Sweeping revisions in the non-science Honors program and the lecture system were proposed in a report released yesterday by the Committee on Educational Policy. The report, which will probably require a great deal of Faculty discussion, will first be presented to the Faculty at its meeting March 4. If approved, it will effect a large-scale change in the overall College curriculum.

The Committee is headed by Dean Bundy and Kenneth B. Murdock '16, Francis Lee Higginson Professor of English Literature.

The report, as indicated by Dean Bundy last week, asks that every student be presumed to be in the Honors program until he flunks out of it. To effect this, the Committee proposes a "suitable test" at the end of the sophomore year, to be taken by all sophomores and to be based substantially on the work accomplished in sophomore tutorial. The test might be a conventional essay, or a "slight essay," a paper written in a halfday on a small group of topics.

Juniors and seniors qualified for Honors would take general examinations in their fields of concentration, the junior examination being directed toward "a broad knowledge of the techniques and methods in his field," specific course material, and work covered in tutorial.

Students failing the sophomore test would be able to take the junior examination, and, if they pass, would be considered candidates for Honors.

Seek to Revitalize Tutorial

The Committee further asks that tutorial instruction be increased in importance, particularly for Honors candidates. To achieve this, the committee proposes that tutorial be graded, with the grades placed on the student's record.

All sophomores will have tutorial instruction--"in groups of not more than four or five"--while junior and senior Honors candidates will be given individual tutorial "as seems appropriate" for an hour a week. Juniors would also be required to write "at least one substantial essay." Seniors will write a thesis--"one of the most successful elements in our present educational practice." All junior and senior Honors candidates will take Tutorial for Credit as a fourth course.

But the way to improve tutorial, the committee asserts, is also to improve the quality of instruction. The group asks the Faculty to devote more time to tutorial, and sees as a goal no less than 30 per cent of tutorial instruction given by senior Faculty members, and no more than 30 per cent given by teaching fellows. The remaining 40 per cent would be offered by instructors.

Would Modify Lecture System

To further increase the amount of individual study which the Committee hopes to achieve, the lecture system would be modified to include fewer lectures, increased independent reading and writing assignments, and essays or oral examinations to be substituted for the present three-hour written examinations. This might result, one Faculty member proffered, in more individual conferences and extended Reading Periods. The Committee also recommends an increased use of course reduction and a simplification of the machinery for granting it.

Aim for Individual Instruction

These recommendations are based on the committee's firm belief that "many able students are not doing their best under existing conditions because they are not sufficiently engaged or challenged." This situation reflects, the group claims, "primarily a failure of the present educational process to engage their interest." Although the group sees high quality lectures remaining a "crucial part of the Harvard curriculum," it also aims at "more individualized instruction and less dependence on the lecture and course examination system.

The committee also believes that the suggestions will "give everyone a chance to make the most of his Harvard education." As one member of the Committee put it yesterday, "We are not trying to develop a new class of grinds; we are simply trying to make undergraduate education more interesting and more worthwhile."