N.Z. UNIVERSITY

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2680, 28 January 1916, Page 7

N.Z. UNIVERSITY

MEETING OP THE SENATE PASS DEGREE STATUTES THE, EXAMINATION CONTROV' ERSY.

Tho Senate of the University of New Zealand resumed its sittings yesterday, the Chancellor (Sir Robert Stout) pre- • tiding. It . was resolved, on tho motion of Dr. HiJjht "That tho Entrance Examinations Committee revise tho regulations made from time to time governing the standard and the general conduct of the lentrance examinations, and report them to Senate in codified form. After long discussiou the following resolution moved by Professor Hunter was carried: (a) That the following Recess Committees be set up, —Dunedin Committee, consisting of Dunedin members of' Senate; Christ-church Committee, consisting of Christchurch members of Senate; Wellington Committee, consisting of Wellington members of Se'nate; Auckland Committee, consisting of Auckland members of Senate, (b) That questions arising throughout tlife year be classified by the Wellington Hecess Committee, and, if the committee deems such advisable, referred to the respective committees as follows: Bijnedin—Medicine, mining, dentistry, Lome science; Christchurch—Engineering, agriculture, arts; Wellington—Univereity office, finance, law; Auckland— Science;- music, commerce. It was decided that the nest meeting jpf Senate commence at Auckland on (Wednesday, January 17; 1917. Mr. J. W. Tibbs gave notice to move ■lhat the Hon. J. A. Tole, LL.B., be the Senate's member on the Board of Governors of the Auckland Grammar {School. • One Pass Degree? ' The first "order of the day" was consideration of the report of* the chairman of the Board of Studies, of which the. principal recommendations were that University examinations for degrees and senior scholarships be. conducted by the responsible teachers of the subjects in the different colleges, and that the statutes for the pass degrees in arts and science be amended. ; Hunter said- that he • thought the Senate should proceed by discussing the principles in the report. 'If the principles were approved by Senate tho details in the report, could be if hen considered, but' if the' principles Were not approved the Senate need not consider details. He said that it ;seemed to him the recommendations of •the Board of Studies relating to the ]>ass degrees involved four principal questions,—whether there shall be one or two pass degrees; whether thore shall be any compulsory repetition of any subject or subjects for the pass degree; whether tho subjects for the intermediate examination shall be 4 or 5 •in number; and whether students' courses of study shall be 'subject to approval by the Professorial Board. Tno other question as to whether there' shall be local or external examiners was an entirely separate question, and could be so considered. This suggestion was adopted by the '■Senate. ' Professor Hunter then moved (in direct opposition to the recommendation of the Board of Studies) that there should be one pass degree. He considered that all difficulties in connection •with primary arts and science degrees would not .'be. got .over-uintil there was only one general pass degree.'- He presumed that this degree would be called the Bachelor of Arts degree. The Rev. :A.. Cameron- moved •as -an 'amendment that the qiieistion of whether there should be one pass degree should be referred to a committee to suggest ■what subjects, if any, should be compulsory if one pass degree were provided About Compulsory Latin. In discussion of this amendment the 'question _ was raised frequently as to whether in the one primary degree Latin should be compulsory. It was pointed out by the Chancellor that the reason for the establishment of the B.Sc. was to enable a student without a knowledge of Latin to ■ get a- primary degree. If compulsory Latin for the B.A. was to be insisted upon it: future, then it would be impossible for anyone without a 'knowledge of Latin to get any primary degree. ■ >* In the end discussion of the general question was postponed until after the discussion of the antecedent question about compulsory Latin. Professor Hunter then moved that, in tho event of. the B.A. degree being the only primary degree,'no subject shall be compulsory. It might bei that if a student took certain subjects he would require "to take certain other subjects to make up a group. This question was discussed at length. It was admitted that it would be good for the country if the study, of science -were more generally taken up, but. it was not generally admitted that the abolition of compulsory Latin would tend to popularise science study. The general was that though the study of Latin might not be essential, at least the study of one language besides the mother tongup should be insistecl upon for any humanistic degree. There was also a strong body of opinion in favour of making obligatory a certain amount of scientific study. The motion was carried' by 14 votes to 7.

