PROFESSORS’ FREEDOM

Southland Times, Issue 22216, 8 January 1934, Page 2

PROFESSORS’ FREEDOM

THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM.

CRITICISM BY DR MALTHUS.

Dr C. Malthus, the recently appointed professor of modem languages at Canterbury College, holds very strongly the belief that the head of each department in a university should be empowered to shape his teaching according to his own lights. In an interview with The Press Dr Malthus, who arrived on Thursday from Hobart to take up his duties in Christchurch expressed regret that New Zealand university professors were hampered in their work by being bound to a syllabus. . , At the University of Tasmania, where Dr Maltlius has been acting as associate professor in modem languages, such restrictions on individuality did not exist. The freedom enjoyed by the heads of departments in Hobart constituted one of the best features of the Tasmanian system. Each professor was entitled to choose his own course, to prescribe text books, and generally to work along his own lines. In' New Zealand it was necessary for professors to adhere to a syllabus ordained by other persons and with which, they might altogether disagree. Obviously this system tended towards a suppression of individuality and prevented some men from doing their best. “I have a great distaste for the present New Zealand syllabus for students of French and German, my own subjects,” continued Dr Malthus. “A vast amount of philology is included in the course which, although of value to the few, is of practically no use to the average student.” An intensive knowledge of philology should not be expected of a student interested in the literary side of the subject. Such training was scientific rather than purely cultural. It was a great mistake to expect a literary scholar to undertake work which, besides being distasteful to him, hampered his study and proved of no value in the end. Literature should form the predominant part of the study of a foreign language, particularly on this side of the world. The aim was rather cultural than utilitarian. The practical value in New Zealand and Australia of the knowledge of French or German was hardly worth considering—in fact, it was negligible. Emphasis must be placed on the aesthetic value and therefore it should receive little attention except in the case of those students who found a real interest in the science and history of language, and who showed outstanding ability in that direction. “I do not mean to disparage the work of the philologist,” said Dr Malthus. “Students,of philology are doing very valuable work in the universities of Europe. But, in our part of the world the opportunity of carrying on with worth-while research is not a common one, and unless a student shows a natural desire to pursue his philological studies overseas he should not be encouraged to spend unnecessary time on an uncongenial subject.” At the University of Tasmania Dr Malthus and his associates had deleted all philology from the B.A. course and made its study optional for honours students.

At Canterbury College Dr Malthus will be required by the university syllabus to prepare second-year and thirdyear students for examinations dealing in part with a knowledge of the science

and history of languages. For example, the syllabus for second stage French involves inter alia a knowledge of “the origin and general history of the language, the outlines of historical phonetics.” The prescription for one naper for third-year students includes “outlines of French etymology, and the origin and history of the language.” Students of French in their honours year have to prepare for one paper dealing exclusively with philological subjects.