The Dominion TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1913. THE CHANCELLOR AND THE PROFESSORS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1778, 17 June 1913, Page 4

The Dominion TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1913. THE CHANCELLOR AND THE PROFESSORS.

The address on "The Constitution of the University of New Zealand" given by the Chancellor (Sir Kobert Stout) at the Christchurch capping ceremony on Friday was neither very impressive nor particularly dignified. It was too onesided and too palpably tho speech of an extremo partisan to be impressive, and tho studied effort to score points at the expense of certain professors was not in keeping with that degree of dignity which one has a right to expect in an important uttcranco by the Chancellor of the University of New Zealand. Tho questions dealt with are so vital to the welfare of the University that they ought to be treated in a broad-minded and judicial manner, with the object of clearing away irrelevancies and placing the real position plainly before the public. It should be remembered that the professors against _ whom the Chancellor directs all his argumentative batteries arc just as anxious as he is to make the University as useful as possible, and that their motives are quite as high and honourable as his own. The reforms they have suggested would not make their own task any easier. In

fact, the proposed changes would increase the responsibilities of the teaching staff, and very materially add to their actual work; yet the Chancellor at times refers to the advocates of reform in anything but complimentary terms, instead of treating with every courtesy and consideration the suggestions of the men who, above all others, can speak from practical experience of the actual working of the University. It is to be hoped that this important discussion will bo raised to a higher standard, and that all serious proposals will* be considered on their merits in a judicial spirit, with the sole aim of making tho University of New Zealand as perfect as possible. The main part of the Chancellor's attack is directed against the proposal to abolish the present system of external examination. After stating in effcct . that the State would not know what kind of student was being turned out if this system were abolished, he goes on to say:

If it is the llight and duty of tho Stabo to know that tho persons getting degrees havo knowledge, can the State accept the report of tho teachers? If the State ought to do 60 in tlio caso of the University, why should it not do so in the case of tho primary and secondary schools? Inspections must be done away with, and is there need of even a central Education Department? Further, is not a secondary school teacher as worthy of trust as a professor ? And should his certificate be sufficient for entranco into the University?

Is this sort of controversy really worthy of tho Chancellor of the University 1 His analogies are not analogous—far from it. It would for instance, be quit© logical to depart from the system of external examinations at the University without either doing away with the inspection of the primary schools or abolishing the Education Departs ment. The Chancellor does not seem to bo aware that the trend of modern educational methods is to lessen tho importance of isolated examinations by inspectors, and to give greater weight to the report of the teachor on the whole work of the year in estimating the pupil s standard of knowledge. At the recent conference of secondary school teachers, Dr. Anderson (speaking for the Education Department) announced that the view of the Department is that it is not the matriculation nor any other examination that should be regarded as the test of fitness for the University course, but the evidence of the completion of a sufficient course of instruction that should entitle a candidate to entrance. The modern tendency is to place more responsibility on the teachers. The Chancellor asks i Can the State accept the. report of the University professors regarding tho fitness of persons receiving degrees'! All we can say is that the teacher who cannot be trusted in this matter ought not to be on the University staff at all. If he is to be trusted to teach the students the whole year round, to direct their mental development, and to exercise a real and continuous moral influence over them during a very important period of their lives, then surely he may be entrusted to conduct the degree examinations, and to give a fair and reliable report on the progress oi his classes. In any case the external element need not be entirely excluded if the proposals of the advocates of reform are given effect to. If the whole of the professors of the four New Zealand colleges were associated in conducting the degree examinations, then as regards each of the colleges it is contended that three-fourths of the examiners will not be _ directly connected with the institution. Nor need the reform proposals in this matter in any way interfere with the relations between tho University and the. State, to which the Chancellor referred. In fact, it is strongly urged that they would increase tho efficiency of the work done, and therefore increase the confidence of the public in the value of the New Zealand degree. It is for this very object that the reform movement has been Bet on foot. One cannot help feeling that tho Chancellor's opinion that the report of the Royal Commission on the University of London is of little use to authorities in New Zealand in the discussion of the questions they have to solve is not entirely uninfluenced by the fact tha,t ifc lends strong support to the position of hia opponents. After making every allowance for difference of circumstances between tho two University systems, it cannot reasonably be denied that tho report of the London Commission has a very important bearing on the examination question. The Commissioners state plainly that an external examination is inconsistent with the true interests of University education, injurious to the students, degrading to the teachers, and ineffective for the attainment of the ends it is supposed to promote. They express the opinion that tho insistence on a system of external examinations is always based upon want of faith in the teachers, and the truth of this remark is strikingly illustrated by certain parts of Sir Robert Stout's address- It is true that the Commissioners think that one or two outside assessors should co-operate with the teaching staff in conducting the examinations. This is an important point. It may not bo easy to find suitable assessors in New Zealand, and _ it. will be a matter for careful consid-eration-whether the proposal that the professors of the four colleges should aet together as examiners will meet all the requirements. There can bo no doubt that a thorough inquiry will have to be made into the whole _ question of University education in New Zealand So much has now been said on both sides that the public is not likely to be satieued until a Koyal Commission has been set up to go ■ into the matter. Great care will have to be taken to get men of the highest standing and of acknowledged ability to deal with tho various aspects of the question to act as commissioners, so that their report and recommendations will command the respect and attention due to the carefully-considered views of competent authorities on University education. _____

