The critics of a large university say that its students are no longer treated as people, but instead are reduced to little more than slots on an IBM card and names on a grading list. Out of concern with this problem in 1928 grew the House system and the tutorial plan, and until the War, these steps were enough to check the impersonality that comes with bigness. But after the war, the University was swamped by numbers far larger than it had ever known before. The Houses sacrificed some elegance and stretched to find the needed space for new crowds of students. But the Dean's Office and the tutorial system could not endure a similar packing and still emerge unharmed. The new pressures gave assistant deans an assignment so large that they could rarely consider a student's case on any level but the most obvious; in tutorial, non-honors men were sloughed off to sit in larger groups often headed by inexperienced graduate students.

Confronted with the growing problems the University greeted Allston Burr's bequest with open arms. Already, in little over a year and a half, the Allston Burr Tutors have helped, on several levels, to recreate the intimacy which was the aim of the whole tutorial plan. For the poor student, or the man with a problem, their help is most easily seen. Instead of taking his difficulty to University Hall and any available assistant dean, a man now sees only his Burr Tutor. The tutor in turn can come to know every member of his House through un-official as well as official contacts.

For the outstanding student, the improvements are almost as noticeable, and come as recommendations for fellowships, graduate schools and the like. More important, the tutors have added some flexibility to the whole tutorial system, particularly on the sophomore level. The Burr Tutor has room to experiment: in Kirkland House this year, for example, a plan for combined junior honors tutorial in Government and Economics has met with considerable success.

Credit for the system's quick success, however, should go not only to its design, but to the present senior tutors. They have proved uniformly excellent. But there is a real danger that their successors will not be so capable. For none of the seven men who now hold the positions have permanent University appointments. These men spend half their salaried time as administrators, and the other half in academic work. Although their administrative experience is valuable, in the long run they will be judged for future permanent appointments largely on their academic accomplishments. Supporters of the Burr plan point out that departments will consider these twin duties when deciding permanent appointments. Although this may be true, academic competition extends, beyond the University. From a failure to understand the full meaning the Burr Tutorship, other institutions would be more likely to pass over these men in favor of others with academic records superficially more attractive.

Ideally, the Burr Tutor should be a Faculty member with a permanent appointment. A man with tenure would not feel the same demands that weigh on those who are several rungs below in the University. Under the original Burr plan, the Senior Tutors were to be at least Associate Professors, but tenured men were found unwilling to accept the jobs. Still, when it is time to replace the present tutors, the posts should be filled with men on permanent appointment. Although the University is known for its emphasis on scholarship, there are certainly enough tenured men whose interest in the undergraduate would lead them to accept the job.

Although the Allston Burr tutorial system has gotten off to a promising start, a final judgment must wait four years until the initial appointments come to an end. Applications for the posts then will show whether the duties of scholar and administrator dovetail well enough to continue attracting high-calibre men.