HIGHER EDUCATION

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 101, 23 January 1920, Page 8

HIGHER EDUCATION

A BIG QUESTION * FOUR UNIVERSITIES OR ONE? """'SENATE SAYS "ONE" By, Telegraph—Press Association. Dutiedin, January.22. An important discussion. took place at the University Senate to-day on tho question whether the Now Zealand linivers,ty should not now give place to four separate universities established in the four centres. "Set of Busybodies," Professor Segar moved: "That this Senate considers that tho timo. has arrived when'university education in New Zealand would benefit by the foundation of four universities, 0110 in each of tho four chief centres." Professor Segar referred at th© outset to a section of the Chancellor's Teport, in which the Board of Studies was practically 'branded as a Bet of busybodies who had 110 r.ght to express an opinion 011 the matter to which his motion referred. He coiitendeu that tho board had overy right ns a body of citizens to express such an opinion': If the board had not that ri"ht then it was a question whether the Senate had the constitutional right to do soino things that it did do—for instance, had it tho right to ask the Government to make,provision for certain scholarships? The board had power to make recommendations to the Senate as to tho appointment of examiners, as to degrees, diplomas, prizes, tho course of studies, ■ and so on. That being so, it\was, he considered, competent to consider tho best method of awarding degrees, and whether a better system, through four universities instead of one, could not bo devised. Opposition Anticipated. ,

He expected a hostile reception to his motion. The attitudo taken up by many professors he had approached indicated that, but it had also been evident that these professors had not considered the question fully. Since last year, three professorial boards had favoured the change. The true function, of tho umvoxsiiy was beyond all question teaching, and research examination might be called o necessary .evil. Tho federal system (the present system) was as strong a? its .weakest column. As an illustration ot its weakness, lie mentioned the instanceof Professor Hunter's failure to convince the other three professors of the advantages of experimental psychology, thus hindering one' college from making advance which it desired to make. Another disadvantage was that colleges wgre so widely separated, thtas waking .it •impossible for more .flan one meeting of tho Senate to bo held annually. T . h6 speaker instanced Wales (about tho size of the northern peninsula of Auckland), where the monthly meeting was held in an afternoon, and members returned to their homes at night. Yet here complaints were made of wasted time. One objection raised to tho proposed change was that it would mean four separate schools in each department iout medical schools, four engineering schools, and so on, but there would bo no necessity for this, Professor Segar contended. Precautions could bo taken by irithhdflding from certain committees the power to givo certain degrees. Then it was said tnat tho degrees would become depreciated in ..value iii tho estimation of tho public. • Ho disagreed with this contention. Tho value of the degree was that of the attainments,. and tho merits of the man obtaining tho degree. Temporarily thero might bo some doubt in England, where the New Zealand University is.iknown, and individual colleges are comparatively unknown, ns to value to be placed upon new: degrees; but as the four-university system must come, such , temporary disadvantages could not bo considered, .There was the objection that four universities would be too small. That in itself was no objection. Dunedin had had the i.luck to start an-independent university when it was little more'than a village. -Advantages of Proposed Change.

.Turning to-tlio advantages to be obtained by the system he advocated, Professor Segar said that "one of the chief gains would be in eliminating tlio examination dispute. If thero were four separate universities, the position would be'exactly like that in Australia and England,' where thero were two examiners, the teacher and an outside examiner. Thoa thero would be greater diversity of teaching both in tlie universities and the schools, which would be free to develop in their own way. Another advantage would bo to increase tho standing' of each university in tha eyes of the people of that centre, and so enable the- institution to gain a much greater volume of support than is at present accorded. At present the people of Auckland, at any rate, realised that they were not" the New Zealand Ilpiversity centre, and so werq inferior in that fiSMet... ■ Incidentally the mover referred to the scope for better government of the pni- > versity. .At present there was more v 2?. t° ''one than could bo done efficiently, and everv year but added to their difficulties. Professor Segar concluded by declaring that 110 did not want to agitate mcrelv to raise the question and have it discussed. If good reasons . were advanced for tho retention of the presefit system, he would'be yuita prepared to giVS. way. . 'Professor Wsfc, in seconding l , tfa.id there - was a strong ' feelirg i n /other centres that Oiago had'had verv great advantage over the other colleges in having a university, and evidence of how th o university became linked with the community was furnished bv tho fact that while Dunrdin-people knew their uni©rsity, nojthern people could scarcely distinguish between their colleen

