THE UNIVERSITY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1345, 24 January 1912, Page 6

THE UNIVERSITY.

ANNUAL -MEETING'OF THE SENATEHISTORY TEACHING. ■.SCIiOLAUSHII , IX HNOIN'EERIXG. The annual .meeting of the Senate of tliji Viiiversity of Now Zealand w;i* ctutinueil at 10 o'clock yewim-day morning, the Chancellor (Sir Robert Stout) pi-e- ---' siding. , The whole of the forenoon session and part of tho afternoon >e.-,-ion were takon up with an important debate nn Hie question of constituting an aiiiuml onnfrriMien of repivsentativi , -; of Uio p'rol'essoriiil boards of the al'ili.itrd colleges and special schools, introduced in ' a motion by Mr. .lames Allen, M.1 , . (Olago University). ..Sir Robert Stout and Sir Charles Itowen were unanimously ro-eloci-d'to tlu> (Jhanc.ellorship. and Vice-Chancellorship respectively, ,of the university. A, special sub-committee, consisting of Professor J. M. Brown,- Professor -Sbund, the Hon. Dr. Collins and the R<>v. W. A. Kvahs, was appointed to report on 'thfi question of uew officers for the university.' Tho reitorts of tho Recess Comnirtlw.s on December examinations, engineering scholarship, and the study of history were presented. ENGINEERING SCHOLARSHIPS. JC-100, TENABLE FOR A YEAR. Professor R. J. Scott, head of the Canterbury School of Engineering,-moved-the adoption of tho Recess Committee's recommendation that tho following be the regulations for the control of the travelling scholarship in engineering:— Scholarship to be called the engineering travelling scholarship, of the value of ,£IOO, tenable for on<j • year; tenable only by a-Bachelor of Engineering (mechanical, electrical, or civil), who has recently completed his course; awarded by the Senate after receiving from the Professorial Board a report on tho general merit of the candidate?. The holder ,nf tho scholarship within six months of the award to proceed to some other country or countries to be approved of by the Chancellor, and shall profitably employ liis time during the whole term of his scholarship in acquiring knowledge of his profession, and at the end of every three months furnish the Chancellor with a report detailing his employment during that period. Applications from qualified candidates to be made in writing to the Registrar of the University and also to.the Registrar of the College on the books of which the candidate's name appears, not later than March 1,1912; and dealt with at the April meeting of the Senate. The report was adopted, but referred back for the insertion of a regulation governing the payment of the scholarship. It was mentioned that application would probably be made in the future to have the scholarship placed on a. permanent basis.

STUDY OF HISTORY. A NEGLECTED SUBJECT. ■ A lengthy and very interesting report on the subject of the study of history was presented by the Becess Committee appointed by the Senate last year to inquire into the best means of encouraging tho study of the subject, and eiiipontn-i. to confer with the teachers of the subject in tho University colleges and secondary schools. The main points of the committee's report, which is to be debated to-day, are as follow:— 1. The committee elicited opinions from the Professorial Boards of the University colleges and from Professor Hight, of Canterbury College, and Mr. Grossniann, of Auckland University College, from the principals of Christ's College, Boys' High School, ChristchuTch, Nelson College, Wellington Girls' College, ChrLstohurch Girls' High School, Southland Girls' High School, and tho history masters at Christ's College. The Parliamentary papers on education, etc.,: 1010 and 1911, containing, inter alia, the reports of the inspectors of the primary .schools in. 1909 and 1910, tables showing; the University and also the 'JYaining College -work undertaken by Training College students in 1910, and the report for 1910 of the principal of the Wellington Training College were alto reviewed.

