UNIVERSITY SENATE

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2368, 26 January 1915, Page 6

UNIVERSITY SENATE

ENGINEERING COURSE

AUCKLAND PROPOSAL DEFEATED (By Telegraph—Press Association.) Christchurch, January 25. " „ annual conference of the Now • Zealand University Senate was resumed • to-day. It was reported that for the ; Uaydon Prize no essay had been sent 1 &r G.Maurice O'Rorke moved: "That ; applications of the Auckland University • Allege regarding the recognition of second year- s work for degree course in ; engineering undertaken at college be ' by the Senate." '■ ihe Hon. J. A. Tole seconded the • matwn, and said that he trusted the matter would receive favourable conST a S by the Benate - E»» were ■ borne AJU4 men engaged in engineering ; works in Auckland, and 994 in country , districts. There wore 377 m(J £ i engaged m surveying and architecture, . who would take the first two years' . course if their studies could be undertaken at Auckland. Refusal of Senate to grant recognition had prevented a number of students from continuing i their studies, and sitting for engineer ■ lag degree. Auckland did not ask tor a second school or ask that it r should be called the "School of Engin--1 ee^ m S- They asked for recognition .. only tor what they did. If some bene- , factor wore to give £50,000 for a school ■■ of engineering in Nelson, Auckland or ■^v 0? 3 * could Canterbury debar its establishment? The Senate never intended any such thing. Why should the door bo shut in the face of students in other parts of the Dominion, and they be compelled to come to Canterbury f- It was not a valid reason to urge agajnst Auckland that Canterbury had spent £36,000 and was spending £3000 annually. Then the argument that continuity of instruction would be unpaired would not hold. At present men.' in Auckland were shut out, and had to take whatever they could get. The question in Auckland was a burnfog one and attracted notice on all sides. And now," said Mr. Tole, "we come to our Alma Mater, and ask her not to turn aside, but to say 'Yes.'" Professor Scott, of Canterbury College, said that last year in Dunedin he had opposed the motion on the grounds of increased cost and decreased efficiency. The number of matriculated engineering students at Canterbury College was 39, the net cost of engineering graduates at present was £400, and the cost per graduate, he declared, decreased in proportion to the number of students. That was the great argument in favour of centralisation. In Great Britain'there were only fourteen schools recognised by the Institute of Civil Engineers; this was one to about 3,000,000 people;, New South Wales had one school to 1,000,000 people, and New Zeaand had one to 1,150,000. If the Auckland proposal was granted, we would have one school to 550,000 people, which he felt would be a gross over-schooling. Canterbury and Otago supplied matriculated students, but Auckland made a • point of the fact that they would receive non-matriculated students. Auckland was making application under misapprehension. The School of Engineering was not established to provide junioi engineers'and artisans with general ■education,-, but to educate a limited number of students to the highest professional point. It was,impossible for any man to go through an engineering course in New Zealand unless, he devoted four complete years to the task. It had been tried and tried again by part time men, but unsuccessfully. Mr. G. Hogben said that ho did not think it expedient to break up the professional part of _ the course. Auckland would also be involved in heavy expense to completely equip herself for an engineering degree. He did not see why there should not be highly-ad-vanced technical course there for those who did not want the degree. Recognition was not necessary for that. Mr. J. W. Gibbs, headmaster of Auckland Grammar School, said that while for Auckland College itself he felt-it would be better for students to complete a three years' course at Auckland before going, to Canterbury, instead of reducing the term to two years, he felt that for the benefit of the University of New Zealand the motion should be passed. Dr. M'Dowell proposed that-the committee of the Senate should be formed to have associated; with it oxpert engineers to go into the matter and report upon it. Feeling in Auckland was very strongly for the proposal. Professor Hunter suggested that the question be deferred for the purpose of allowing all inquiry to be made into the competency of the teaching given at the Auckland Engineering College, and oi allowing the Institute of Civil Engineers being asked whether if the request ot Auckland were agreed to the recog-\ nition at present extended to Canteral Coliege would withdrawn. - the amendment was defeated by 19 ,^ d the original motion moved by Sir Maurice O'Rorke, on being put, was defeated by. 16 votes to 8 The voting.was-Noes: Hon. Sir C. C. Bowen. Professor Benham, Professor J. Macmillan Brown, Professor J. R. Brown, Rev. A. Professor Chilton, Han. Dr. Collins, Rev. W. " Evans, Mr. H F, Von Haast, Rev. W. Hewitson, Professor Hight, Mr. Hogben Professor Malcolm, Professor Marshall, Professor Scoft, and Sir Robert btout. Ayes: Dr. Fitchett, Mr. Gordon, Professor Hunter, Dr. M'Dowell, Uon. Sir .Maurice O'Rorke, Professor Sepr, Mr. Tibbs, and the Hon. J. A leley ,-

Professor Scott moved, and it was agreed to: "That"the Engineering Committee draw up regulations regarding the use of the engineering prelimrnarj entrance examinations by tho council of Institute.of Civil Engineers." The following motions were passed:— Moved by Professor Hunter: "That tho Entrance Examinations Committee bo asked to recommend the Board of Moderators for 1915." Moved by Professor Benham; "That certain verbal alterations be made in the prescription of biology and dental anatomy for B.D.S. degree, and'the matter bo referred to the Medical Committee."