MERRY MR. M'LAREN, _ q ,

It is so very unusual to find Mr. D M'Lauen in a facetious mood that it is with a good deal of picasure that we publish this morning the banter under which he endeavours to escape from the awkward situation in which lie has placed himself in rcspcct of the Unity scheme. It would have been unreasonable to expect Mit. M Lahen to dull the brilliancy of his quite amaziqft flashes of wit by any too

literal regard for accuracy, and so, if here and there in his playful gambollings he oversteps the strict bounds of fact, we arc not, inclined to curb his license. _ If it pleases Mr. M'Laren to see in the views we have expressed on his attitude some resemblance to the opinions put forward by thoso of his fellow unionists, whom he playfully describes as the "Red Raggers,'; 'and if that circumstance _ causes him to make the welkin ring with ins laughter, we would not damp his merriment by recalling unpleasant memories of his own association with those same "Red Raggers" in the framing of the Unity scheme, and his present back-sliding. The whole Unity schemo is no doubt a good joke just now to the merry Mr. M'Laren. But when Mr. M'Laren has quite recovered from his enjoyment of the situation as he sees it, he will perhaps begin to study it from the point of view of his fellow unionists, and the joke then may not appear _ to possess quite the same fine relish. Indeed, we rather suspect that the facetiousness of this jovial "disrupter"—to use the term applied by one of the official Labour journals—but poorly oovers the anxiety which really consumes Mn. M'Laren as the result of the step to which he has committed himself. After all, it is no light thing to plunge in at the last minute, as it were, with a proposal calculated to split,asunder a movement on the success of which the future solidarity and political advancement of Labour so largely depends. And when tho Labour leader taking that step stands to benefit personally by the ' course which he suggests, then is his position rendered still more unenviable. As to the view The Dominion has taken of the political aspirations of Labour, Mr. M'Laren, of course, knows quite well we have always expressed the " opinion that Labour has little chance of making any real headway as a definite party in politics so long as it permitted itself to be made the tool of the other political parties. Labour in New Zealand has always suffered from the personal selfishness, or the shortsightedness, of its leaders, who, to serve their own ends, or through inability to see that no great cause was ; ever benefited Dy tho sacrificc of principle for the sake of a temporary personal advantage, _ have again and again prevented complete unity of action. No one for years past has taken the Labour party here seriously as a political party. Why 1 Because it has never been able to impress people with the belief that it took itself seriously as an independent party, and that it had candidates who were so genuinely wedded to the principles ana platform of their party that tbey would prefer defeat rather than individual victory by means of bargaining, which _ must inevitably weaken, if not sink altogether, tho identity of their party. Mk. M'Laren may honestly believe_ that the only hope for Labour is in an alliance with the party which foi twenty years so cunningly handled the leaders of Labour to serve its own purposes that even up to tho last general election Labour as an independent political party was a thing to be laughed at. Mil. M'Laren, having himself profited by that alliance in the past, may think it a good thing not only for himself, but for others in the party, if a renawal of that or some other understanding were made. He even persists in advocating this course in face oi the risk of splitting asunder the Unity movement, and placing Labour once more in hostile camps. And then merry Mr. M'Laren cracks his little jokes when the dangers of the position are pointed out to him, and chuckles consumedly over a situation wherein the humour lies entirely with those who wish to see Labour divided. We fear we have given our facetious correspondent over-much of our space. He affords us, however, so striking an example of the manner in which the political Labour movement is now, as it. has been in the past, crippled by selfishness or narrowness of vision oil the part oi some of its leaders, that it would have been a misfortune to have missed placing it on record for the edification of those who interest 1 themselves in such matters.