THE UNIVERSITY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1348, 27 January 1912, Page 10

THE UNIVERSITY.

MEETING OF THE SENATEEDUCATION OF GIRLS. THE ■ LEGAL PROFESSION, The Senate of the University continued its session yesterday. Tho Chancellor (Sir Itobcrt Stout) presided. SCHOLARSHIP COURSE. TOO STRENUOUS FOR GIRLS? Tho Rev. A. Cameron moved: That a committee bo appointed to consider (a) the question of allocating some of tho junior university scholarships for competition by girls only;-(b). the subjects of examination , «or such scholarships. He 'urged as a reason for amendment ■that the task set to girls in a junior scholarship preparation with the present heavy syllabus must bo mischievous in tho extreme. Such arduous work at such a period in a girl's lile was really an offence against nature. Mr. J. \V. Tibhs did not oppose the motion, but he pointed out that it was quite possible for girls to choose an oasier course than that which boys were usually called upon to take. - Mr. .Hogben supported the motion, but he went rather lurther than the mover in that lie said that ho did not believe in the present system of scholarships at all. -The ovil- that the motion sought to remedy was a real one, but it woidd be best mot by sweeping away the system of competitive scholarsliips, and giving scholarships to everyone qualified to receive them. Thp standard of qualification could lie set at a level which would suit our national purse. , Tho Chancellor daplored tho anxiety that seemed to be shown at every meeting of the Senate to alter tho statutes. What would .occur if tho same sort of thing went on at Oxford and Cambridge? Ho admitted that there was some truth in what had been urged, but if the ideal for girls must be to take charge of a home, they should be sent to schools of domestic'economy, and not to the University.- University scholarships were granted to enable people to go to the University,, and, once there, how could girls bo treated differently from boys? Would there be ■ separate professors "for them ? .It seemed to him that ths logical conclu-sion,-if]: such a motion wore to be affirmed, was that thero should be established for women. Mr. Gordon also spoke, in opposition to tho motion. If girls were to enter professions, . they must receive a training equal to.that of boys. Professor Macmillan Brown urged that .although the ideal of most young women was to be mistress of a home, there were many who had no home to tare for. They were tho young women who had to go in for a profession, "and it was not fair to them, and not fair to tho public, to deny them tin right to qualify themselves fully. And in point of fact, girls uid not break down more often than boys. The Hon. C.'C. Bowen agreed that girls were not inferior intellectually to .boys, but their minds v/ero different, and to attempt to educate women by tho same standards as toys would bo a' jnistaie, socially and "in every , other way. . Dr. M'Dowoll. supported the motion, but ho saw difficulties in' the way of providing a special'course.for girls. Mr. L. Cohen opposed tho motion; The scholarship examinations were really an entrance to the University, and if girls were to go to tho University they, should go through it on tho .same terms as boys. Professor F. D. Brown suggested that the real trouble was that secondary schools now made their chief aim the winning of University Junior Scholarships. Thore was no need for girls' schools to do this, and if tho scholarship ideal was dropped tho supposed evil of overstrain .would disappear. - \ Professor, Salniond set forth his objection to change. He supposed that when a girl took a scholarship she would try ■to pass the B.A. degree. And-he traversed tho .subjects on the statutes to show that .if girls, did not take the usual subjects thero were none others left which-were at all suitable. The Rev. A. Cameron replied. He held that the real trouble was that girls were oncouraged'to take a heavy combin-' ation of subjects. He did not object to their taking any selectioji of these subjects, but it was tho agg'regation of heavy subjects which did the damage. Tho motion was lost by 13 votes to 8. BARRISTERS' BACK DOOR. "SUGAR-COATED ABHOREENCE." ■Mr. L. Cohen moved: ...... That the Legislature be requested to amend the Law Practitioners Act, 1908, so aa to deprive solicitors who have been practising as such for . five years, or solicitors who havo been managing clerks for five years, of the privilege they now have of being enas barristers without further examination. In submitting his motion, ho said that the University had for tho law degree examinations sought to add as much dignity as possible to them by securing the services of eminent lawyers as examiners. Seeing that such care was taken to add academic distinction to the degree, it was snrely wrong that the section of the Law Practicioners Act of 1898, io which the motion referred, should be allowed to remain thero. Why was it put on the statutes? It was put there to give the status of barrister to two persons, possibly to' more, .in this country. They had never earned it, and they iad" never qualified for it. It was a sample of the sugarcoated abhorrence that was known as ; special, legislation.' Its effcct had been to give to those men an unearned increment out of the pockets of other qualified persons. Now that the clause -was functus officio, how could it stand longer ? There was no more reason why a. solicitor who had 'been practising for five years- should br-eomo a barrister than that a turtle should become a dove. Tho Hon. J. A. Tole seconded the motion. ■ There was no difference in qualification between a solicitor and a barrister. Mere effluxion of time _ gave him this qualification, to which his education and experience did not entitle him. It was a scandal. that a rulo of this kind should bo allowed to exist. It lowered the status of tho LL.B. degree, it lowered the status of law in the University and in the country, and it was not fair to the public. iTho motion was carried without dissent; NOT PROPERLY QUALIFIED. RECOMMENDATION TO JUDGES. Mr. L. Cohen moved: That it bo a recommendation to the Judges that solicitors applying for admission should be required to furnish satisfactory evidence that they havo had experience in office work. He submitted that as it was possible to get through the examinations by taking a course with a "coach" without reading a single text book on principles of law, and as law was a practical profession, tho Judges should bo asked to sec that thoso entering upon it should havo had some experienco of practice. It was most dangerous to permit men to practise law who had never had any training in legal work. It 1 was a pieco of gross audacity for a man who had never been in a law office, but who had merely passed on examination, to venture out with a brara plate aiid prosnmo to offer advice to tho public. The Hon. J. A. Tole, IC.C., seconded tho motion, and spoke strongly in support of it. Tho Rev. A. Cameron and Mr. Hogben both 1 ex pressed tho opinion that tho mat ter was one which eould not properlycome before the University Senate. Tho motion was carried.