Matriculation.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18626, 26 February 1926, Page 14

Matriculation.

Without much discussion on Wednesday the University Senate put, 5 per cent. on to the total marks necessary for a pass in Jlatrjfiulatiou and topk 10 per cent, off the pass- jnajks ja the fifth subject. A ca#di(la.te; now must obtain 40 per eaat. of the aggregate marks in five subjects, and when the new regulations come into force will have to obtain 45 per cent.; but while he cannot get through at present until he has obtained 40 per cent, in each of those subjects, he will in future pass if his marks drop to 30 per cent. ill one subject, bat do not drop below an average of 45 per cent, in all. That is to say, Matriculation becomes at ppe harder and easier, and the (shapge ig good or ba4 according to whether it will is general require more or less knowledge in future to get through. Theoretically it ought to require more, and if it is found in actual experience that it does there nothing to .worry about in the fact that soma students will in future pass who at present would fail. It is not ability to take every hurdle that is jmpprtant, but the general height of thp hurdles* and since one only has been lowered, or at least one only in the first five, that should not cause ansiety, Since a student will require ag marks in future as he requires npw in each of four subjects, an 4 8 per cent, more in the total of five, ho. will be fairly competent in those four it he passes "the -examination as a, whole without getting more than 30 per cent, in his fifth subject. When a change very like this one was approved of by the Senate iu May of lssfc ye«r we had no difficulty in showing that if it was adopted without further safeguards it might lower the level of Matriculation to, a quite dangerous degree. But the proposal then was 45 per cent, of the aggregate, 40 per cent, in English, and not less than 30 pel? cent, in any other subject, and wo gave examples to show that the 46 per cent, average, unless the 30 per cent, was limited to one subject only, might admit students to the University who were flagrantly unqualified for University work. _, Now that the safeguard we asked for has been provided the only objection' to a 30 per cent, pass is the general objection offered by Professor Wall that (he University should not be asked to receive students in a subject in which they are so obviously below University standard. And the answer of course is that the University should not exclude a student whose general competence is unquestioned, but who may have less than the normal capacity in one subject, and one only, which happens to Jw compulsory. If there were no compulsory subjects, or only one (English), there would be a much stronger case for requiring a reasonably high pass standard in every subject presented; but as Jong as we make qjassificflstious which igqore the pecu- ! liarities of the human mind a high i pass standard in every subject is a .hardship.

The Progress League and Wheat,

We do not know to which of the statements in his letter to us to-day the Organiser of the Progress League uttachfjs most importance—to his declaration near the beginning that steps were being taken to havfc the wheat question discussed when the Government's decision was annonnced s or to Ms closing assertion that " tiHre are mim'"bers of matters of equal or greater ■ 'importance to. on which "we [i.e. the Progress. League] can "all agree, and on which we can with "perfect safety concentrate our ener"gies." If Mr -Cliinie. wants the public to believe that the Progress League did not have time to show its interest in the farmer he will have to explain why the Chamber ol Commerce found time, and the Industrial Association, and he will hardly be able to complain if the public conclude that an organisation which could not get its Executive together in six weeks to consider one of the most urgent questions Canterbury has had to consider for many years is not one of the bodies with which the Province need concern itself very seriously in future. In any case the League cannot have it both ways. It cannot excuse itself on the score of time and then say that controversial issues are not its concern. Actually, as we emphasised yesterday, and as everybody but Mr Climie knows, the encouragement of wheat-growing is not a controversial issue. There may be differences of opinion about the best method of encouraging the wheatgrower, but no one in Canterbury, except the Organiser of the Progress League, has ever suggested that the Province is not united in its desire to have wheat grown. The League's offence was and is that it offered no word of encouragement to the farmer himself, and said and did nothing in six weeks to protect a vital industry which was fighting for its existence. If the reason is that the League thinks wheat-growing of less importance than

"numbers of matters , ... on " which it can with perfect safety con- " eontrate its energies," it should give that reason and no other for its silence, and tell the farmers plainly that it has notions of "Progress" into which whoat-growing does not enter. Nor is it a fact that the League has always abstained from controversial issues. It is not so very many weeks since it thought itself free, at a distinctly delicate period in the history of Canterbury and of the Dominion, to make a partisan attack on the Government Though we do not doubt that most of the Executive have since regretted that lapse, we are surprised that the Organiser should now declare that the League's policy has been "to concen- " trate ra those things concerning which "there is general agreement," and that "the moment it lends itself to " Party purposes its - days will be "numbered." This last statement is true, but the Organiser is the first person who has ever suggested that wheat-growing is a "Party purpose.