ACADEMIC BOARD

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 21, 25 January 1929, Page 11

ACADEMIC BOARD

MANY AMENDMENTS

CRITICISM AND EEPLIBS

(By Telegraph.)

(Special to "The Evening Post")

DUNEDIN, This Day

Some criticism of the Academic Board and its methods was ventilated by Sir Robert Stout at the annual meeting of the Now Zealand University Council while the General Committee's report on the board's recommendation was being discussed. Sir Robert referred adversely to what he said were thirty-two pages of amendments- in their statutes. No ' university had over heard of such a thing. There were changes in constitution every year.

Having compared the existing state of.affairs here with those in Aberdeen and Edinburgh, he stated that they had probably made more alterations locally in a year than had been made at the Scottish universities in fifty years. It was a great expense; They had had a Commission which cost nearer £4000 than £2000.. Every year they had alterations, alterations, alterations, and he did not know where it would all end. They should think of the question of expense. What did it all mean?

Professor Thomas considered that the position was directly the result of their federal system, and the fact that tho colleges had to bo guided by the requirements of external examiners; who were so often out of New Zealand and who knew nothing of the style of teaching adopted here. A. close definition of the subjects was not required. He quite recognised that a great deal of work, incidentally only twentyfour pages, was made necessary by tho system. Moreover he would remind Sir Robert that this was a time of extremely rapid changes. Changes meant rapid activity, and he hoped that the activity would lead to progress.

Mr. F. A. De la Mare said that, while it was fair to criticise anything the Academic Board had done, it was unfair to criticise, this report on any kind of general principle. He considered they would be quite satisfied in congratulating the board, not in criticising it.

Professor Segar stated that Sir Bobert had made a very eloquent speechin favour of stagnation. Once upon a time a meeting of the Senate lasted three weeks, and if there was no Academic Board to assist them it would still be so. The work of the University was growing, and there were considerably more students and professors.

■-■ Mr. F. H. Bakewell did not see why the usefulness of the work accomplished should bo coincident with the number of pages iv the report. It was largely a printing matter, and it might be printed down until there were only twenty pages. (Laughter.) He concluded by stating that the board had greatly eased the work of the council, because it was comprised of experts.