FOUR UNIVERSITIES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19256, 21 August 1924, Page 8

FOUR UNIVERSITIES.

A PREMATURE PROPOSAL. DISCUSSION BY COUNT OF CONVOCATION. LE3S DRASTIC REMEDIES FAVOURED. A mooting’ of the Court of Convocation of tho Otago University District was held at the University Club last evening to consider tho proposal to establish four separate universities in New Zealand in place of tho Now Zealand University as at present constituted. Mr J. M. Paterson, one of the vice-presidents of the Court of Convocation, presided, and intimated several apologies that had boon received. There were 20 graduates present In explaining tho purpose of the meeting the. chairman read the letter from Auckland Court of Convocation that had originally raised i the question. This letter contained three resolutions adopted by the Auckland Court in favour of subdivision into four universities, of the appointment of a commission, and. failing adoption, of a fouruniversity system proposing a university for Auckland. The committee had met and decided that the matter was too important for it to decide on. and so had called the present meeting. Dr Stuart A. Moore read the following letter that had been received from Dr Pickerell on this question:—_‘Tt has to bo admitted that profound, widespread, and sincere dissatisfaction exists with the New Zealand University as at present constituted and functioning. Unless this sense of injustice and wrong can bo remedied wo are in danger of having four universities set up, and, as Dr Cameron points out, the gravity of such a position lies in tho fact that they would not improbably become State controlled. Instead of gaining more freedom we should have created fetters for ourselves. Apart from political reasons, the chief academic reasons for dissatisfaction arc:—-(1) Too little latitude possible in teaching; (2) examinations too Jixed and stereotyped, insufficient value attached to practical work and training; (5) ‘external’ examiners sometimes not acceptable to ‘internal’ examiners. As the conference held on July 25 between a committee of the council and the Professorial Board I suggested a ‘way out’ which would meet all the above objections, as follows: (1) All faculties in all four colleges to bo autonomous, up to the same point and in the same degree as tho medical and dental faculties are here; (2) each faculty would draw up its own courses of study ; (3) each faculty would recommend its own ‘external’ examiners; (4) each faculty would conduct its own examinations exactly in such a manner as it would if there were four universities ; (5) to preserve uniformity of standard, courses of study and external examiners would bo arranged by conference at the Board of Studios; (6) the Senate (deprived perhaps of its professorial members) would largely give up its right to criticise academic details and conlino its functions to general direction of university education, matters of policy, finance, grants to University Colleges, scholarships, etc., and perhaps inspection of teaching and facilities for same in all colleges. (If the University does not do this, it is not improbable that the Education Department will!) Such a scheme would give us all that is sought for —would bring us into line with all other universities from teaching, training, and examination points of view; at tho same time w© should have an advantage, wanting in other groups of ‘provincial universities—namely, maci-inory (already in existence hero) for standardising and correlating tho work of each and all.” Dr Marshall Macdonald moved: “That in tho opinion of this Court of Convocation the time is not ripe for the division of the New Zealand University into four distinct universities.” Ho said he felt that tho difficulties that had arisen wi.fi regard to the New Zealand University, with regard to its syllabus the fact that it waa not sufficiently flexible, tho difficulty with regard to examinations and other difficulties of administration, the infrequency of meetings of Senate, and the absence of a proper executive body in Wellington, could all bo overcome without undertaking the very dangerous step of dividing the university up into four. Watevor the difficulties' had been no one could cavil at the results of tho New Zealand University. Even those who were moet anxious for its partition made free testimony to the great work it had done in tho last SO years. That being so it would be very injudicious simply on academic , ground and as a result of tho success that had attended the division of tho University of South Africa into four and on the mistaken analogy of tho English provincial universities to divide up the New Zealand University. When it was a question of dostroyinig an institution that had .admittedly done good work they should do something mare than simply take a rash step that they hoped would improve a few minor difficulties. Ho did not want to belittle these difficulties. He felt very sorry for the professors of tho arts anil science faculty. They had been doing magnificent work and they ought to have more freedom. If there was any place in education where there ought to bo freedom, surely it was in the university. We would not for same time yet get rid of the unfortunate burden of examinations in our university system. When they had men th,ey could trust it behoved these men to come together not to disrupt tho university but to do something such as was suggested by Dr Pickerill in the direction of remedying obvious defects and allowing them still to stick together as a New Zealand University. He did not think that the change of the name from college to university would make much difference, but if it would then there was no reason why tho other colleges should not receive tho name of university. Otago University, founded as it waa on Scottish lines, had benefited by bequests and gifts in a way that no other college had done, but that was due not to the fact that it waa a university, but it was a testimony to tho wide and lyroad spirit of tho Scottish pioneer settlors of Otago.—(“Hear, hoar.”) He had been discussing that day with a dental student from Auckland the proposal to have a dental school in Auckland, and the student said, “Of course we could not work in Auckland as we can down here.” The chief object of this scheme was undoubtedly an accession of strength to the northern colleges. That was what they wore after. They w'anted their special schools. Well, in time they would have to have them, but that would not 'bo for a long time. One medical and one dental school would long bo sufficient for New Zealand. They were arriving now at the position Dunedin was in 50 years ago. They were beginning to realise the importance of university education, of all education, to a community. They had natural aspirations and am bilious that would have to bo realised in time to come. So long as we could delay that time so much the better for our special schools. This movement for disruption and partition of the university was simply a means towards that end. The movement began immediately after the Auckland College was refused recognijion for its engineering school That. was tho origin of tho movement. Ho hoped t would be many a long day before the New Zealand University broke up. A very extrnordinary argument had been brought forward that separate universities would have more power to attack the Government and got concessions. That was an absolute fallacy. They could see in Mr Caughley’s letter the grasping hand of tho bureaucrat. If the colleges were separated immediately (ho Government would stop in and do with the universities as they had done with tho high schools. It would he (ho end’ of the university when it became a State-controlled concern.

