SOME UNIVERSITY PROBLEMS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1867, 29 September 1913, Page 5

SOME UNIVERSITY PROBLEMS.

THE EXAMINERS FOR DECREE 6. [Br L. H. G. Gekbutwood, M.AJ (Bellow and Tutor of Emmanuel College, Cambridge.) fMr. Greenwood was educated at Qlaborne State School, at Christ's College, at Canterbury College, and at King's College, Cambridge; and has been a teacher and examiner at Leeds University, at Canterbury College, and (for the past four years) at Cambridge University.! In place of the present system of single "external" examiners, I suggest an "Internal" system, which is in outline the) following:— The examiners in each subject Bhould bo the four responsible, teachers of that subject at the four colleges. Each examiner should set one-fourth of the questions. All the questions must have tho approval—which need not, however, be unanimous—of the four examiners. The whole of each candidate's work should bo looked over and marked independently by caoh of the four examiners. The marks should then be added together and divided by four,, and the average thus obtained should be' tho number of marks finally awarded to the candidate. Tho classification of the candidates on the basis of these results should be agreed upon by the four examiners jointly. If thero should bo an equal division of opinion as to the position of any candidate, the casting vote should fall to the representative of that candidate's college. The four examiners should hold at least two joint meetings:. one for tho final approval of the questions, and one for the final drawing up of the class lists. Every thing else should be done by correspondence. Tho examination Bhould not take place until several weeks after lectures for the year have ceased, and several more weeks | should be allowed for the consideration by the examiners of i tho candidates' work. . Such, in outline, is the system I propose. It is, I believe, in essence the svstem adopted by all the Homo Universities, both ancient and modern. I speak under correction with ■ regard to some of those universities with whose practice I am not acquainted: and due allowance must be made for differences in local conditions. I will now deal with some objections that have been, or might be, brought forward against such a system as I siigtrest. Just' as I have only propounded tile system itself in outline, so I shall only touch upon the more important of the possible objections to it. Toachlru: and Examining. 1. It may be said that our teachers are not oompetent to examine, bccause they are not sufficiently masters of their subjects. . Such a statement it is hard either to prove or to refute. If it were true, our University would be in so bad a plight that we need not trouble ourselves greatly as to who should examine for our degrees:. we should have Bmall right to grant any degrees, and tho fewer granted the better. If a man is unfit to examine, he is certainly still more unfit to teach; and teaching is infinitely more important than examining. Under no'system can the most perfect system of examination make lip for bad teaching, or do anything except show how bad that teaching is; whereas if our students were only well taught, it would not matter much if there were no examinations or degrees at all: such things are necessary evils at best. But even if this grave charge were true, it would not foTm a serious objection to my proposals:- . Admitting— what lam not 'ready to' admit—that the average New. Zealand professor is greatly; below tho average Home examiner (under the present system) in the knowledge of the subject in which his pupils are examined for degrees: admitting this, I must urge .that the competence of a board of four examiners is likely to be greater than the competence of even the best of the four examining alone. Stich'a board will not multiply the defects, but the excellences; of its component members.' This statement may be challenged. I can only say "experto crede." I would rather trust my own pupils to a board of four average examiners than to the fairest and best and most learned Bingle man I could chose. Mutual criticism, previous experience, knowledge of local conditions—these things would far moro than make) up for the profounder knowledge of his subject which tho single man might possess : a knowledge which would in many cases hat-o small bearing on a groat part of the work he would have to do as examiner for our University. "Groovy." "2. It may be said that our professors arc not indeed ignorant of their subject, but are apt to get into grooves of thought and teaching. I admit the danger, and deplore it. But again the argument is not tolling. Four men's grooves will never bo alike; and with the joint action I propose, a 'groovy' degree examination 1b as unthinkable as a 'groovy' syllabus of teaching would bo, if control of that syllabus were vested in the rcsponsiblo teachers, as I venture to think it should be. I would also urge that the stimulus of constant intercourse and mutual criticism would' be enough to check the forming of grooves. Again I may say exporto credo. Further, it Is unlikely that five years will ever elapse in which one of the four responsible professors is not removed by resignation or death, and followed by a young and vigorous successor. . Finally, let me repeat in this oonneotion my previous argument, that, teaching is vastly more important than examining, and .if the teaching is "groovy," the external examiner is powerless to correct it; all he can do is to ascertain a.s far aB he can what the candidates can fairly be expected to know, and follow, in examining, t'lio lines thus laid down for him. . And if anyone thinks that the teacher will be kept out of "grooviness" by a series of examiners at the other side of the world 1 , he is very much mistaken. Personal Feelings. 3. It may also be objected that the external examiner, whatever his defects, must at least be quite impartial; but that a man who examines his own pupils, whatever his merits, will frequently be led astrav by personal feelings of lilting or dis'iko towards particular candidates. An unscrupulous oxaminer, it may be argued, thus gains great power to (lo deliberate harm; the most scrupulous is not exempt from the power of unconscious prejudice; and even the man who is, in fact, rigidly impartial, mil always be subject to suspicion and mistrust. This objection would certainly be formidable if each professor were to be the solo examiner of his own pupils, though even jinder such a system I believo injustice would very seldom be dono. But it is surely clear that there would bo no danger of any injustice at all trader tho system I have proposed, where tho candidate's work is marked by four men', threo of whom know no more of him personally than if they were external examiners in England. on_ tho other hand tho external examiner is not exempt from tho danger of certain kinds of partiality or prejudice. Tho goodness or badness of candidates' grammar, or logic, or punctuation, or spoiling, or handwriting—tJhose and otner similar peculiarities, whether trifling or important, may weigh with him more or less than they should. Ho is only human, and his judgment, not less than that of a less learned man, may be corrupted by little things. Of course each of tho four internal examiners under the system I propose must also bo assumed' to bo

