IN ANSWER TO MR. MUNROE

The most serious charge leveled at the Crimson's plan for reforming the Tutorial System by Mr. Vernon Munroe, Jr., '31, seems to be that our remedy is purely disciplinary. In the case of those who have not proved themselves capable of Tutorial Instruction, Discipline, including required Attendance, Hour Examinations, Quizzes, and extra Course work, was recommended. We believe that these measures are the only ones which could give those outside the Tutorial System the required stimulus to a through education.

But if Mr. Munroe is right in accusing us of recommending the transformation of the Tutorial System into a "pedagogical nursery" with every tutor a "task-master", then our whole case falls to the ground. For the whole idea was to allow those within the System the greatest possible freedom in their work, and no discipline save self-discipline.

The tutor's report to the head of his department would determine whether or not a student should remain within the system. Naturally if he held this fact over the head of his tutee, in order to make him do the required minimum of work, it would spoil the working of the system, and make Tutorial Students subject to the same sort of discipline as those outside.

But this would not be necessary. No more discussion of quantities of work, and minimum requirements, by the tutor with his tutee, would take place then than now. The assumption would always be that those within the system deserved to be there and the only taking stock would be, then as now, between the individual Tutor and the Head of his Department.

A bad tutor, of course, or a tutor who did not understand his duties, might use his power as a threat, make himself a "task-master", and make the system for his tutees "a sort of pedagogical nursery." But there is no reason to suppose this would happen, any more than it happens now with the not insignificant power of tutors in borderline cases.