To the Editors of the Crimson:

Although I agree in large measure with your March 16th editorial about the social studies program, it is misleading in at least two points. The first is the assumption that .

My second in part from the in which I was not no much mis-as over-quoted. My intention was to flatter my students not to them. I am sure that I said something to the effect that I was amazed at the sophistication in social theory of my incoming students. I most certainly did not say they were fantastically sophisticated, nor did I say that this applied to all aspects of social theory and method. Most of them are quite good on social theory, know a bit about methodology, and nothing about method. The point of this, however, is not to berate your reporter but to suggest that there is an important body of material to be studied in junior tutorial, to remedy deficiencies which all of the students interested in general arens still have. Although my group was familiar with the main currents in social theory, none of them had done extensive readings in the derivative works of direct relevence to developing areas. Hence I think the material covered by every. One is useful not simply, as the Brass Tacks suggests, "for the sake of coherence," but for the further development of skills begun in Social Studies 10. If this is a compromise with the original stated goals of the program, then I think it is a useful step forward. My students certainly needed the still general work on psychological and sociological aspects of economic growth which we did in tutorial before they went on to more specialized research topics.

The real difficulty comes when they go on to these specialized topics. But in this instance, a simple expansion of the social studies staff would do little to solve the problem. It would clearly be impossible to add enough members of the staff to cover even a fraction of the particular problems which people will want to do research on; and even with a growth in tutors, outside help will be necessary. Admittedly this raises problems (as it does for people in other departments who must go outside for assistance); but since it is inherent in the organization of the University rather than just in the organization of the program. I doubt that your proposals offer a solution.

All of this is not to say that the program need stay the size it is. Additional tutors could be effectively employed in junior as they are in sophomore tutorial, by using more than one tutor per group. And a larger staff might increase the areas from which juniors choose. But whatever the changes. I strongly suggest that group tutorial be retained. To shift to individual tutorial will do no more than push the senior problem up a year further complicating the problems juniors in the program face. Michael J. Mazer   Tutor In Social Studies