UNIVERSITY HONOURS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 45, 23 February 1927, Page 12

UNIVERSITY HONOURS.

tTH€ COUNCIL'S SURVEY. REPLY TO PROFESSOR ANDERSON. We hare received tlie following letter from Mr. F. Milner, M.A., a member of ♦he L'niversity Council, in reply to the lot tor from Professor Anderson, which we published on Monday;— It will be a surprise to Professor Anderson to learn that the resolution in regard to honours prescriptions to which h» takes such heated exception was regarded by members as non-controversial ajid was passed with unanimitv. It rea.ds as follows:—"That with the view of safeguarding the teaching efficiency of secondary schools the Academic JJonrd, when constituted, be asked to ;make a comprehensive critical survey of the prescriptions for the various honours courses in arts with special reference to history, economics, education, with a view to redressing any inequalities that may exist." The adoption of the resolution relegates the council to the simian stage. Even the Chancellor sprouts a mental tail. All this journalistic pother about a mere request for expert opinion. What greater clamour 'rould be raised if it were a fait ' accnmpli ?

If your correspondent were to consult the head teachers of our large secondarv •schools he would soon find that there is general recognition of the paucity of teachers qualified to take the higher forms in mathematics and science, and 'also, though not to such an acute decree, in foreign languages. It is idle to pretend that the marked gravitation in honours to subjects of social science is primarily motived by the students' appreciation of the superior cultural values 'of their content. Thirty-five per cent \ of the honours gained during the last ; seven years have been awarded in his- . tory. Many of us with a large knowledge of individual cases believe that this extraordinary preponderance justifies a close scrutiny of the specifications for this and allied courses. I expressly disclaimed any desire to depreciate the distinctive values of these subjects. As a student of history for many years, and as a member of the Departmental Committee of 1925-6, which was responsible for making history a compulsory subject in the secondary school curriculum, I should be the last to undervalue the educational virtues of this subject when adequately interpreted as a philosophic survey of the whole evolution of man from palaeolithic savagery to the social complexity of to-day.

Your correspondent advances the fatuous contention that the preliminary B.A. course in the case of honours graduates in these options gives them sufficient grounding for any secondary school teaching. I should'like to see the average graduate with his pitiful morsel of pass Latin, take a postmatriculation Latin class with any real educational benefit to his pupils. I doubt if a single headmaster of any 'experience in the Dominion will endorse your correspondent's view. Xot only post-matriculation and entrance scholarship work, but even matriculation classes require specialist teachers whose very superfluity of knowledge invests their subject with living interest and spaciousness, and displays all its relationships. That makes all the difference between an inspiring teacher and a classroom hack. To my mind every teacher who is responsible for a postmatriculation subject should have taken the honours course in it. This is an educational ideal incapable of realisation as long as the present deficiency of •teachers qualified to handle the major subjects continues.

Your caption of "soft options"' is not my phrase. I expressly stated that, it was a students' term. But I say advisedly that my knowledge of particular 'cases of students, who have taken a <so-called brilliant first in history on a ;year's work, makes me realise the necessity of impartial comparative surveys ;as a matter of equity, irrespective of secondary school disabilities. The prescription in history looks impressive, rbut it fails to exact original work. Experience of results shows that its •content is not comparable in difficulty with other subjects, notably mathertnatics and science, when certificates of practical work, carefully graduated .appropriations, and originality are exacted. True education is not compatible •with academic prescriptions of pretentious character —which enables a gramophonic sciolist or an intellectual punter to masquerade as an accredited scholar. In the recent past the history prescription has allowed a student to gain first•class honours by a single year's work, although teaching full-time. Even in its latest form it is open to criticism. For instance, a thesis is optional, and ■constitutional history and the evolution ■of political ideas are alternative instead .of cumulative issues.

As for your own criticism, sir, your curt dismissal of the viewpoint of secondary schools is unworthy of your editorial columns. Even a higher educational authority than the editor of the "Auckland Star" has said that the fate of our Empire depends upon the quality of moral and intellectual citizenship moulded in our secondary schools. University education touches a relatively small percentage of the population. On the secondary schools devolves the responsibility of disseminating culture and an appreciation of intellectual interests among the bulk of the people at the most formative stage of life. Any factor that militates against the efficiency of these schools and their standards of exact scholarships will react detrimentally on the democracy. In reply to a point you raise I say that bv no means infrequently do students with decided mathematical and scientific bent elect to take honours in social science because of the relativity easier prescription.