Resident Tutors

Designing the house system early this century, then-President Abbot Lawrence Lowell, Class of 1877, envisioned a community of scholars--elite professors dining with wet be hind-the-ears undergraduates anxious for academic guidance.

But as the University grows larger and faculty more distant from the student body, the role of academic mentor has fallen upon resident tutors, usually graduate students.

Although most acknowledge that tutors are somewhat accessible as social shoulders to lean on their suit ability as intellectual advisors is being called into question.

Some charge that the tutors are not doing their jobs, citing inconsistent academic advising as the most obvious symptom of a diseased organization.

"We ought to be doing some thing to improve intellectual life at Harvard," says Daniel H. Tabak '92, an Undergraduate Council representative to the Committee on house Life.

"Many students complain that there are tutors in their own houses that they don't even know," Tabak says.

Tabak this year submitted a 14-point proposal to the committee that identifies possible kinks in the system. The plan contains proposals for re-activating the house seminar program and increasing the number of house sections in lecture courses.

"This way, the classroom experience would not be entirely divorced from everyday life," Tabak says, pointing out that house-based seminars were once far more common than today.

Though they acknowledge difficulties, house masters interviewed last week defended the tutor system saying that tutors are a positive presence in the houses both for academic and non-academic purposes.

"No one is there just to represent a department," says Quincy House Master Michael Shinagel.

And Fred R. Waugh, a tutor in Eliot House this year, says that the personal rapport that a tutor has with students is essential.

"Tutors are more effective if they develop personal relations with the students," Waugh says. "This sets them apart from the rest of the bureaucracy."

Still, top College officials argue that formal programs like house seminars would be the cornerstones in revitalizing academic communities in the houses.

"The house seminar system is only a shadow of what was intended," says Thomas a. Dingman '67, associate dean of the college of house life.

Dingman says the "big sibling" role assumed by some tutors is not endorsed by the administration. While a social relationship between tutors and students is important, Dingman says, the primary function of house tutors should be academic advising.

This opinion is echoed by Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57, who says counseling is secondary to academics in a tutor's job.

Jewett does acknowledge a common criticism levelled against the tutor system, that the burden of fulfilling "official duties," such as pre-med advisor or race-relations counselor, results in deficient advising.

"It may be that some people are asked to do more than they could," Jewett says.

But Palmer says time constraints generally do not hinder a tutor who truly wants to get involved.

"On the whole, lack of time is less of a problem in the houses than lack of morale and sense of community in the houses," he says.

Some say confusion over a tutor's proper role stems from the lack of guidance handed down by College officials. Since house masters make the final decisions on hiring and firing tutors, the nature of the system varies from house to house.

"The difference in structure and quality of advising in the houses is too great," says Brian C.W. Palmer '86, a resident tutor in Quincy House. "College-wide systemization of advising is needed."

Palmer was not rehired as assistant senior tutor for fellowships in Quincy House, a decision he called somewhat arbitrary.

Shinagel maintains that declining to renew tutor's appointments is standard procedure. And like many masters, he insists that hiring tutors is an essential aspect of the master's job.

Most house masters say they select tutors who have been suggested by their departments and reviewed by a selection committee.

These selection committees are composed of student representatives and tutors who make recommendations to the master.

"We select our tutors only through a student committee --if even one student says no, then we will not [choose that applicant]," says J. Woodland Hastings, North House master.

Hastings warns against centralization.

"It's a good feature that we don't have solidified rules," he says. "The tutorial system has a lot of resiliency when we need to respond to new issues, like race relations."

And Dunster House Master Karel F. Liem argues that intervention in the masters' authority would be hurtful to diversity among the houses.

"I don't feel that governance by University Hall would help houses because each house has different needs and different characteristics," he says.

For his part, Jewett says he is not likely to usurp the master's authority in the tutor hiring process.

"The process of the tutorial staff is not a University Hall problem," he says. "And it would be dangerous to generalize across the whole system."

A common problem with hiring academic tutors is that masters tend to elect tutors based on personal rather than scholarly qualities, according to Dingman.

On the other hand, tutors selected on the merit of departmental recommendations sometimes lack knowledge on undergraduate education requirements.

Either way, the system comes up short with academic advising, according to critics.

Defending the hiring process, masters say that students share responsibility for a tutor system that is less than ideal.

William H. Bossert '59, master of Lowell House, says student disinterest in house activities discourages many tutors from making an extra effort to forge bonds.

"The way to get more faculty/student contact is to have students show up for things," Bossert says, although he acknowledges that more personable and accessible tutors facilitate this process.