THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15820, 19 July 1913, Page 8

THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM.

Professob Laby, of Victoria College, writing to iw this morning, draws' attention to two passages, which he quotes, from the final report of the Royal Commission on the University of London. The first of these was cited by us some weeks ago in an article concerning the findings of the Commission. The second was not, however, contained in the very full summary of the report of the Commission published by The Times, and, a complete copy of the report not being available, we are indebted to Professor Laby for supplying us with -an expression of opinion on the part of the Commissioners which, though brief, is of peculiar interest from the standpoint of the New Zealand University. "Hardly anyone," this passago reads, ''now defends a purely external examination as a proper test of university teaching. The University of New Zealand, one of the last universities to retain this form of examination, adopted under tho influence of the old' University of London, is at present agitating for reform." We quote this statement not only because of its novelty, but because, singularly enough, it is adduced by Professor Laby as typical of evidence which he considers should inspire us to re-examine the position we have taken up on the question of university reform. The inference written Jarge over our correspondent's letter is that these excerpts from the finding of tho University of London Commission cast a very creditable light upon the Victoria College professors who are asking for far-reaching .changes in tho university system in.New Zealand. But it is curious that Professor Laby has not himself recognised the danger and unwisdom of drawing conclusions of that kind from statements so loose 'as that -which we have quoted. The

assertion that the University of New Zealand is at present agitating for reform ifl of course a misrepresentation oi the case, and it is certainly strange that. such, ft misleading statement should be found in a report to which are appended the names of the distinguished authorities who formed the Commission, to investigate the methods of the University of London. The absurdity of attributing to ths University of New Zealand the agitation for reform for which, a small group of professors is mainly responsible must be apparent. With reference, moreover, to the Commission's condemnation of a, "purely external examination," it should not be necessary to point out that the test of the work .of university sfcudenta in this country is far from being a purely external one, inasmuch as no student can even sit for a degree in Arts and Science who has not passed the test of the internal examinations conducted at the various colleges.

THE BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT, Tee debate on the Address-m-Eeply fortunately out of the way, the House of Representatives settled down yesterday to the performance of the solid business of the session, and several Government measures were advanced a stage. B is doubtless the intention of the Government that, except for such Bills, which, as, for example, the measure amending the Shops and Offices Act, have to be referred to sessional committees for consideration, a fair amount of legislation shall be passed by the Lower House before the delivery of the Budget so that the time of the Second Chamber may be fully occupied during the period that will be devoted to the financial debate. It would be a satisfactory ciroumstance, though it may be too mrach to hope for, if compensation for the length to which tho debate on the Addiress-in-Repry ran were provided in the curtailment of the financial debate. The Prime Minister has expressed the -belief that the time consumed in the discussion of the Address-in-Eeply has been wasted to a smaller extent than the public is apt to suppose, k» argument being that this debate has provided an opportunity for the airing of grievances which might otherwise ba ventilated later on in the session. It was certainly prolific of complaint, very largely of a trivial description, but the debate does not seem generally to have been lifted above a level of mediocrity and it must have been with a sense of relief that the majority of the electors throughout the country learnt of its termination. That the discussion of the Address-in-Reply can be abolished, as Mr G. M. Thomson desires, is very doubtful. Parliament clings' tenaciously to the most archaic of its forms. Nor may it be very desirable that it should be abolished.. Occasionally' it serves a useful purpose. Notably it affords the earliest opportunity after the opening of the session for challenging the existence of a Government and for dividing the House upon controvensdal questions of importance. It is not the use, but the abuse, of the Address-in-Reply debate to which the attention of Parliament needs to be directed.