The Dominion THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 1911. THE CHANCELLOR ON UNIVERSITY REFORM.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1029, 19 January 1911, Page 4

The Dominion THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 1911. THE CHANCELLOR ON UNIVERSITY REFORM.

Nobody can avoid being struck by tho unusual and refreshing vigour of that portion, of Sir Kobert Stout's report to tho University Senate which deals with the "University reform" movement. There is" no doubt in the Chancellor's mind, or in' anybody else's, , that the local professors who have led the movement are inspired by the best of motives, but that has not re-, strained him from administering a severe rebuke of the spirit in which the local professors have conducted their demand for reform. Tho professors may resent the rebuke, - but they are not likely to resent Sir Robert Stout's phrase, "a campaign of depreciation," since depreciation was a necessary part of their case: but the phrase and the rebuke will probably make tho leaders of. tho "reform" movement realise how important it is not to seek popular support at the expense of accuracy and moderation. The Chancellor interprets the demand of the local professors as "practically that profesand lecturers should really dominate all our university institutions, and that they should be tho in all matters dealing with curricula and syllabuses." They have only themselves to blame if this is an incorrect reading of their aims, for throughout the agitation they have failed to satisfy a fairly persistent demand for a clear and explicit statement of the advantages of tho position that .would be reached if their campaign were successful. The Chancellor, wo suspect, must been strongly tempted,' when quoting from Mr. Macphail's recent stimulating volume, to quote that caustic phrase about "debasing the currency in deference to a factitious demand from people who do not understand what they are asking, what they want, or what they need." He proceeded, however, to set forth yevy _ clearly some strong arguments against the abolition of the_ present system of external examiners. We need not repeat all of these, since many of them have been used over, and over again in these columns. We may note, however, tho citation of tho general British practice that the teachers of a student shall not be his examiners; This, too, is an important point:

If the people of New Zealand thought that such University College should be a degree-granting body, then it would be bettor to abolish the .Now Zealand University and let each University College be a University with all tho privileges and responsibilities of sncli an institution.

It would not onlv "be bettor" to abolish the New Zealand University in such a ease; it would bo necessary. And who is there who would assist the destruction of the national University and the substitution therefor of, not'just four, but .quite a _numbfir, of little village universities?

in _ the Ghanoollor's discussion of this important question was more suggestive than his reference to the past successes of the system that is now assailed by the local professors. Laudator tcmporis acli is a role in which Sir Robert ,is;rarely found, unfortunately, and it is accordingly a spccial pleasure to hear him, after allowing that there must always bo adjustments to changcd circumstances, referring to ■»o small beginnings of the Universr ity in terms of admiration. The record 'of the students who passed through the University in its early days; he said, showed that' the University was able to equip its children well for general success and for particular eminence. "The young men and young women of New Zealand now," he added, "are just as able as the young_ men and women were twenty or thirty years ago. They, have greater opportunities than past students had, and if they do not succeed as past students succeeded, the fault does not lie in the students, nor in the buildings,' nor in the poverty of the libraries' and the laboratories. The reason must be sought elsewhere." Doubt-, less he. has ■ his. own opinion as to where will bo found the explanation of any falling away from the older standards, and we should like to have him speak his mind on .this point. It is possiblo to approve the Chancellor's speech, as we approve it, and yet to_ disagree with his sweeping application to the leaders of tne "reform" movement of Mn. Macphail's 'vivacious onslaught upon the tyranny of the expert. Mb. Macphail would most decidedly protest against the inference from his disquisition upon . "professorial cant" that professors should have no voice in the preparation of the University curricula and syllabuses. It is quite true that nothing could bo more foolish than to say that "no" laws should be passed unless approved by lawyers"; but it is equally true that lawyers can bo useful assistants to law-makers everywhere. | And so with professors and curricula.