City Manager Talks Cambridge Emergency Shelter, Discourages Street Closures in Council Meeting
On Leave Due to COVID-19 Concerns, Forty-Three Harvard Dining Workers Risk Going Without Pay
Harvard Prohibits Non-Essential University Travel Until May 31, International Travel Cancelled Until August 31
Ivy League Will Not Allow Athletes to Compete as Grad Students Despite Shortened Spring Season
‘There’s No Playbook’: Massachusetts Political Campaigns Navigate a New Coronavirus Reality
It is hard to find just where we are in disagreement with Mr. Munroe's constructive suggestions for the Tutorial System. We agree completely on the division of students into Tutorial and Non-Tutorial men; we agree on the need of recruiting Tutors from the higher ranks of the faculty. It would seem logical to let the matter rest here, and not go out looking for trouble.
But the division of degrees into two classes, in line with the division of the student body, seems unnecessary if the standard of non-tutorial men can be raised to a sufficiently high level. This out plan for increased course work and more thorough, disciplinarian methods attempts to do.
Neither are we as pessimistic as Mr. Munroe concerning those students who, "however earnestly they apply themselves, can only benefit to a very limited degree from tutorial work." Here is a fundamental difference in emphasis. Mr. Munroe thinks one of the fundamental problems is the number of those who are incapable of tutorial work; we believe that by far the most fundamental problem is the number of those who could profit from the tutorial system, and don't. These men, we feel sure, could be stimulated into activity under the system we propose. All they need is a constant reminder of their responsibilities, and a good, solid discipline when they do not live up to them.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.