UNIVERSITY REFORM.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 21, 26 January 1911, Page 2

UNIVERSITY REFORM.

SIR ROBERT STOUT'S REPLIES TO PROFESSOR KIRK. [BY TELEGRAPH — SPECIAL TO THE POST.] CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. In a letter published in the Times to : day ( Thursday j T Sir Robert Stout replies to a letter written to the Evening Post by Professor Kirk, of Victoria College, on the subject of University reform. "Professor Kirk," writes Sir Robert, "is reported as having said in his letter that the professors of his college have not suggested that each professor or each college should examine the students taught by the professors in his college. My reply is that some of the professors have so suggested, and that is the only [ inference that can be drawn from the professors' petition to Parliament. I know that Professor Hunter, in a speech at the Court of Convocation, suggested a board for each subject, consisting of thi four professors in that subject, but I have no evidence that that suggestion , has been adopted by his colleagues. 1 Might Professor Kirk point out where the adoption of such a suggestion by the professors can be found '! , "The petition assumed that the teachers of the students have to be the examiners of the students. In the petition they rely on Dr. W. S. Jordan's suport for their views, and this is his view thereon : 'Let examination be a function of the professor, not of the university. Each professor would certify to the college the work which tho student has actually accomplished in satisfactory fashion, each college to certify to the University of New Zealand, through a vote of the Professorial Board, their students entitled to degrees.' It would be satisfactory to know if this scheme is rejected. It was not so at the early meetings of the 'Reformers.' But let it be assumed that the professors rejected Dr. Jordan's proposal, and accepted Professor Hunter's. Why did they not put it in their petition ? Anyone reading the petition must come to the conclusion that they condemn 'external' examinations. Could it be said that the board was an 'internal' examining body if three of the examiners were external examiners ? "The reason for Dr. Jordan's scheme is plain. He thinks tho proper examiner is the teacher. If, however, a board such as Professor Hunter has suggested is appointed the majority of the examiners will know nothing of the students, nor how they have been taught. What advantage would they have over an external examiner in London ? To have assumed that the professors, having condemned external examiners, were willing to aeoept this four membered board, would have been to have assumed either that they did not appreciate the meaning of the word 'external,' or that they were illogical. Though I knew they had been very excited about what they called 'reform,' I did aot presume they had lost their heads."