The Evening Star TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1874.

Evening Star, Issue 3674, 1 December 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1874.

It appears to us that in the discussion which has been taking place in Dunedin lately with regard to school prizes and “speech days,” the really important question involved has been altogether overlooked. We have been told that too many prizes have been given ; that they have not been judiciously awarded ; that the preparation for the examinations at which these prizes are awarded takes up very much valuable time that might be far better employed, and so forth. But the vital point in this matter has not even been hinted at. To us it seems that in a discussion of this kind the first point to be settled is this : are school prizes of any use whatever in producing the result which they are popularly supposed to bring about] Does the giving of prizes in schools cause the children of the classes to which they are given to become more attentive, move anxious to get on ? Our reply to this question would be most decidedly that it does not, while the effect of the examinations, even on such parents of the children as lay any stress whatever on these examinations, must be of an undesirable character, inasmuch as the results of the examinations will have a tendency to give them an altogether wrong impression as to the merits or demerits of their children. It is, of coarse, perfectly certain, in the first place, that all school prizes are won by the cleverer children, while those who are not clever do not get prizes. It appears, then, that natural endowment is the main cause of success or the reverse in this matter. If, then, prizes are given only to clever children, they are given simply as a reward for being highly favored by nature. Now except, perhaps, on the principle that “ He that bath to him shall be given,” it is difficult to see how this can be defended. It is true that the saying referred to is correct, that it is strictly in accordance with what we see everywhere throughout nature’s wide domain. The wellendowed and the strong do get on, do receive more abundantly, while the weak and the feeble go to the wall. So far, then, we have no reason to complain. But if it be further insisted on that we should step out of our way to make this seeming injustice more striking than it is : that we should, as it were, lend a hand to cheer on the successful and to further repress the unsuccessful, then we feel bound to aay that we do not see the necessity for any such interference on our part. If we are to interfere at all, it must be to endeavor to prevent those scholars who are among the less highly gifted from becoming too much dispirited by their want of success in coping with their cleverer schoolfellows. School prizes will scarcely produce any such result as this.

Then, again, even if we take it for granted that it is desirable that in a given school the boy who has most ability should be discovered, and rewarded for lus good fortune, we must maintain that the present system of giving prizes is not fitted to produce that end. All those who have had ranch to do with schools and school children know that, with regard to most of the subjects dealt with at ordinary examinations, the chief recpiisites for success are a good memory, and a certain boldness and fluency of speech. In the other subject, Arithmetic, a certain sharpness and readiness are of infinitely more importance in District School Examinations than any mere solid mathematical ability or power of original thought. It has been said, with reference to the mathematical examination that stands the very first in general estimation of all the numerous examinations which form such a peculiar feature of the time —the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos —“That the candidates for it require to be trained to think consecutively for twenty minutes,” Todhuntek, no mean authority on such a subject, says that such training is exceedingly defective in one respect at all events, seeing that nearly all the difficult problems that people meet with in after life require rather more than twenty minutes for their solution. This, of course, amounts to saying that even in this examination readiness and sharpness count for a very great deal, while real mathematical power,does not receive its due weight. If this is true of even the most famous mathematical examinations, it is hardly* to be expected that the same sort of effects, though to a much greater extent, will not be produced in examinations where the amount of real knowledge of the subject required is at its minimum., it thus appears’ that there i is oo p/ep if it be 1

considered desirable, that the best boy can be singled out and rewarded for being clever. We believe that our schools would be in every way benefited if this prize system could be altogether abolished. We feel sure that in the long run it would be better that children should be trained to love knowledge for its own sake, and not for any mercenary or sordid considerations whatever. Place before them at once the highest and only true standard to be aimed at—they will learn quite soon enough that cleverness, and industry, and all the virtues have to a greater or less extent a money value. Tn the meantime it will be well to keep them as long as possible disinterested, and never doubting for a moment that “ virtue is its own reward.”