UNIVERSITY REFORM.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1965, 23 January 1914, Page 11

UNIVERSITY REFORM.

...PROFESSOR PICKEN AND THE 4P" CHANCELLOR, f. V i"- , .'!'-'- , ,.■'■■';' '!r' v -Ui'liiid. ■' ■'-■'■■ ■Professor D. K. Pickcn, of Victoria College, reviewing the Chancellor's address at; the. opening of the Senate meeting in l)unc'din writes:— It is gratifyii-g to find the Chancellor p using for his own case' some- of our arguments, which lie has formerly treated with contempt. (i) The multiplicity of bodies involved in the control of the University is an excellent, argument against the setting up of yet another body. Let .its hope that it may bo effective, if it is further to bo recognised as a Weighty argument for ladieal reconstruction of . the University. . . . ' , ... <ii) Tho Chancellor-- lias committed himself—not v<;ry, .emphatically, it is true—to the affirmation that the most important function of a University is to teach. That is the heart ant! soul of j the', reform movement; tho present University system of New Zealand gravely interferes', with the proper performance,of this function—a point'upon which tho' Chancellor might obtain an overwhelming verdict, were ho to pursue impartially his inquiries of authorities beyond the seas. His admission on this point was merely .the shaft of an nrron' launched at his opponents, the barb being a demand for inquiry into "the way in which every teacher is performing his or her duties." Hut here again there is astonishing concord ; for we have always recognised tho necessity, for that; only it was not regarded as an argument of which much effective use could be made. (iii) We can most heartily endorse the sentiment expressed in ilie followin;; passage :-r"Th<! outlay <m education in .New ZeaLand has, considering our population, reached a high figure, and, i.\ my.opinion, we should try to economise by getting rid of nonessentials." That is exactly the argument which won. The Dominion's' strong support on tho occasion of tho University Reform Association's formal appeal to tho Heform Government, It is' one. of- the best arguments for a strong Royal Conimis.'iion on University education, and is surely supported hy confessions of lack of 'knowledge" and of difficulty, explicitly made hy the. head of the .University, with regard to the constitutions of Senate and ■ cdlcgc-councils. ■..- •_■ Perhaps the most important passage, in your report of tho] address is this:, "lf ; our'•'Parliament'"is competent to pass our general laws, it .is surely able to deal with .the• comparatively unitti* portant question of the constitution of the governing bodies of the higher education." ' , The constitution of tliceo bodies (and their, relation to -oufr another, which is involved in their constitution) is, for a university of federal type, known to be one of tho most difficult of university problems. Further, tlieii* joint and several constitution moans absolutely everything to tho conditions under which tho above-mentioned "most important function" ■ (of teaching) is to be performed; and it ie ,onv' csperieflco (upon which wo are willing to stake every ounce of reputation) that the Now Zealand University system.has developed conditions which aro exceedingly .inimical- to - good university work. Therefore n have no alternative-but to interpret the Chancellor's statement as implying that it is "higher education" which is a "comparatively unimportant : question-.V 'flic Chancellor, of course, had ho intention of saying anything; of: the, sort;-but if he had been speaking about things of which he knows as we know this subject, he would have realised what hv_ was committing himself to. And fits inadvertence has provided this opportunity of.'expressiup; what has become a hitter conviction, that,' apart from a faithful few, the public of New Zealand does indeed regard liijjher education .as, a comparatively unimportant question, when general laws relating, for example to ronds and bridges, or to ■loaves.and fishes, hold the field. '„ ..„.