Non-Honors Tutorial Approved by Masters
Monro's Plan Calls for Voluntary Program Centered in Houses, Granded as Half-Course
Non-Honors tutorial, dropped last February may be revived by the Faculty next term, Dean Monro said yesterday. The Masters of all nine Houses last night approved "in principle" Monro's tentative plans for non-Honors tutorial. This is only the first step towards a possible non-Honors program.
"We highly approve the principles of Mr. Monro's plan," Elliott Perkins '23, Master of Lowell House commented after the Masters' meeting. The proposals must be approved by the Committee on Educational Policy, the Committee on General Education, and the Faculty itself, before any action can be taken.
Monro's plan for non-Honors tutorial has four features. The tutorial will be voluntary, graded (probably as a half course), and will run throughout the year. Programs will center in the Houses "as part of the communications network between the student and his House." Inter-departmental programs will be arranged as far as possible, but the availability of teachers will receive greater consideration than subject matter.
Further Study by Monro
"Humanities 98" or "Social Sciences 98" may be the titles of courses in the non-Honors programs, said Perkins. This aspect of the program, however, still remains vague, and Monro plans to study it further.
Monro will present his proposals in more specific form, to the CEP and then to the Committee on General Education and the Faculty. As Perkins pointed out, approval by the Masters "represents only the first step toward the eventual adoption of the non-Honors program."
Last February, the CEP tentatively outlined a plan for non-Honors tutorial. "It is to be hoped," the Committee wrote, "that for each field of concentration a program of group tutorial or small discussion sessions might develop in the Houses for non-Honors seniors. The Committee hopes that each department will be prepared to implement a non-Honors program."
Since then, discussion of the non-Honors program has revolved around the question of House or Departmental control of the program. The CEP statement did not make clear who should run the programs, but Monro's report throws a new light on this issue.