2. All the above authorities were, unanimous in their view that history, which should be one'of the leading subjects'in our educational system, is the most neglected. One inspector says that history ■is practically disappearing' from tho curriculum of our schools. Another reports—"Most of the children are leaving school with only the vaguest notion of tho important events in the life of the nation, and more than doubtful whether an important stage of its development was reached a thousand years ago or the year before last. They are" absolutely devoid of the time sense, and therefore are without power to view events in the right perspective." The Professorial Board of Otago is of opinion "that the great neglect of the study of history in New Zealand is owing to the fact that-history is practically a dead subjeotr in the .primary schools." In 1910, of the students of the Training Colleges, who are to be the teachers in those primary schools, not a single student, cither in his Training College work or in his university work took English history or modern history. No wonder the late principal of tho Wellington Training College reported in 1910 —"It is a deplorable fact that not a few students in preparation for teaching have no knowledge whatever of history." In few secondary schools at present, according to one' headmaster, is any history, save Roman history, taught in the upper or lower VI.

3. It is evident that from the bottom to the top of our educational system history is heavily handicapped cumpared with other subjects. The children at file, bottom are not taught it properly; the teachers at the top have in the past been practically not taught it at all. It is not considered of sufficient practical importance to be recommended to our' future Civil Servants, and the marks allotted to it in the junior scholarship examination deter the cleverest pupils at the secondary schools from studying it. Wo have thus a vicious circle. The' children in primary schools do not learn history properly; considering it either unimportant or distasteful, they drop it as a subject in their subsequent education whenever they can. The teachers, as a bndv. have lip to the present never learned history, and therefore are unable to teach, it adequately. Hence the people of this Dominion are growing up in ignorance not only of the history of the world in genoral, but even of the traditions of the nation of which they form a part; an ignorance of that knowledge and culture which is at the very foundation of citizenship and patriotism. The.' position of history at the university is largely due to" the neglect of history throughout the educational system as a whole." Then follows a review of the disabilities that handicap the teaching of the subject at present.- and a series of recommendations, which, in fhe opinion of the committee, will remove these disabilities. It is suggested. Primary Schuols.—lTi story should be a compulsory pass subject for all the higher standards," for flee place, and eertilicalo of proficiency examinations, and for all school-leaving certificate examinations. Secondary Schools:— Every pupil in (he secondary schools, should learn history • English "history_ aud civics should be'a compulsory subject in the scheme of instruction for .both junior and senior free places, and for'all examinations connected with these schemes. Tu kith primary and -econdary schools a knowledge of the actual course of events, including both names and important dates, should be insisted on in order that the punils may have "some coherent knowledge of the order of even I - and the somioßco of the various phases of social and political development."

Civil Service.—lj' history is In l ; » continued as an optional subject, in tho .luiiior Civil Service examination, the maximum marks should bo at loaM. 300.

The University.—Junior Scholaishin: The iimxiiiniin 'marks obtainable --huiilii be Gftfl. l>.A. Decree, lioneal and Senior Scliolar.-hip: .IliMory 'includijig 'constitutional History) tliould bo a sinjlc full