Mr J. Ronnio seconded tho motion TTo said it seemed there was need of reform, but he did not think there was any need of revolution. It was against tho spirit of the times when everything pointed to union being strength. The separation into four universities would mean weakness. not strength. He left sure, from conversations he had had with one of the heads of the department, there would soon bo legislation curbing tho aspirations of 1 the universities if they wore separated. Ho felt proud of tho work tho New Zealand University had done. For many a year to, com© one university for New Zealand was the thing. He heartily supported tho motion. Professor G. E. Thompson said that after a good deal of thought and consideration he jroao to support the motion. Ho felt it was too soon yet to have four different universities, four different degrees, and four different standards. If any one of the four became slack in the granting of degrees a stigma would be cast on tho whole. He feared that there would be such divergence of standard as would weaken tho whole fabric. Professor Benham said after the meeting of the University Council, when he was in a minority of one, he had been told ho was the only one up to date and that the rest were cavemen. The movement going gu for a lon# tim« had beau started, h©

believed, quite independent of Auckland and Auckland’s threat about a Dental School. Canterbury College last year had brought forward a very clumsy proposal of the kind. There had been a proposal for the four colleges to meet and discuss tho question, and then Auckland suddenly announced that it had asked for a commission. He did not think they pad much confidence in such a commission. Mr Parr had told Auckland that at the present time the Government did not propose to duplicate special schools. There was tho fear that money would be diverted to other centres and so weaken the schools hero. As for the divergence of standard bo believed that students would tend to go to tho university where the standard was highest and the teaching the best. T he term university had a certain definite connotation, and could not be applied to an institution that could not grant degrees. Tho movement was a strong one in the other throe centres, and if the other three became separate universities Otago would bo the last remnant of tho Now Zealand University. Whether they would be able “to collar” all tho funds as the “Wee Free*’’ had done in Scotland or not ho could not say. It was suggested that a division of the funds should be made on a population basis, and that was obviously undesirable. It might bo just as well to take no active part in this movement, but just to remain passive and so get the moneys. The real difficulties possibly could be got over by a reformation of the Senate. It was not an easy body to reform. If they could get all the concessions they wanted without going to extremes they would be just as happy. Mr Robertson said there were many points bearing on this particular proposal on which he would like information before he made up his mind. He suggested that the weak points of the University of New Zealand were to be found in the Senate, and that was where improvement was to be looked for. He asked what was to be the governing body to determine the curriculum in these four separate universities. It seemed that the colleges were beginning to get jealous of each other, and Canterbury and Victoria were complaining that Auckland had got in ahead of them. Mr T. R. Fleming said that Victoria had been the first college to advocate University reform with any practical effect. This reform was an agitation for a Senate consisting of lay members and four professors. Under the Senate should be a council. The Chairman suggested that the discussion was getting somewhat off the lines. Mr Fleming continued that Victoria College hud proposed a joint board of professors to draw up the curricula. The Senate had set up the Board of Studies on which the professors sometimes failed to agree. The Senate dealt too muc*. with