UNIVERSITY REFORM.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 94, 20 April 1912, Page 15

UNIVERSITY REFORM.

REPLY TO THE LONDON TIMES. Sir Eoberb Stout and the New Zealand University reform Association, as briefly mentioned in our London correspondent'c letter on Wednesday, are again at grips. They have fought hard in Wellington, and now, far from being weary "of combat, they are engaged in a battle in London. Early in December The Times published an article in which the case of tho reform* was warmly supported. When the Chancellor saw that print he promptly despatched an answer, which is given in the educa-tional-supplement'of> The Times of ' sth March. ''Yog have been misled by a pamphlet published by three .professors of Victoria College," Tuns Sir Eobtu-t's tetter to the editor of The Times. "You say there is 'ample proof of the accuracy of the ex paarte statement*! of the pamphleteers., - Would you be good enough -> to state where such -proof is to be found? Let me deal with a few of the misstatemente you have accepted as accurate." The Chancellor then does some wholesale dealing. i Rebutting a statement that "no person engaged in teaching may be a member of the Senate," Sir Kobert remarks that there is no such prohibition. "Ac a fact/ he adds, "one-third of the members of the Senate are engaged in teaching. There are two other members who were formerly teachers in an affiliated college." Discussing the 'charge that local- teachers are not properly considered in the examination 'scheme, he saw*; — "Ahnost all the examiners for the entrance examination* are persons 'epgaged^ in' teaching' in the colleges. 4 There are-also'^some examina.tiqns'in music and sciences conducted by 'persons engaged in teaching.' I wpnder if you are avirai'o' that no students 'are eligible 'to sit 'as candidates for the ' ordinary degree examinations fif '. they have not kept terms'. The keeping of .'terms/involves passing annual examinations/of, which, the professors . Who teach the students are the' examiners. Further, no student can present himself for examination in any branch of physical .science, or of natural science, oy of chemistry, unless he holds *£ tflrtificate from his professor that he has gone through a prescribed* course of practical work m the^ subject.' Yon must 'cow feee you ha,ve. been mislead. It is true that the University appoints external examiners, and, might I .ask, is that practice unknown in Britain? In the old Universities are the professors the- : examiners of their students ? Is that | the practice in Oxford? And in the new Universities is there no provision for external examiners. I find in the charter of the University of Wales that a certificate from an external examiner ,js necessary before a degree • can be ; granted.' Might I ask are all the ex- '< aminatione to be left to persons 'engaged in teaching'? If so, do you not think 'that 'you should advocate the trial of this BJstemin Britain, and not criticise the New Zealand University 1 for not adopting this novel method ? The fact is, we have not had m N©w Zealand, as yet, a sufficient number of persona who have been engaged in teaching, or who are experte in the art of examining, and ; therefore ' we have had to go abroad for expert examinera. We believe that the obtaining of the services of skilled and able examiners would keep our University standards high. Our anticipations have ' been realised. However, when you have convinced Oxford and Cambridge that no one should examine tie students in but their own teachers in how the eystepi works," it aviU be lame* enough for us to consider its adoption. Why The Chancellor controverts »in<, detail lour charges mad© by The Times against the New Zealand University :— (1) That- research, work is almost .entirely neglected ; (2) that teaching is made subordinate to examinations j (3) that the method of appointing professors is bad; (4) that the , conaitions laid down for obtaining the B.A. degree are of unsuitable type and low standard. t "Perhaps/ 1 concludes Sir Kobert, "it ib wrong for ue here, who have watched over the growth /'of our educational institutions, to think we know what we need. But, 'if we are to accept your advice, do you not think you should make yourself thoroughly conversant with our conditions? <■ It does not heighten our regard for what we believe is the greatest paper in the world to find in its columns, so many blunders as appear in your article on tho New , Zealand University."