The Press THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1957. History Prescription

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28266, 2 May 1957, Page 10

The Press THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1957. History Prescription

Criticism of the new stage I history prescription by the Canterbury University College Council this week seems to have been misconceived. First, while the college has only one history course it must be regarded as a whole up to the honours stage, although, when it can be afforded, a supplementary short “ rounded ” course might have some value. Second, even if students go no further, stage I should still be an introduction to the reading of history and to its philosophy and its methods. The particular period chosen for this introduction is largely a matter for those who have to provide the introduction. Their choice may be open to criticism on the academic ground of its suitability for the purpose; but surely not on the ground that high school pupils preparing for their examinations study a different period. The whole aim of history study is different at high schools, where pupils should acquire a broad outline of man’s story and some interest in it. The function of the university is to stimulate and train the critical and sympathetic faculties of men and women for application to any period. The university should not give up this function for the advantage of any particular section of students. Although he intended his argument rather differently, Mr C. H. Perkins put the point clearly when he said that if post-primary teaching standards were not maintained there would be poorer students entering university. That is a very good reason why the university should maintain its own stand-

ards and not lower them to meet any supposed vocational convenience. Would there be any advantage to school teachers in having “ done ” at university the period they will deal with later? If their university study does them any good it will be in encouraging them to read history for its intrinsic value (which is its chief value), and with understanding. When they come to teach it is to be hoped that they intend to prepare lessons to meet their pupils’ needs and not to repeat a collection of facts they learned by heart at university. History is much more than a miscellany of dates and statistics.

The discussion by the council will serve a good purpose, not by leading to a revision of the prescription for inadequate reasons, but by encouraging members of the council to think about the purpose of the university. This will help them to deal with the broader question of the unit degree system, which, as Professor J. C. Garrett reminded them, should be critically examined when the college becomes independent. One of the weaknesses of the present system is that students sometimes look for what they imagine will be “ soft options ” to build up their number of units. If, for example, stage I history was based on a period they had studied at school for, say, three years, they might, probably wrongly, think that it would be an easy way of getting a unit. This subject, or any other subject, should be studied for its own sake.