' The Motion Criticised. Dr.- Anderson deprecated the attitude ot- tho mover and the seconder. He had' never heard an address by' Professor ccgar snowing more weakness than tlie arguments just adduced. The whole movement, if it could bo called a movement, showed a lamentablo evidence of failnro on tho part of the professorial boards to accommodate themselves to concentrated actioil in the interest of the u:l Ji vor ~ y of Ncw Zealand. A spirit of ficJt-sulhciency -was shown, a desire to rise above themselves in a way that circumstances did not warrant. ..Tlio Chancellor (Sir Robert Stout) said it was quite clear that tho Board of Studies was not constituted to initiate tins matter. .Its members could have adjourned and considered tho matter as professors or as citizens, but it was absurd to say that they should waste time in discussing such a matter which did not come within the scope of their limited functions. Professor Segar had con-tended-that because four professors did not agree on the subject of experimental psychology, therefore the four universities should bo established. As a matter of fact, provision was already made for $he' other three colleges moving in the matter if they 60 wished. Professor Segar's other illustrations were equally unfortunate. Tlie London degreo had been referred to as having no intrinsic value. Was it not known to everybody that tho London degree was looked upon throughout tho world as the verv. highest:- This proposal was merely th \ old struggle to make teachers sole cxanilfcurs, which meant that (lie course of study was to bo decided by tho teacher for the time being. There was no end to this thing. Thero was nothing to prevent five or six universities being set up' instead of , tho four now proposed. There wns not a single reason for the destruction proposed, for committing hara-kiri (nnd this amounted to it) would destroy the principle of the unity of national education. "Time Not Ripe." Professor Mnemillan Brown (VieeCiiancellor) said that the division into universities must come within a generation or two, but this too previous motion would not assist it. Ho thought that the proposal would at the present time b.'.nkfali-.to! the status-of/ degrees. -7,Profc£sor Hunter isaid tliat the Chancellor's argument was exposed by the Vice-Chancellor's admission that tlie change must comc. It wns only a mntter for the Senate to decide when the change was opportune. He thought that thero would be iminenso advantages .in giving each college tho status of a uni-

versity if there were proper safeguards. It seemed essential/ to him that each college should have its quota of special schools without such multiplications as would prevent the best work. Otherwise there would bo n lack of the proper university spirit. Ho thought' that perhaps Professor Scgar's motion might, be accepted with reservation. and lie suggested an amendment: "That tho n notion be referred to a committee to draft a scheme." Mr. H. F. von Ilaast said that tq throw each provincial university back on. its own resources would destroy the national suirit. The time was not ripe for the proposal, and would make for nrovincialism. Mover Replies. Professor Segar, in reply, said that tho Chancellor had not touched the heart of his argument. He did not suggest that .there should never be university colleges and a federal university, but that there were ereat disadvantages in a federal university where colleges were widely separated (as in New Zealand), and the whole question was whether New Zealand was ripe for 11 change to independent universities. The argument that there would be 110 end to such universities was fallacious. If other parts than, the four centres were ripe for universities tliev would already have university colleges As to depreciating tho value of degrees, the universities would in their own interests tend rather to make the necessary Qualification higher in order to appreciate the value of degrees. Ho was willing to add to his motion the words: "Provided that by the charters tho powers of universities should be restricted as may be determined in respect to the special schools with a common matriculation." The Chancellor said he could not accept the amendment, which would open the whole subject again. The Motion Lost, The motion was lost by 13 votes to seven. For the motion—Professors Dettmann, Hight, Hunter, Kirk, Wale, Segar, and Mr. Mahon. Against the motiontlifi Chancellor, Professors Macmillan Brown. Benham, Gilray, Ferguson, Scott, Hewitson. Dr. Anderson, Dr. Cameron, Mr. von Ilaast, Mr. Tibbs, the Hon Mr. Tole iprozy vote), and Mr. Adams.