The Press MONDAY, MARCH 14, 1960. Universities And Salaries

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29153, 14 March 1960, Page 10

The Press MONDAY, MARCH 14, 1960. Universities And Salaries

If the Minister of Education (Mr Skoglund) had nothing more helpful to say about university salaries than his comments on Saturday he should have refrained from saying anything. As it is, he has slighted the New Zealand University Senate and given an impression that he regards a new salary scale as the only important matter dealt with by the Parry committee. It is true that the Senate has flow asked for immediate action on salaries (as the Parry report had forcibly advised); but it would be a pity if a wrangle over salaries caused other important recommendations to be overlooked. It will not be enough if the Government, as grudgingly. perhaps, as Mr Skoglund, gives way on more nearly adequate remuneration for scarce abilities, fhe committee’s wide-ranging report raised many important questions of principle. No doubt more, better-paid, and contented university staffs would be able to introduce gradually some of the reforms suggested by the Parry committee.. Fundamental decisions would still have to be made by the Government. The universities, for instance, could not themselves reverse the long-standing policy of encouraging part-time students, or the more recent system of bonded bursaries to recruit graduates for the State. The Government, too, must make up its mind on the training of technologists and on the coordination of research When it has answered these and similar questions, the universities, given the staff, would be able to do something about such matters as the wasteful and discouraging rate of examination failures by university students. As the committee commented: “It is unfortunate

“that intelligent students with “reasonable work habits come “to regard failure as a normal “ part of their university ex- “ perience ”. The Parry report goes a long way to showing how this could be avoided; and salaries in accordance with academic standing are only part of the course it indicates. Mr Skoglund’s remarks were unfortunate in another way. The Parry committee was disappointed to find that “ the “ New Zealand public has not “ been sufficiently aroused to “ the unique importance of the “university. . . . All these “urgent matters . . . can be “remedied if the New Zealand “public see the importance of “ the university to the com- “ munity ”, Has Mr Skoglund contributed to the public’s understanding by an invidious comparison of salaries, ' including his own at the time he gave up school-teaching for politics? And, incidentally, since Mr Skoglund has raised the point, it is not unfair to point out that his academic qualifications, as recorded in “ Who’s Who in New Zealand ”, fall somewhat short o- those acceptable in a junior university lecturer. We do not think that Mr Skoglund intended to prejudice the case for better universities in the public mind. That would make nonsense of his action in setting up the Parry committee. The fact remains that he gave the impression of either joking about the reasonable comments of those interested in the universities or of becoming impatient and exasperated. He should be careful to avoid such impressions if he really wants the universities to take their rightful place in the estimation of the community. It is not Mr Skoglund who has reason for impatience.