details and not enough with the principles. The point was, could they reform the University as a whole from within and make it one strong body? Miss F. Ross appealed to the speaker on behalf of the ladies present, and said she had come to got information. She certainly felt it would be best to have one University if the difficulties that had been mentioned could be smoothed over. Our population was not yet large enough for four separate universities. The motion was put and carried, Dr Benhain being the only dissentient. The Chairman said it would be unnecessary now to discuss the two remaining proposals from tho Auckland Court of Convocation. Professor Thompson said he wished to draw attention to certain defects that had given rise to much dissatisfaction, and ho would then move—“ That in the opinion of this District Court of Convocation reform is urgently required in certain aspects of our university system, especially as regards its relation to secondary education, and that suitable inquiry by Royal Commission or otherwise shoud be instituted as soon as possibe into the present system.” To him the main diffiouty was not the examination question. At the very bottom of the whole thing was this, that between the secondary and university systems there was a great gap which it was amazing to think had not been filled. There were two sets of staffs doing almost the same work, and there was a vast amount of overlapping. Tho obstacles naturally came from those professors who took work that was taught in too secondary schools. Much of tho work now being attempted in the university could very well bo done in the secondary schools. Every year the position pressed more hardly. It was very expensive economically lo have two expensive staffs doing the same work, and it could not help tending to make the university adopt tho methods of the secondary school. The other point was also a very great hardship. A good proportion of their arts classes was composed of Training College pupils. If threequarters of. a class was composed of men and women engaged in tcachmo- from 9 to 3 o’clock and then going to university Hasses and getting home about 8 o'clock at night, what sort of work could bo done? Ho did not blame tho students. They simply did not have the time. These two defects wore very great handicaps to their university system. Mr T. R. Fleming seconded the motion, and endorsed what Professor Thompson had said. Mr Rennie suggested that a Royal Commission be left out of it. Mr H Chapman asked whether Professor Thompson suggested that secondary education should stop sooner or that university education should start higher. Professor Thompson said ho held that secondary education should come up to meet the university and not the university come down to moet it. The matriculation must bo hardened up. The Chairman said he believed that every profession in New Zealand required tho tightening up of tho matriculation standard. The only thing h© did not like about tho motion was the idea of a Royal Commission. There was no known instance on record of a Royal Commission having done any good. H© expressed the view that a Royal Commission would open the door to further Government interference. He suggested that those matters should be submitted to the Senate, and through it to the Government.

Professor Thompson agreed to amend his resolution in tho direction suggested by having the matter referred through tho Board of Studies and the Senate. Professor Bcnharn read the order of reference proposed by Mr Oaughley for the commisison to inquire into university education and suggested that, there was no end to the interference that might lake place if a commission wore set up. The futility of royal commissions was notorious. Mr Rennie advocated a conference of the professors of the universities, and said that was what it would have to come to in tho cud. It would do a wonderful amount of good to get the professors together and throw the responsibility on them of smoothing out these difficulties. The motion was carried unanimously.