UNIVERSITY REFORM.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1031, 21 January 1911, Page 13

UNIVERSITY REFORM.

* Sir,—l do not know whether-.it is the practice of the University Senate to dis- , cuss the Chancellor's inaugural address. If the address is open to discussion, 'there are members t'of the Senate who will reply to 'the Chancellor's criticisms. If that is not permitted, members of .the Keform Party ovill. certainly , reply to 'them.. ,-r----.The Chancellor,'is .to-day quoted with great approval ; by. you in his,.'reference to .the alleged wish of. the lieform-Party" to constitute each college a-separate examining body, therefore, in effect .-'a^separate University. I ask you to 'inform your readers on what utterance of the reformers this'view is based.' The sug; gestion that the examining for decrees, should bo in the hands of a board consisting, of the four professors of a subject—one professor from each college— certainly'does not justify the view-that the Chancellor and you. attribute to us.: That is a plan that would draw the colleges together, not drive them apart.—l am, etc.,. . '• ' H. B; kikk. January 19, .1911. , [Professor Ivirk cannot .have, read .our, article with proper '.did' not quote, either with or-without approval, any statement-' by the' Chancellor as to "the. alleged 'wish of 'the Keform-. Party' to constitute eacli.c&ltege 1 a''sbpardte' examining .body/" Sir Robert Stout : will doubtless' defend his * statbmerifcs. arc responsible only for our'own.]