To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Having read the CRIMSON editorial about the subject of non-honors tutorial (CRIMSON, Feb. 18), I think it is time that I express myself on the subject of history tutorial for sophomores. As it stands now sophomore tutorial in history is easily the equivalent of a fifth course, and therefore one should get a full course credit for it. One not only has to read a good, solid 200 pages or more for each 2 hour fortnightly session, but one has also to write 6,000 words in essays. At least one of these essays is on reading in addition to the regular assignments and is, in addition, 2000 words long. To top things off, at least one tutor is assigning a student to lead the discussions in each session this semester. Each student will theoretically conduct one two hour session. This entals extra work for the tutee thus assigned, and is, on the part of the tutor buck-passing. The tutor is paid to lead the sessions; therefore, he should lead them.

There is but one solution that stands a chance of being adopted, and that is that the work load be reduced to two 1,000 word essays, one in the fall, the other in the spring and that the essays be based on the tutorial reading assign- ments, the length of which is not to exceed 200 pages a fortnight. This new sophomore tutorial would carry, like the old, no course credit.

It is imperative that sophomore history tutorial be reduced because it cuts too much into the time the student should be spending on his other subjects. Stephen W. Smith '61