Why is research work in American institutions of higher learning generally regarded as an avocation carried on at irregular intervals snatched from class and lecture work? This question is brought home in striking manner each year when the awards from the Milton Fund are made public.

Harvard is undoubtedly more fortunate than many other colleges and universities which are not blessed with an annual income of $50,000 devoted solely to research in various fields of activity. How various and how important those fields are only a cursory glance will show. Mr. Bigelow will study the dynamic cause of the Gulf Stream; Mr. Cabot the effects of prison terms upon the future careers of men; Mr. McAdie the electrification of fogs and clouds in order to improve weather forecasting; Mr. Schlesinger the urbanization of population between the Civi War and 1900. These are typical examples.

Yet, generous as the Fund is, it cannot wholly satisfy the necessities for scholarly and continuous research. The awards are limited to a period of two years. They are granted to men most of whom are carrying courses at the spine time.

The evolution of the tutorial system will grant to the undergraduate more independence from the restrictions of a formal curriculum. It should, at the same time, grant the same privilege to the Faculty. It could be made to operate in such a manner that many professors, now giving half their minds to lecturing, half to research, and so injuring the values of both, might remain students all their lives. Such men should be paid on a scale parallel with that of the true teacher, depending on achievement and years of service, in addition to all expenses in the beginning of their weeks. The value of the tutorial system in its full development to the undergraduate of the future will be no greater than its value to the Faculty could be made to be.