DECAY OF APPRENTICESHIP

Evening Star, Issue 19588, 21 June 1927, Page 2

DECAY OF APPRENTICESHIP

AK ENGLISH OPINION. Tho decay of apprenticeship, which is a recognised fact in modern industrial life, means that tho workman who is jfo achieve a high degree of knowledge and skill must get his training at a technical institution, states the ‘ Illustrated Carpenter and Builder ’ (England). Apprenticeship, even where it exists, is much more limited in its scope. Nor is this entirely a matter for regret. The'apprentice who spends part of His working week in the workshop or on the building and another part in the polytechnic is getting a training which ought to be, and often is, quite ns good as any which the old-time apprentice ship system gave. He is being trained on broader and more scientific lines; he ■ is learning the beauties and refinements of his craft, as well as its common daily applications. And, not least in importance, he is adding a physical and mental culture outside the range of his actual trade which, even if it has no direct hearing on his productive value, tends to a happier, healthier, and more intelligent manhood. The decay of apprenticeship is no misfortune, either frorn an industrial or a social point of view if it makes way for this broader training. Whether it will do so largely depends on the view education authorities—-national and local—take of their duties in respect to technical and craft schools. If, ns seems likely, the craft schools are to have an increasing part in the training of building trade workmen, the schools of architecture seem also destined to increase in rance and usefulness. This is a point which has a distinct bear!re on the controversy shout, the Architects’ Registration Bill. Obiections based on the idea that registration gives sole authority to a central hodv—tho R.T.B.A. or anv other—do not. anply to the present Bill. The schools of architecture have a definite place in the scheme. _ Their courses of studn and examinations are accepted as equivalent to any R.T.B.A. test. As Professor Reilly said in a recent letter to ‘ The Times ’“ In th« nresent-dav school of with iuries of practising architects to' judge these designs, it is inconceivable that genius should not be able to do itself iustice. Indeed, the success of the modern schools of architecture pneves the contrary.”