show the most striking improvement in tutorial work. I approve of honors and pass degrees, but I feel none the less that the pass men should have tutoring, adapted to their courses.

In short, I have great faith in the tutorial system, although its hands are now in many ways tied.

The tutorial system could be of more value to students, in my opinion, if they were given more time by a slight reduction of course requirements. I have observed great benefits from the reduction to three courses in the senior year.

In regard to question nine, hardly any of my conference time is devoted to a discussion of course work. About a fifth of it is taken up with outside things. The rest is used in talking over the reading which the student has done. This reading should, of course, help the student to pass his general examinations, but I do not emphasize that aspect of it either in making assignments or in discussing them. This helps, I believe, to prevent a certain grimness from penetrating our discussion.

Over half of my students are in the House, and I see them much oftener than any other students. The convenience of proximity is important, and I think I do better work with these students that I know well. It is easier for them to borrow books from me, we can discuss literary matters at meal times, and I should not be surprised if it were generally true that students in Houses are better tutored than those outside--not that there are better tutors in Houses, but from the point of view of frequency, informality, and intimacy. The diffidence of the tutee who sees his tutor only once a fortnight is overcome by the daily meetings in common rooms and dining halls, and I get much better discussions and much freer and franker criticism from House tutees. As far as my own part of the bargain goes, I know that I did better instructing before I got fed up with room assignments, should problems, and whatever has to be done to keep a House going.

But my primary interest is still teaching. In general, one must direct his instructing towards Divisionals, but I never hesitate to encourage an enterprising student to investigate the by-paths and to follow out personal preferences, I should like to add a bromide to the effect that the most important thing about the tutorial system is the tutor and not the system. The less organization the better, so long as the tutors are absolutely first-class in scholarship, intelligence, and personality. The tutor in a great university like Harvard should be regarded as a friend as well as a pedagogue. I hold that the social aspects of tutoring are extremely important.

N. H. This is the only occupation of the tutors at Oxford and Cambridge.

Please understand that I doubt the value of such inquiries as this anyone except these who conduct them. Probably they are amused but just what else is expected?

My opinion about the tutorial system is in print, in the Harvard Graduate Magazine Current History, Harper's and various books. It is an excellent means of instructing superior students if superior tutors are secured for them. Superior students, however, are not so common as undergraduates and CRIMSON editors--tend to believe. They constitute less than ten per cent of the student body. The percentage of superior tutors is about the same. In my experience the good student who has a good tutor is satisfied with the system, and rightly so. The mediocre student no matter who his tutor is, is dissatisfied. In my opinion, it doesn't make much difference what kind of instruction the mediocre student is given. The results will tend to be the same in any institution.

A system of instruction is a human institution--a simple fact which seems to escape the attention of student surveys. You have asked, and received, my answers to a number of questions. I suggest, now, that you make an estimate of the probable value of any changes made in the present system in ignorance of the problem of administration and finance, and in ignorance of the necessarily unpredictable results of the implied alteration in the relation of parts of large whole.

Question 10 is an exceedingly difficult one to answer and should perhaps be left to the judgment of the students themselves. Of all my students only one has conscientiously neglected his tutorial work. He failed in his divisional examination.

The statement is not meant to suggest that the sole function of the tutor is to prepare people for examinations or that examinations cannot be passed without tutorial aid. It indicates rather that one who avoids effort in his tutorial work is not likely to be sufficiently interested in his subject to work independently (this particular student had already failed once before). I believe that the tutor's first duty is to aid the student to obtain a grasp of his subject as a whole, which, sordidly speaking, means passing his divisionals... There is no reason why a tutor cannot help a student in working out methods of study, suggesting relationships between different fields, and discussing such matters as "attitudes toward life" brought forward by the tutee's reading.

If some students are not satisfied with the present arrangement, I see no point in obliging them to take tutorial work. But to make general examinations entirely optional is a step backward toward slovenly dilettantism.

TUTORIAL SYSTEM QUESTIONNAIRE