STUDENT CRITICISM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26530, 4 August 1947, Page 8

STUDENT CRITICISM

Sir, —It was with some misgiving that I read the report of Dr Brooks’ address to the Otago University Graduates’ Association. It ill becomes a man of such high standing to deliberately mislead the public, and, incidentally, display lack of appreciation of some rather obvious notions. Nowhere in the article printed in Critic and mentioned by Dr Brooks is the word “fool” (nor any similar word) used, nor is it inferred that such a description of Dr Eccles or anyone else is intended. Criticism of the material that Dr Eccles teaches, and his method of teaching, is far from calling him a fool. Without exception, the students of my acquaintance hold Dr Eccles in the highest regard for his knowledge and the contributions he has made to his subject. However, it is time that Dr Brooks and others about the University realised that academic brilliance and a long list of degrees do not necessarily mean competence as a teacher. YVell deserved and world wide as his reputation as a scholar and research worker may be, Dr Eccles’ reputation as a lecturer does not extend very far in some directions, Surely it is the student at the r-eceiving end of a lecture who is most competent to judge whether it is comprehensible or otherwise. The criticism referred to by Dr Brooks was directed only against what is taught and the method of teaching, and at no stage was any mention made of Dr Eccles’ ability in other directions. For the benefit of Dr Brooks, in case he may be tempted to launch another tirade against legitimate criticism, may I quote: “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.”—l am, etc., Student. [The attention of the correspondent is directed to a statement by Dr Eccles that appears in our news columns giving an explanation of Dr Brooks’s use oi the word “ fool.”—Ed., O.D.T.]