The proposed changes in the History Department's tutorial program are a refreshing contrast to the conventional wisdom's stereotype of inflexible, tradition-encrusted large departments. The recent meeting of the Department's Board of Tutors has shown that History is willing to think critically about existing programs and to make changes that will improve the quality of undergraduate education.

The elimination of the present sophomore tutorial in historiography, for example, has been long overdue; most students are simply not adequately prepared to profit from this tutorial. The proposed sophomore tutorial program would be part of an expanded History 98, a detailed examination of the student's field of specialization. However, the Department would be wise to see that the scope of the sophomore material is broad enough to allow students to switch from one area to another at the beginning of junior year without too much difficulty.

The Board of Tutors also recommended that honors seniors be given the option of taking a seminar and writing a 30-page paper in lieu of the thesis. This plan would radically change the character of the honors program, and much opposition is expected. It can be defended on the grounds that writing a thesis is basically preparation for an academic career, although not all honors students expect to--or ought to--become professional historians. But the burden of proof still lies with the plan's proponents: they must show that the seminars will be of high enough quality and the requirements for the paper sufficiently rigorous to make the option a suitable alternative to the thesis.

The other changes proposed by the Faculty have less justification. The Board of Tutors wisely rejected a proposal to move thesis deadlines from April 1 to March 1; students should have more than four weeks from the end of exams to prepare an 80-page paper.

Unfortunately, the tutors did not oppose the tightening of requirements for honors tutorial. If the requirement were raised to Group IV, and Group III for History 99, some students would be rejected because of low grades in Natural Sciences and the like--which have nothing to do with their fitness for honors tutorial. The present system allows the Department to admit al those who are interested and qualified, regardless of grades in other courses, and to allow tutors to weed out those who are unable or unwilling to do the work.

The proper criterion for admittance to the honors program in history--and in other departments--is the ability and willingness to do honors work in that field, not grades which may reflect performance in entirely different fields. Here the History Department is contemplating a step backward, while other departments (English, for example) have been advancing to less narrow grade requirements.