Communication

(The Crimson invites all men in the University to submit signed communications of timely interest. It assumes no responsibility, however, for sentiments expressed under this head and reserves the right to exclude any whose publication would be palpably inappropriate.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Among all the unique things about Harvard worthy of her name is the famous system of Division Examinations, the first thing of its kind in the history of American college education. That it is an invaluable adjunct to the college curriculum proper, no conscientious person will quarrel over; nay, not even the fortunate or unfortunate Seniors who bear the full brunt of the burden. With it, a student will plough deeper into the field of his particular major study and will gain a correspondingly broadened perspective of the realm of related knowledge. Without it, he will be ground with the rest to a dead average by a uniform ordeal of "stuffing," irrespective of his aptitude and needs.

If a referendum vote were taken to the students, I for one, would vote for this extra-curriculum machinery of extensive and intensive culture as an excellent educational plan but if an initiative, the most modern of all modern governmental devices, were granted, I would move at the same time for such a perfection of the system as is needed for its operation in full force and effect.

What a pity! Such a fine system is debarred, through no fault of its own, from playing the full role which it is destined to play. The limitations are not inherent but exterior to it. The intrinsic value of the system is then, in no wise diminished. The sole trouble with this superimposed tutorial system is that there is no room made for it to stand on. It depends for its execution on the spasmodic efforts of the individual and on the mercy of the overwhelming regular work. Its co-existence with the undiminished ordinary study renders its very existence semi-titular. If the testimony of the division students is an honest confession, it infallibly proves the overburdening nature of the tutorial work. It takes little empirical experience to realize that it is humanly difficult, in the face of weekly tests, hour examinations, and library reports, to comply with the tutorial requirements.

Without a diminution of class-room work, the tutorial system is bound to be arrested of its progress.

This letter contains no novel idea or peculiar impressions, peculiar to one who shuns work as irksome and seeks a bed of roses; in fact, it is not the first letter of it kind and may therefore serve as documentary evidence of a consensus of opinion and furthermore, of a disinterested hope to see a perfect working of the system in the future as a real blessing.  Tonjou L. Hsi '2