To the Editor:
As someone who studied at Oxford in my junior year abroad, I am naturally sympathetic to arguments offered by David Sheffield '11 and Sean Quigley '10 in their recent columns in favor of adopting the tutorial method of learning ("What could Brown do for you?" Feb. 25; "Being truly collegial," March 9). However, both columnists failed to properly situate the Oxbridge system within its overall institutional context. This is critical for understanding the tutorial method: In order to apply to the Oxford colleges, prospective British students must identify the subject area they wish to pursue and receive top marks on their "A level" exams. The process of preparing for A levels consumes the last two years of sixth form (high school). If accepted by one of the colleges, students spend their three years at Oxford absorbed in the single subject area they scored highest on in their A levels.
Thus, the tutorial method can be an effective means of academic exploration — provided that a student is fully committed to his or her given subject area. It enables a deeper and more intimate understanding of a discipline. But how reasonable is it to expect a 17-year-old to determine the sole subject area in which to earn a university degree? In a world where interdisciplinary collaboration is essential, how effective is it to restrict one's range to a single domain? Institutions are embedded in a unique social setting that should be examined more deeply before latching on to the next big reform.
Christopher Hardy '10
March 9
ADVERTISEMENT
