UNIVERSITY SCHOLARSHIPS.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 17997, 14 February 1924, Page 10

UNIVERSITY SCHOLARSHIPS.

QUESTION OF TENURE

DISCUSSION BY SENATE.

There was a lengthy discussion "bj the University Senate yesterday or the question of scholarships. Professor Hunter moved that thf tenure of University Junior Scholarships and University National Scholarships bo increased to four years ii the finance committee, having examined the demands of the "University finances, considers that the resources of the University will allow it. Dr. Anderson saiu that both the tenure and amount of the scholarship were insufficient. Dr. Eight said he knew of a number of cases of hardship among the engineering students, some of whom had to drop out in the fifth year. He suggested that instead of extending the term a few special scholarships should be reserved for professional "cases. Mr J. Caughley expressed the opinion til at all scholarships should bo equal in value. and tenure. He would oppose any variation being made in tiie scholarships. Sir Henry Ferguson thought that Senate might well take into consideration the question of extending the tenure of such scholarships jin cases whore students showed distinction. The Chancellor: In other words you would propose if would be a senior scholarship, not only in arts, but in the others. Professor Segar thought that the scholarships should be allowed to carry a tenure of three years ; the question of extension being provisional upon a recommendation from the Professorial J3oard, on the understanding that the student was going on with honours work. : Professor Algie said that among legal people it was held that a student could not get through his LL.B. degree in three years. Four years must be allowed. Mr Morrell moved as an amendment that Senate refer to the* Finance Committee the. practicability of extending entrance scholarships in approved cases to the fourth year for consideration from a financial point of view. The amendment was seconded by Professor Thompson. Mr Caughley supported the amendment, expressing the opinion that at present there was a tendency on the part of people, of small capacity and small industry to undertake too much. He thought that, while not placing too many restrictions on those who ctesired to take up certain subjects, the Senate should at the same time see that students should not undertake subjects of which they could not make a success. He stated that at present it was easier to get university education in the I>ominion than m any other country in the world. He thought that tnere should ba a condition imposed that students should have to put something into scholarships in the way of finance and study in order to ensure that the scholarships would be appreciated. The Department, he said, had had grave misgivings fbout allowing such a large number of people in different walks of lite to take up these courseß almost for the asking. There should be a- process of fairly strict weeding out as compared with the present system. Mr JBakewell said that they had a competitive system of scholarships, and if there was anything in t}ie examination test, ostensibly the result was that they got the best students.. Mr.Caughley: You are missilig-the whole point. It is what they do after they get it. • Professor Hunter said that after a scholarship was awarded no payment was. made except on a report by the Professorial Board. Mr Caughley appeared to be confusing these with bursaries. Professor Segar said that he was afraid some holders of junior scholarships had not worked as hard as they should and that th© Professorial Board had not been as strict as it should have been in this connexion. This class j should lose its scholarships, hut it did j not lose them because th© Professorial Boards did not like being hard. In consequence of this he thought it would be better that the scholarships should terminate at the end of three years and should be renewable only when good reason was shown. Professor Thomas said there was no doubt that some students did not work as hard as they should. Professor Arnold Wall disagreed with the remarks of Professor Segar. In all his twenty-five years' experience, he said, he had never known of such a case. He did not want it to go out, to the public that the scholarships wera being abused. After pirther discussion the motion was carried.