The Senate then resumed 1 consideration of Dr. Hunter's motion, and Mr. Cameron's amendment to it. The amendment was agreed to on the voices without further debate,- and the'following committee was set up: The' Rev. A Cameron, Professors llacMiilan Brown faegar, .Marshall, Hunter, and Chiltofl, Dr. Anderson, and Mr. J. W. Tibbs

Other Details. Professor Hunter moved , that in the statutes for the B.A. degree provision bo made for the compulsory repetition or one subject. • The chief objection raised to the proposal was that as it would be impossible for a student to go 011 to an intensive study of any subject, such as would be involved in a ".repeat" course, without attending _ lectures at a college, 60 it would be impossible for any extra-mural student to obtain a degree. The motion' was defeated by 17 votes to 3. ' * ' Professor Hunter then moved that tho courses of students should be subject to the approval of the Professorial Board of their college. In support of it, lie urged that many students were under a very great hardship through not having received at the beginning of their college career expert advice as to the subjects they could take and the subjects they ought to take. Tho effect of such compulsion as he urged would not be to limit the freedom of students, 'pi,' o " le ir efforts rutelligentiy. The. proposal met with strong opposition, and it was defeated by 14 votes to 6. On Examinations. The Senate proceeded to consider the proposals- of the Board of Studies respecting examinations for degrees in Arts and Science. These proposals are for tho examination of all New Zealand students by tho New Zealand professors. Professor Hunter moved tho first recommendation of the Board of Studies: "That tho examinations in subjects of pass grade shall be conducted m each college by the professors and lecturers of that college." Dr. Hunter pointed out that this would mean that the examinations would be ©onduotod by the individual Drofcsßorc

■under the guidance of the professorial boards, in exactly the same* way as tho terms examinations are conduoted now. He condemned absolutely the eystem of external examinations, in which the teacher had .no.part. The motion was strenuously opposed oy the Chancellor, who had discussed tho case against local examinations in his introductory address. Professor Kirk suggested that the great men selected as outsido examiners aid not always examine—of this lie had evidence. He thought the present scheme was full of faults, and he supported' the motion. Professor Marshall (Otago) urged as one of the reasons for opposing the motion tho danger that there might be a tendenoy, undor the proposed new scheme of complete local control by professors, towards tho setting up of different standards -in the four college centres. This was much to be avoided in a small country like New Zealand. Ho had for many years heard much of the anomalies of tho present sys'tem, but his experience as student or teacher had not impressed him with the importance of such anomalies as did undoubtedly exist. At present it was not possible in New Zealand to havo outsido assessors of propor professorial standing to assist the professors of the different colleges in tno examinations •for the higher grades, and until such men were available in Now Zealand ho would vote to retain external examiners. Professor Scout (Canterbury) said that he had voted to retain outsido examiners for many years, but every year with an increasirig amount of doubt, so many had been the anomalies occurring. Ho was prepared to support any scheme for the examination in the intermediate grades by the teachers, but he was not yot prepared to support tho proposal as affecting final examination. The Rov. A. Cameron opposed the motion on general grounds. Strong Reasons for External Examiners.

_ Professor Chilton said that he believed that the influence of external examiners of high standing in his subject had been such as to improve the teaching of that subject _in New Zealand. He opposed the motion.

Mr. H. F. Yon Haast opposed the motion because he believed the demand/ would prove to be the forerunner of a demand for the abolition of all examinations. The aim of the Board of Studies was to encourage specialisation at the expense, of a general education, and the tendency of the professors would be to let students through who had only a knowledge, perhaps a special knowledge, of only one branch of tho subject. He did not attach much importance to alleged anomalies, or reversals of form by students. Many students were good at "dishing-up" tho lectures they received, who still knew nothing very much of the subject. These students fared well in the professors' examinations, but failed often when faced with the unexpected by an outside examiner.

Professor MacMillan Brown said that local conduct of competitive examinations was absolutely impossible, however 'possible it might bo for tho pass tests. He would vote against the motion, although he was not _ strongly against the professors examining in the pass grades. Nor did he agree that local control by the professors would be a good thing for tho professors themselves. University • professors were apt to talk- a-s if they were a special exclusive caste as distinct from other teachers, but they were not, and they ought to be responsible to their employers. the public. Supposing professors had control, and scandals arose about the work of certain professors—and scandals were not unknown in our colleges—those teachers would be subject to mob criticism by crowds of inexpert people, or possibly by/ politicians, unless the employers of professors had some guarantee, such as was furnished by the outside examination test, that the teaching work was well done. The motion was defeated by 14 votes to 7.

Following was the division: Ayes—The Rev. W. A. Evans, Professors Hight, Hunter, Kirk, Malcolm, Scott, and Mr. H. H. Ostler. Noes.—The Chancellor, • Professors MacMillan Brown, Benham, Chilton, Marshall, and Segar. the Hon. J. A. Tole, the Eev. A. Cameron, the Hon. Dr. Collins, Mr. Gordon, Mr. H. P. Von Haast, Dr. M'Dowcll, Sir 6. Maurice O'Eorke, and Mr. J. W. Tibbs.