Like nickel beers, breakfast table education, and free parking in Cambridge, the undergraduate tutorial system as it existed before the war is gone forever. With almost a year of operation under the faculty ruling of December 4, 1945 behind it, the present tutorial system is considered to be fully satisfactory by a majority of the departments of concentration.

This is the principal conclusion to be drawn from the answers to a CRIMSON poll on tutorial, sent out during the past month to all fields catering to undergraduate majors. In answer to the question "Does your department feel that tutorial should be enlarged until it is offered to all students?" the CRIMSON received the following replies:

1) Well over half of the departments consider the present plan--limiting the departments' maximum tutorial to Honors Juniors and Seniors, as well as special Sophomores--as a satisfactory basis for the system's operation, and favor the continuance of the program in substantially its present form.

Have No Tutorial

2) For various reasons, approximately one fourth of the departments of concentration do not at present offer any tutorial, and, with the same causes in mind, do not think it feasible to add it.

3) Several departments in the first category offer, or intend to offer, tutorial to the fullest limit of the faculty ruling, but believe an extension that would include other students would be worth neither the students' time nor the University's money.

4) Two departments, Germanic Languages and Literatures, and Classics, present the fullest program their budget and manpower permits, and unqualifiedly support "a return to the full scale tutorial system formerly in force."

Although many of the department heads answering the poll admitted that there are in many instances intra-staff differences of opinion, all asserted that their departments as wholes generally share the same viewpoint.

Agree on Pressures

As for the departments as units, whatever their view of the scope and needs of the tutorial program, they generally agreed as to what elements determined their decisions. Foremost among these for departments with tutorial is the limit prescribed by the faculty ruling, within which any program must operate.

Departments not offering tutorial at all generally cited the expense as the major determinant of this policy. Several declared that they could not see their way clear to take money from other phases of their course work to provide for a tutoring system, which in many fields appears of dubious value.

Almost equally prominent as a causative factor is the shortage of young men, who normally carry the chief load. Probably hardest hit by this problem is the economics department, currently holding tutorial under a two year suspension, which will force reconsideration next year.

"We still face the difficulty of securing young scholars adequately trained to do tutorial work." Chairman Harold H. Bur- bank stated. Pointing to the intense national demand for young economists, he added that "in economics, we face a competition for young men that is indeed unusual."

Many other departments, notably English and Biochemistry, while offering tutorial to honors candidates, insisted that a re-extension of the program to include all students would be unprofitable.

"A majority of the department feel that the resources of the University could be better expended than in tutoring poor students." English Chairman George Sherburn stated.