,| subject, wilh iin extended eurriciiluni worthy nl' the increased ini|n>rbiTiCK of the subject; jurisprudence ami constitutional liistorv together sboiiltl also b< l a separate subject for the H.A. degree, but not lor repeal or senior scholarship. M.A. Degree and"Honours in Arts: History should form a. separate group with an enlarged curriculum. Economics should form a separate croup and include history treated from l!ie economic side. fur Arts. Degrees: The prescription for a language either ancient or modem for She Arts Degree.-; should require from the; student some general knowledge of the history of at least the period to which the set'books belong. A DEFINITE ACHIEVEMENT. \OTKS ON YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. (Contributed by a Siili-CoinniiUrß of the Vniversity Kefonii Association.) Yesterday's work on the Senate resulted in « great step forward towards a modernised university. The principle i? now denriilc.ly conceded thai the teachers should have ii regular share in the work of the Tuiversity of New Zealand (as distinguished from its affiliated colleges), and machinery has been set. up for giving effect to this principle. Everyone who was present must admit l.hat (lie debate iu the morning would have done credit to the most august assembly'. It was opened by Mr. James Allen with all the skill and addrct>!< of the experienced Parliamentarian. There, is nothing new in the case he had to present: the new element is the atmosphere of public opinion. To the onlooker, Mr. Allen's most significant argument whb tlial. of the difficulty senators inevitably find in comprehending detailed academic question?. This argument seems conclusive, from the public man who has probably the most thorough knowledge ot university questions in New Zealand. The most striking speeches of the debate came from Professor J. R. Brown and Ml. liogben. In them one fell that the reform policy hail sustained . the highest testthat of power to inspire its exponents with fervour. These speeches were not able for their grip and earnestness. Professor Brown's definition of the over worked term, "expert," with its flavour ol characteristic pedantry, was very we.l come. In spite of attempts to give other definitions, it surely remains final that , the professor is (or ought to be) expert in two different degrees in his own special stibject, and in the subjects of his "faculty," expert of a different order in Hie general matter of university education. The claim of essential superiority in this latter respect, over "the average member of Senate," was greeted with a scornful laugh—typical of an altitude now passing away, of tho Senate towards professors as a body—by one who ought to know better; and it was argued against by such statements as '.'The Senate is practically in the main a body of experts in culture and education," and so on, by another whose experience ought to have served him better; yet the claim is surely a matter of course when one thinks of a life immersed in university work from boyhood on without a break, as student, lecturer, and professor. Professor Brown" traversed effectively arguments of opposing speakers by illustration from all the modern university constitutions, and wound up with a personal statement which- brought out his own consistent loyalty to the Senate. Mr. Hogben most effectively combated by a simple statement of facts'an attempt upon the part of Professor J. M. Brown to disparage tho usefulness of the 1910 professorial conference. He paid a tribute to the clear and definite .statements presented by that conference, and pointed out that it would have decided the B.A. and B.Sc. degrees question completely, had it been given adequate powers. He showed that the circumstances of the university teacher's life make him, »s a matUr of course, conversant with general academic questions in a way that no other person can possibly be—exposing tho fallacy of the frequently reiterated assertion that a conference of professors of a variety of subjects is no more expert than our piesent Senate. He also examined the statement that the teachers are, as a matter of fact, always consulted, showing the futility of any suck process without sjividg the teachers concerned in a particular question the opportunity of meeting together to discuss it.

Even the vigour of Professor J. 51. Brown could not save him from the weakness of liLs case. His speech was quite in-effective-4t lacked the power of reality. His dominant idea is the insincerity of the profcssor-<ine is tempted to ask how he developed it; and his whole attitude is one of distrust towards professors. It seems as if he does not view .with equanimity the. loss of power which his position, as.one of a very few university experts on the Senate, has given him. He wound up with a motion for what was well described by one- of the other speakers as ''referendum gone mad."

Mr. Tole gave an earnest statement of the best conservative point of view. Hβ and another speaker (who, however, didn't mind!) warned the Senate that it is in danger of creating n Frankenstein monster, which will eventually swallow it up. This is a very real danger, which the reformers are as anxious to avert as anyone; and it will only be ultimately averted by such a reconstitution of the university as is suggested in the "University Reform" pamphlet, Chan. VIII. Under such recohstitution the ."Senate would have power and dignity greatly transcending those which it at present possesses: see particularly paragraph at top of page 112 of the pamphlet, also page 51. Dr. Fitchett's speech made it clear that a change of constitution is in any case inevitable before long. * •

The motion passed at the end of. the morning session provides for an annual conference of representatives from the professorial boards. In the afternoon, the number of representatives, the powers of the conference, etc., canie tin for discussion ; ami the debate was altogether upon a much lower plane than that of the morning. Eventually it was wisely decided to proceed gradually, beginning witli a. conference of some thirty-three representatives to report on the B.A. and B.Sc. question, and on" a permanent.form for the annual conference.