ADMINISTRATION IN UNIVERSITY

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26832, 10 September 1952, Page 12

ADMINISTRATION IN UNIVERSITY

Chancellor’s Speech To Senate

“The Press’* Special Service DUNEDIN, September 9. I am sorry to have felt impelled to devote practically the whole of this address to matters of administration but we are facing important questions in university development and I am unable to say that I think the present organisation of administration for academic purposes works with the efficiency which is desirable or that it is adapted to cover the range of problems which have to be solved,” said the Chancellor of the University of New Zealand ’ (Sir David Smith) when he finished speaking at the opening of the meeting of the Senate in Dunedin this morning. Questions involved in the greater individual freedom now given to colleges were raised by the Chancellor throughout his address and he suggested that ‘‘a working party” possessing “all the special qualities and information which the task requires” might be set up to investigate. Sir David Smith gave a historical

summary of significant developments in the practices of the University of New Zealand. Then, commenting on the present situation, he continued:—

Beneficial Innovations “The Senate’s objective, as I understand it, has been to establish each university college as an active society of teachers and students engaged in learning and in investigation— to use another word for research —to the highest practicable level. To attain this objective it has been necessary for the university to do all it could to improve the position of the University staffs and the equipment of the colleges. To this end salaries have been raised, the ratio of staffs to students has been much increased and tutorial work is now riot uncornfhon with the senior classes, much greater opportunity for research with financial assistance is available, regular refresher leave has been provided with financial support, more equipment is available, libraries have been improved. v “In addition, certain steps have been taken to raise the educational qualifications of students. The standard of entrance has, I think, been slightly raised. Extramural students have been discouraged. From the tenor of some academic discussion, I imagine that part-time students would not think that they were very welcome. It may be that some of these matters have been carried too far until the university is more fully organised. “All these administrative arrangements to improve the conditions for the University staffs and to raise the quality of the students have been effected without resort, to a process which has been termed ‘devolution to the colleges.’ On the contrary, the improvement of conditions has been brought about by centralising the financial control and giving it vigour and authority. Yet these improvements would have been inadequate unless the members of the University staffs of each college had been encouraged to develop those lines of teaching and of research in which they were respectively most interested. To give them this opportunity, the Academic Board proposed and the Senate endorsed the process of ‘devolution to the colleges.’ In practice, this has so far meant giving to the professorial board of each college the right to prescribe, or to advise its college council to prescribe, courses of study under a subject specified in a very general way in a University statute. “Students* Freedom Limited” “So far in each society of teachers and students which we have endeavoured to nourish by the process of devolution to the colleges, we have increased the freedom of the University staffs though we have limited that of the students,’’ Sir David Smith said. “In the process, we have raised questions as to the scope of our University acts and as to whether we have had sufficient regard to the needs of some of the students and to the public interest. I do not propose to say anything here about the scope of the University acts. I am concerned only to raise for the Senate’s consideration whether the particular method of devolution to the colleges which we have so far adopted is the best method for giving to the University staffs freedom in teaching. It seems to have some limitations. For example, courses of study at one college may be preliminary to courses of study at another college for the completion of a degree or of a professional course. Is it the best method to allow the professorial board of each of these two colleges the unqualified right to say how the content of that part of the whole course which is taken at its college shall be drawn up and prescribed? Would some authority such as the Academic Board, which represents the professorial boards of all the colleges, to whom the two boards could make recommendations, be preferable? Again, is it the best method to allow the professorial board of one college the unqualified right to determine just what courses it will teach, or what the prerequisites of any course shall be. or what subjects shall be taught in a course, and which of those shall

be compulsory and which not, or to determine the mode of examination in any subject and how much of it shall be oral and how much not? Equivalence of Standards “Would the decisions of separate boards maintain the equivalence of standards which was regarded as so important by the commission of 1925? Would each separate board have sufficient width of outlook? In considering these matters, is it a material fact that the services of trained students may be required in any part of the country, not only in one university district? It is then, I think, an important question whether or not decisions on courses of study, and matters affecting them, should be made by some board representing all the professorial boards which can take the recommendations of each professorial board into account apd can have special regard to maintaining the equivalence of standards and to the public interest and then make final recommendations to the Senate. That : was the kind of devolution to the ( colleges which was recommended by the commission of 1925 and which is j available under the University Act of ( 1926. It does not appear to have been seriously tried. Perhaps it should be,” Sir David Smith said. ■ “In recent years each constituent i college has appointed an academic head, and the University has now : appointed its vice-chancellor. We look to them for guidance. But the Univer- , sity must go willingly along. The only j weapon of its leadership is persuasion. ' In my view it would help the under- ! standing of the needs of the Univer- : sity and of the public if the academic . bodies within the University were ; not confined entirely to University teachers and the academic heads. Assistance from Graduates ] “As it is essential to the Senate to 1 have academic members to make their ; contribution to the discussions, so I j think college faculties would be j helped if a few competent and dis- < tinguished graduates' who were not ( university teachers took part in the j general work of each faculty, not, of j course, cavilling at any detailed prescription but expressing a judgment < on the question whether a course was j meeting the needs of students and j of the public, and on other questions i of general importance. If college ] faculties so strengthened made care- i ful recommendations for courses of 1 study and for examination to the i professorial board 'of the college, and i if each professorial board sent its 1 considered recommendations to a com- ] paratively small central academic < board to whom two or three dibtin- j guished graduates who were not < university teachers were added, it i might be that a satisfactory system for recommending to Senate the < courses of study in the University (in- j eluding where desired, differing j courses of study of similar standard at . different colleges) with suitable provision for examinations would be ' established without undue delay. In- < ded, if a small central academic body > with such added members showed that ] it could be relied on to keep in mind the public interest as it was affected . by its decisions, there might be no { need for further reference to the * University Senate, and the regulations

°f such a body might become the authority for courses of study in the University. “Alternatively, if suggestions such as the foregoing are not acceptable, should there be a small body of lay graduates to whom the courses proposed by the academic board could be referred for a view of their general implications so that the view taken by the lay body might be considered by the academic board during its sitting and before reaching the final recommendations to which in due course, the judgment of both lay and academic members would be applied in the Senate? If the academic board finds it convenient to meet only once a year for general business, some opportunity for consulting the lay element might be advisable on that gr ?V, nd alone ’” sai d Sir David Smith. All these remarks applied to courses of full university standard “but the need for the comprehensive view is emphasised by other matters which we have had under consideration,” Sir David Smith said, mentioning provision for extra-mural students, training for technicians, foresters, veterinary surgeons, some grades of teachers, and the American type of two-year terminal college giving higher general education not up to full degree level. “Each of these .matters is likely to need the combined wisdom of the academic and lay members of the University,” he said.