subject to such failings, But the failings of one ivill bo different from, and will therefore cancel, those of another! and so Iho danger mil disappear. In short, tho way to secure impartiality is not to have your examiners external, but to havo them numerous, and four is a number quito large enough for safety. Prcstigo. 4. The last serious objection I shall consider is thc.t which relates to the prestige of the University. It is contended that, by having distinguished European scholars and. savants as our degree examiners, we make our degrees respected by tho world generally as thoy could not bo otherwise. This I believe to bo utterly untrue. Whenever I have had occasion to tell anyone in England of tho way we do things, my statement has been received with astonishment, and out system denounced as ridiculous. Tho natural inference is, .either that our Senate, which tolerates such a system, is strangely wrong-head-ed and pervorso, or that our professors, who are not allowed to examine, are too jgnorant to bo fit to do so. Neither inference is calculated to advance tho credit of our University in the eyes of the world.

But. the plain faot is that tho eyes of the world arenot upon us. Very few people, even in academic circles, are aware that we have a University at all: and fewer still know anything, beyond the baro fact. Wo share our obscurity with most of tho other universities and colleges of the Empire. Ido not know whether it is a thing to regret. 1 hope that in, time we may be better known; but still more do I hope that we shall deserve to be' better known. The retention of our present system of Home examiners is not likely to hasten the coming of our day of famo. It might, if well advertised, gain us soma notoriety.

Positive Advantages. _ It remains to consider briefly the positive advantages of such a system as-1 propose. Some of these advantages belong to any internal system whatsoever, as opposed to any external system whatsoever ; and others belong peculiarly to the system I propose, under which four examiners examine jointly. A. At least two. important advantages belong to any internal'' system whatsoever: (l)Such a system is quick; the results of the degree examinations can be made known with the least possible delay. All students are well aware how much this means; not only to those who are anxious to get appointments as soon as possible, for which their University successes probably form* the weightiest part of their credentials, but also to those who wish to continuo their studies further. _. (2) Such a system is cheap. This is an argument I bring forward with hesitation and regret.; Economy may be over-valued, cut the present plan is wasteful, and our colleges are in great need of money for many pressing needs, too familiar to need mention here.

B. Other advances belong peculiarly to the system I propose, or some system closely resembling it. I do not attempt to make an exhaustive list of these. (1) Such a system is fair to the students of different years, i j °i an 110 violent changes of standard, .such as —it is well known— occur at present. Standards may, if necessary, bo lowered or raised, but this can bo done gradually. At least two of the four examiners will have examined in the previous year; and it Will often occur that all four will havo done so. (2) Such a system enables the present' college preliminary examination to be abolished, with its needless labour for the collego teachers and its needless strain on tho candidates; even supposing what I do not myself suppose, that any real need for this, preliminary examination exists at present. (3) Such a system brings the responsible teachers of each subject into regular personal communication with cach other, This . involves great gain t,i themselves and to their pupils, without in any way fettering their liberty as teachers. Tho present state of comparative isolation might indeed be reduced even now .by voluntary effort: but the system I propose would make it impossible. (4) Such a system would enable the University to avail itself, if it chose, of the services as examiners of qualified persons resident in the country other than the four responsible teachers. The Chancellor very properly insists on the possible value of this. Such examiners might bo ex-professors, assistant lecturers, or persons who neither are nor have been on the teaching staffs of the colleges, -whether schoolmasters or people who do not teach them at all. These examiners might be employed in various ways: (a) as substitutes for the four normal examiners, in case, of illness or leave of absence; (b) as substitutes for them deliberately chosen to prevent "grooviness" or narrowness; (c) in addition to the four normal examiners, especially in subjects where there aro a great number of candidates, so that the work of examining might be reduced, each piece of written work being marked by only three or four out of a total of five or six examiners.

I hope I have said enough to show that the sort of system I advocate is both practicable'and desirable. In its essential features, I would repeat, it is no new scheme of my own, but one that has been well tried elsewhere, and found completely successful. It is true that what suits one .University may not suit another; but such general considerations can have no weight against any Specific reasons must be given why the proposal will not suit our own particular University, if there are. any to give. I venture to think that in this case there aro none whatsoever, (To be Continued.)