The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. “Luceo Non Uro.” TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1935. THE ENGLISH PAPER

Southland Times, Issue 22766, 17 December 1935, Page 6

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. “Luceo Non Uro.” TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1935. THE ENGLISH PAPER

It was to be expected that Professor Sinclaire would ask for some details of the remarks upon which the criticism of the paper he set for the Entrance examination was based, and it is just as well that something more than a general statement should be made, particularly as he does not accept the view that the English paper asked more of the candidates than it was entitled to ask. One of the criticisms against the paper was that it demanded of the candidate a knowledge of English literature that was too wide for the period at the candidate’s disposal. This criticism applies particularly to Questions 3 and 6, and it must be noted that the marks allotted to the seven questions in the paper make up a total of 100, so that the candidate is expected to attempt everyone of these questions if he desires to secure a good percentage of the marks. The two questions to which attention has been directed require the candidate to give in the one case the equivalent of selected words, and in the other he is asked to “explain as briefly as possible the allusions in any five of the following passages.” In question 3, one of the words presented occurs in a phrase which appears to have come from the Anglican Prayer Book. Others are from Shakespeare, but most of them are what would be called uncommon in that they are taken from works of English literature which do not fall into the common reading of a student. For instance, one sentence in question 3 asked for the modern equivalent of “The Duke is humorous” and “humorous” is italicized. Unless more of the context is given so that the actual sentence may be placed in its proper setting, the word “humorous” is a trap, and the same may be said of the sentence “Like robbers, they use to strip and bind them” with the word “use” italicized. In question 6 the use of italics for words and phrases in most of the ten sentences presented to the candidate leads to some confusion as to the examiner’s intention. The candidate is asked to explain as briefly as possible the allusions in the passages set out, and in the first one, the phrases italicized are “unco’ guid,” “the fat knight,” “his royal companion,”—is “unco’ guid” fair English or dialect—and in the second passage “Dr. Johnson’s fame now rests upon Boswell,” the words “rests” and “upon Boswell” are italicized. Whatever did the examiner want? The fourth passage is as follows:

When I am in sickness and not in the best spirits, I sometimes call for the cards and play a game of piquet with my cousin Bridget—Bridget Elia.

A candidate could very easily assume that the italicized Bridget Elia represented the author of this passage. Professor Sinclaire

may argue that as these last two words were italicized it was obvious that'the allusion desired referred to these two words, but in questions 6, 7 and 8 there are no italicized words, and a candidate might very easily wonder what the examiner meant in these cases. But the application of the word “allusion” leads to some misgivings as to the manner in which this question is to be answered. Did. the examiner require merely an identification or an interpretation of the italicized words, or did he require the candidate to state the source of the passage and some explanation of the association of the words italicized for attention? If the candidate is required to have a knowledge of the sources of the passages in which these allusions occur, then it can be stated confidently that he must be equipped with a knowledge of English literature far in excess of that which an ordinary secondary school pupil possesses, far in excess of the knowledge that the secondary pupil can acquire under the present syllabus. Professor Sinclaire declares that the results have been disappointing, but anybody who examines this paper in English will not be surprised at his finding. An examination paper should be so presented that the candidate has no difficulty in deciding what is the intention of the paper. There should be nb room for any doubt, no room for confusion. It is all very well for learned gentlemen to sit down and explain what their intention was; it is another thing for the candidate to discover, in what might be called the heat of an examination, what is required of him when the terms in which the paper is set leave loopholes for doubt. It is extraordinary, too, that a question requiring a knowledge of phonetics should be valued as highly as questions which require of the student a comprehensive knowledge of the classic literature of the English tongue, and this peculiar sense of valuation is intensified when some of the passages to which we have referred have been drawn from works by English writers which can be reasonably be called obscure. We have not any doubt in the world that it would be possible, without going beyond the sources used by Professor Sinclaire, to secure phrases and passages which even he would find difficult. He may consider that the examination standard is not high enough, but it is not fair, it is not just, it is not sensible to endeavour to raise this standard by means of an ultra-difficult examination paper. The standard must be first raised through the schools, and the examination of the candidates must depend, not upon the idiosyncrasies of an examiner, nor upon his knowledge, nor upon his view of the standard required, but upon the work that is being done in the secondary schools from which the candidates are drawn. It will be very interesting and very valuable to have Professor Sinclaire’s answers to the questions he has set, because then it would be possible to determine exactly what he wanted, and it would be possible, too, to see whether candidates were reasonably justified in the claim that they were confused, and that the paper required of them more than the university was entitled to expect.