TOO MUCH EDUCATION!

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12204, 31 July 1925, Page 5

TOO MUCH EDUCATION!

RESTRICTIONS ADVOCATED

OVERCROWDING THE PROFESSIONS VIEWS OF DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION A note of witmiy as to the possibility of overcrowding the professions in New Zealand on account of the large number of students taking ,■university courses was sounded by Mr J. Caughley, M.A., Director of Education, in Wb evidence before the University Commission yesterday. , He pointed out that as practically the whole cost of university. education was borne by the Government, the question of whether such overloading was justified was a pertinent one. Mr Caughley’s statement was as follows: — KEEPING THE BALANCE EVEN. There should, be a general' estimate made of the number of students who after satisfactorily completing special courses of instruction could be utilised in the Dominion, Such an estimate

oould fairly well he made with respect to such courses as medicine, dentistry, mining, civil engineering, university courses in agriculture, forestry, and architecture. This omits the law course of which separate mention will be made. The estimate referred to should be safely on the liberal side, leaving a reasonable margin for students'who may wish to qualify in New Zeeland and go to other countries where opportunities are greater.

The Government should then in consultation with the Senate decide whether, in view of the number of students required, one or more special schools should be established, and where they should be located. .It seems clear that where the number of students required- for special courses is small it Would not he possible within reasonable economic limits to provide a competent staff and adequate equipment for more than one school for that course. ELIMINATING THE UNFIT

The number of students to be provided for at Buch special schools as are approved should be limited approximately to the number required accord, ing to the estimate above referred to. It is admitted that this would appear to be an arbitrary restriction on the number of entrants to a given occupation or profession. Some would urge that the door should be left wide open, leaving It to the entrants to qualify or fail- according to their capacity, and leaving it to the survivors to. compete in the- professional and ' commercial world for competency or supremacy. The restriction suggested oould. how-

ever, be made with perfect justice it, where the number had to be limited,entrance were made on the basis of a thorough test of the capabilities of tho applicants. It would be much kinder to eliminate the unfit at the beginning, or to limit the number even of those who conld pass through the course, than turn out a 'number of students who could not possibly be profitably occupied in the occupation for which they have prepared. POSITION OF THE GOVERNMENT. There is the other consideration as to whether the Government, which is now providing almost tho full cost of education, should undertake the needless cost of training twice or throe times as many young people for a given occupation as can find a position in it. The position could be" further adjusted if the Government limited its free university privileges to tho required number of students who must successfully pass the entrance test suggested. Then if any of these rejected still d~ sire to take up the course they should be required to pay fees covering the full cost of tuition, and could only then be admitted if they reasonably fuKi the requirements of the entrance test. As arguments in favour of such r. course I would refer to the fact that there were in 1923, 653 students in’ New Zealand taking the law course, but only 07 in that year obtained the! law degree. There were also 385 students taking the -medloal source, hut only, So obtained medical degrees. -In' engineering there were IC* students, and onlv St obis* nod doqree^