Two weeks ago, when the CRIMSON published a series of comments on the educational system here, written by members of the graduating class, the most trenchant criticisms were directed at the defective operation of the tutorial system. Although there was considerable divergence of opinion in regard to causes, most of the writers agreed that the tutorial system fails partly because it does not, on the whole, attract the best men. If this is true, it logically follows that Harvard itself no longer attracts the best teaching ability in America, since most of the younger men of the Faculty are tutors.

Quite possibly this conclusion is correct, but it would be safer to assume simply that the compensation offered the tutor, both financially and in prestige, does not offset the satisfaction of lecturing, and the more mysterious pleasures of research. The University is being forced to pay a heavy price for the unwillingness of the older members of the Faculty to accept tutees. The lack of interest and experience manifested by so many of the present tutors is generating a corresponding slackness in the average student, and the first efforts of the new administration ought to be aimed at correcting it.

In this connection it has already been suggested the possibility of restricting the benefits of the tutorial system to those students who are clearly fitted for it. That many tutors also approve of this idea was made clear by the replies which the questionnaire evoked earlier in the year. Such a restriction would really amount to little more than recognizing the distinction between the "pass" and "honors" degree which already exists at Harvard in fact. Another and possibly more effective method of achieving the same end would be for the University to appoint one or more men, chosen either from Harvard or another university, to the position of full professor, with the understanding that the person or persons appointed would devote all or the major part of his time to tutorial work. Since most promotions at the present time are notoriously made as a reward for distinction in research and original scholarship, such an appointment would strongly emphasize the high value which the University ought to attach to the work and personality of the tutor. It would be a concrete encouragement to those members of the tutorial staff whose genuine interest in their work is discouraged by the feeling that it cannot be indulged without sacrificing their chances of promotion. And on the part of the University, it would mark a welcome right-about-face from a promotional policy which too often ignores the best things a teacher has to contribute.