UNIVERSITY REFORM.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 16326, 23 August 1913, Page 12

UNIVERSITY REFORM.

I 4 ! SCHEMES FOR RECONSTITUTION. CONSIDERED BY GRADUATES’ ASSOCIATION. A meeting of tho Canterbury College Graduates’ Association was held at the College last night to consider a circular issued by the Senate of tho University setting forth threo proposed schemes for tho reconstitution of . the University of New Zealand. There was an attendance of about twenty members. Tho president of tho Association, Mr T. S. Foster, who presided, said that the matter to be discussed wa3 of vital interest to tho Association.- Personally ho was in tho dark upon several matters mentioned iu tho circular and doubtless others were in tho same position. The Senate had asked the graduates to vote on tho proposals and it was necessary that they should have all the information procurable before them beforo they voted. Dr Hight, a member of the Senate, was present by invitation, aud would give any information he could regarding the negotiations which so far had eventuated.

Dr Hight said that the University had been in existence for forty years and in that timo many changes had come about, politically, industrially and socially. The University, in attempting to meet new requirements had undertaken many arduous duties, but 111 tho opinion of many the University’s constitution had not changed so as to enablo it to discharge all its duties efficiently. A slight change was made in 1892 and 6ince then demands for further changes had been made continually. In tho primary and secondary schools radical changes had been made and now the movement for reform had reached the university. It would be wrong to say that the recent demand was tho work of a few professors in Wellington. The demand was widespread, although many differed as to the direction in which tho movement should go. The members of the teaching staffs, who knew ultimately the conditions prevailing in tho University, took tho first official step. 111 1911 a petition was presented to Parliament asking for a Royal Commission to inquire into the position of tho University in tho sphere of education. The Education Committee of tho House reported that, in view of the likelihood of the Senate effecting reforms itself, no commission was needed. In November, 1912, the professors met in conference and sent certain recommendations to tho Senate. At its next sitting the Senate decided to abolish the annual professorial conference, The speaker dealt with the Senate’s subsequent steps in detail. A committee had met in April and tho threo schemes submitted to the graduates were evidently drafted by that committee.

Dr Chilton, a member of the committee set up by the Senate, said that Professor Starr Jordan, in 1907, had made certain recommendations regarding the reconstruction of the constitution, but at the two following sittings of the Senate that body could not agree upon any definite scheme of reform. Tho Professorial Conference later, had submitted certain propositions but they failed to find acceptance and were referred back to the different professorial boards.

Mr W. D. Andrews said that ho favoured tho first of tho three schemes submitted, as it provided for a Board of Studies, thus giving the Professorial Board influential representation in tho affairs of the university. The scheme was reasonable and well thought-out, but was a little cumbrous. Tho second schema was too ambitious altogether, and the third scheme was practically no advance on tho existing conditions. Dr Hilgendorf asked if the proposed Board of Studies was to dictate to tho Senate on matters coming within its sphere or act merely in an advisory board. Dr Hight said that, evidently, the Senate would not take any steps in certain matters until tho Board of Studies had been consulted.

Mr R. M. Laing said that the more tho people became interested in the university, the greater its usefulness. In some countries universities had suffered by becoming class institutions, and they must try to avoid that in New Zealand. Any scheme that would extend the influence of tho university should be considered and considered from that standpoint. There was not enough co-operation between the educational institutions in the dominion. In tho government of a university continuity and elasticity, were absolutely necessary. Considering tho schemes from these three points, he favoured the second one.

Dr Evans said that, in his opinion, the second scheme was utter rubbish. It confused the body to be elected with those electing it. Courts of Convocation should be abolished altogether. They opposed all reforms. The second scheme would put too much power into the hands of a few people. He favoured the first scheme. The Board of Studies would be a step in the right direction, but a Board of Faculties would not be needed for years to come.

Mr T. W. Rowe condemned the second scheme as too cumbrous altogether. It would interfere too much with the governing body of Canterbury College. He moved that the meeting should approve, in its main features, of the first scheme. Mr W. D. Andrews seconded the motion nro forma.

Mr'F. C. Spratt said that it would be foolish, on the meagre information available, to give support to any scheme. He would move as an amendment that the meeting should adjourn for three weeks to allow of further consideration.

Dr Symes seconded tho amendment. Dr Evans suggested that, as no binding motion could be carried at any meeting, no adjournment was needed. Every individual could vote as he or she pleased. Ho moved as a further amendment that the meeting should close and take no action. Mr W. J. Hunter seconded this amendment. After considerable discussion, both amendments were withdrawn. Dr. Evans then moved: “ That this meeting considers it inadvisable to pass any definite resolution in .favour of any one of the schemes.”

Mr Hunter seconded the motion, which, in turn, was withdrawn. Mr W. Brock moved: “ That the meeting, having received considerable information with regard to the various schemes, the graduates were now in a position to understand the proposals and give an intelligent vote on them.” | Mr Laing seconded tho amendment, pro forma, and then strongly opposed it. 1 At this stage tho meeting again discussed the-various schemes at length, and, subsequently, the amendment was withdrawn. The meeting then gave Mr Rowe permission to withdraw his resolution. Dr Hilgeudorf said that tho crux of the whole question was the appointment of external examiners, and it had been carefully avoided during the evening. The meeting then closed.