UNIVERSITY REFORM.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 16168, 19 February 1913, Page 7

UNIVERSITY REFORM.

THE SENATE'S ROAD. 1.-A STUDY IN REVERSION. (Contributed.) The University Reform movement took its original concrete form in the visit to New Zealand in 1907 of a distinguished American university president, Dr Starr Jordan, who was invited by .the Chancellor to interest himself iu the University of New Zealand. , Several opportunities were afforded him of addressing the public on educational questions, and at the Senate meeting of January, 1908, the Chancellor appended to- his official report a statement which' (he said) Dr Starr Jordan had been "good enough to write for me, expressing his views on cur university system. I (the Chancellor) consider his suggestions of so much importance that I append them to my report." Yet this same Chancellor, cannot find terms opprobrious enough for those who advance the same suggestions now, the only difference being that they are now expressed in a way that brings them more definitely home. Starr Jordan's memorandum was regarded by the Senato as of sufficient' importance to be remitted to a large Recess Committee. The motion in this direction was moved by Mr von Haast, who formulated the splendid proposition that the committee should "consider and report upon Dr Starr Jordan's suggestions . . . and generally the revision of the university system, so as to bring the university education of New Zealand into line with modern developments 'in the leading universities of Europe and America" Yet this! same Mr von Haast has voted steadily! against the' proposals recently brought forward by such men as Mr James Al-1 ,len and Mr for the bringing in of a humble instalment of the reform he then vaguely contemplated: and, in his alliance with emeritus Professor Macmillau Brown, he has put forth a number of alternative proposals ealcu'ated to make his European and American educational gods weep for tho folly of mankind. A VICIOUS CIRCLE.

It sounds magnificent to set up a 'ommittee representative of the whole iominion, and to give it a year in which to carry nut its far-reaching commission; but if the committer consists of busy men scattered throughout the length of the land, stimulated neither By the dignity of Royal Commission (which alone would be appropriate to the task) nor by the consciousness that they are the right men for the job; if it docs not meet till its ■nembers are gathering again for tho aext annual meeting of Senate, and then "submits simpliciter suggestions" drafted by its convener, upon which it has "arrived at no decision," the ■ ;ilt is badly off the gingerbread. Tho convener's suggestions included im-

portant proposals in regard to qualification for matriculation, on lines indicated by Starr Jordan; but the committee'l modest recommendation, to refer these proposals to the professorial boards and the heads of secondary schools, was rejected by the casting vote or; the Chancellor (following his original, vote in the same direction). There was-also a comprehensive suggested revision of the B.A. and B.Sc. degree scheme, which was the beginning of a long .process (see below) which comipleted fect circle of operations the_ other day by returning to its starting point! But " on the following matter referred to it, namely, that the papers for some of the degree examinations should be examined in New Zealand," the:'committee had "no report to make."— although this was the dimmest : possible reflection of one of Starr Jordan's most unequivocal declarations.

Some two years later .the organised, movement for university reform.'took shape, and opinions on our university system were obtained from a great number of distinguished men -(like Starr Jordan) in Europe and America. These opinions were_ incorporated in the pamphlet "University Reform in New Zealand," published in 1911, *hich stated the TReform Association's criticism of the' present system and - put forward constructive proposals of a tentative character to make out a case for a Royal Commission. Meanwhile a [petition to Parliament was investigated by the Education Committee of the House, and on the- evidence adduced this committee reported that a case for reform had been mad© but, but that -the action of the Senate in authorising a Professorial Conference in 1910 (see below) was evidence of the will to reform from within. And Mr James Allen, who had, since his advent in 1909, been moving in the direction of reform of the examination system, used the Education Commit-, tee's report to induce the Senate, at its 1912 meeting, to institute an an» nual Professorial Conference.

MAKING ITSELF RIDICULOUS. The Professorial Conference of last November was thus ostensibly tho beginning of a new order. The report of its determinations, upon questions mostly controversial in character, represents very solid work done by the conference and during its'deliberations. But the greater part of the Chancel* lor's address to this year's meeting of the Senate was devoted to disparagement of this report; and the Senate by large majorities endorsed in a most em» pliatic way the opinions of the Chancellor. One by one the carefully considered resolutions of the' conference i were "turned down" by the august 'assembly; and, finally, on tho motion of Mr von Haast (zealous for reform) Mr Allen's motion of the previous meeting was rescinded. The "Herald's" report says:—"The object of Mr von Haast's pill was gilded .with a the conference. The mover said that it was unnecessary and costly, and the results were comparatively futile. It is important to note the difference made by Mr Allen's absence; ho would certainly have exerted himself to prevent the Senate thus making him and itself ridiculous in the eyes of the public. It is also important to ponder the cost to the country of the' Senate's futilo deliberations. It is true that Mr von Haast's motion was to abolish pious resolution'to substitute for Mr Allen's' Conference something much more efficient and effective, and a Recess Committee was set up to report upon this question; but alternatives suggested would not stand ten minutes' firo of criticism; and the history of Recess Committees of the Senate is not such as to provide the slightest gleam of hope that any reform of value can be accomplished in that way. The concrete" case of the last five years' work upon the "general culture" degrees of B.A. and B.Sci is sufficient commentary.