The plan to extend tutorial to non-Honors students drew unfavorable comment yesterday from the largest department in the University.
Faculty members in English, although agreeing with the general aims of the plan, expressed dissatisfaction with its mechanics. They pointed out that the proposed system would curtail the Department's tutorial program rather than extend it because of the unique tutorial system now in effect in English.
Several other aspects of the plan received lesser criticism.
The Department's primary objection stems from the fact that it is now possible for any concentrator to have tutorial instruction, whether he is taking the eight courses needed for honors or merely the six necessary for regular concentration. Without so stating, the proposed system implies that all candidates taking tutorial would also have to fulfill the other honors requirements.
To have tutorial, therefore, an English student, whether Honors or non-Honors concentrator, would have to satisfy the Honors language and distribution standards. For most students, to do this would require several more courses than they need take now to get tutorial. And many students, particularly those in pre-medical programs, stay out of Honors English solely because it necessitates too many courses. The extra work load necessary for tutorial participation under the proposed system might well discourage these students from taking tutorial.
Thus the new plan could easily defeat its own object--the extension of tutorial--in English and any other fields already offering non-Honors tutorial. At present several small Departments are providing tutorial for any student desiring it.
The views of Walter J. Bate
Another common criticism was that in its attempt to remove the stigma of the word "non-Honors", the proposed system would take away much of the recognition deserved by Honors-calibre work.
In addition, some members of the Department felt that needless complications, details, and special provisions render the plan too elaborate.
The objections raised by the English Department represent the attitudes of a group with a unique system. The views of other departments seem to be more favorable