TRINITY COLLEGE EXAMINATIONS

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 July 1915, Page 2

TRINITY COLLEGE EXAMINATIONS

'4. p (To the Editor.) Sir,—! must apologise for again asking ycjjj to insert these few remarks in your valuable paper, as I have been asked to aiiawer'a few questions as given in, J. J. Fraher’s letter of ,29th ult.; — (1) Was the examination conducted under the supervision of (one or more) presiding honorary visitors ?—No; otherwise why was an attempt made to secure seme disinterested party to supervise it ? (2) Were the supervisors who conducted the examination, directly or#, indirectly, interested in any of the candidates?—Yes- * aUt’three were. * * (3) Were the examination papers opened by one of the visitors in the presence of ihe candidates?—No, as no visitors were IH 'present. . . . J M)tWere the examination papers placed in a cover at the close of the examination and sealed the presence of the v* candidates? —No, as they were left lying on?a table. • (5) Were they sent the same day to the ■ .' Secretary of the College*?—Don t know, but not posted .by a ‘visitor. •fjh • fT-he’ examination time recorder was the schoolroom clock, set at 10 a.m. by one of; the Supervising Sistefs _at the comnifencemeiit 1 of the examination. .Now J. J. Fraher suggests that three of the candidates left the room at * fifteen (| minutes tepone (whichtheypiiid not), but allowing fwiat they <did, at say, eve|i two J ■ hilnutes to one, why were some of the other candidates allowed to gather round ■ ono of tho supervising Sisters with their j ' note-papers in thefr hands before the. examination . was finished? And if it was 1 when, I "presume the candidates would be allowed to speak to their teacher, why were the;; papers not sealed but left lying on the table open? r I -must thank both .the Rev, Dean and j J, Fraher for their letters, as they have given much more publicity to the ( question than ever I anticipated. As to fc’StffSSft iiut LX and .W ”-yon £r^lTST tJtAj. - :