The Evening Star TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1875.

Evening Star, Issue 3929, 28 September 1875, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1875.

There can be little doubt, we believe, that a very grievous blunder was committed by the Council of the New Zealand University—or, at all events, by some one connected with that body—when the altogether unprecedented plan was adopted of telegraphing to all parts of the Colony the names of the unsuccessful competitors, and exact particulars as to the reason of their failing to satisfy the requirements of the examiners. Surely it was bad enough for the unfortunate candidates to find that they had been “ plucked,” without their having the further hardship to put up with of knowing that everybody would be made fully acquainted with the details of their mishap. As a general rule, those who fail to pass an examination are not quite annihilated by their want of success : they may have failed to pass through the fire, but they generally get back to the side from which they started, safe enough—they escape, so to speak, in the smoke. Nobody is able to say exactly where, or how, or why, they have failed ; but their friends are al 1 sure that it must have been through some fault of the examiners, or at all events that the failure can in no case have happened through any deficiency in the candidate himself. But in the present instance no such escape was possible. Was it not stated in the telegrams that So-and-So had been plucked because he had made only so many marks 1 There can be no doubt that as a rule it is altogether undesirable that a man who fails to pass an examination should at once “ be written down an ass,” after the fashion adopted by the New Zealand University. In truth, the effect of such treatment would be to make even able candidates hesitate a very long time before trying an experiment

which in its main features is not unlike that we read of in the “Arabian Nights,” where the failure of a physician to effect a cure of the king’s disease was immediately followed by the decapitation of the unfortunate doctor. Still, in the present instance, it is not to be regretted that full details have been given with regard to the pluckees. These details enable us to see most unmistakably that many of these unfortunates do not in any way deserve to be considered as having failed at all. We should hesitate about impugning the capacity of the examiners if we had not good reason for doing so. We find no fault with the questions set: they were well enough in their way, and some of them were drawn up with very considerable ingenuity; but we do protest against the exorbitant demand of the examiners that candidates should obtain at least half of the total number of marks given for all the subjects. We cannot help thinking that the examiners are in this dilemma : they either did not understand their business or else they had no conscience. An examiner who could expect a student to show a considerable amount of knowledge about everything (which was virtually demanded in the present instance) is altogether unreasonable. It does not imply any disrespect to the acquirements of the examiners to say that it is extremely improbable that a single one of them could have escaped being plucked if he had had to go through the ordeal to which the candidates at this examination were subjected. Men who have the amount of knowledge which would enable them to pass in Latin, Greek, French, German, English, History, Mathematics, Natural Science, and so forth, and all at the same examination, are extremely few and far between. Besides, the probability is that a man who had a fair acquaintance with all these subjects would be thoroughly well up in none. We are quite ready to admit that a well-educated man should know “ something of of everything, and everything of something ” ; but we are no advocates for the kind of examination which has a tendency to make men “ middling ” at everything: “ Jacks of all trades, and masters of none." Again, if we consider what sort of men were plucked at this examination, we shall inevitably be induced to conclude that there was something very wrong about the management of the examination which they failed to pass. We know nothing about the Auckland candidates; but persons in that city, who are well able to judge about such matters, declare almost unanimously that gross injustice has been done to very deserving students. We speak only of some of the Otago candidates. We ought, perhaps, to apologize to Messrs Wilding and Low for bringing their names so prominently before the public in connection with this matter; but we cannot help thinking that they have been most unfairly treated, and the desire to see a wrong righted is our reason for alluding to their case. Both of these gentlemen scored well in the^examination —wonderfully well we should say : they failed, however, to obtain half of the total marks, and, consequently, are held not to have completed their second year. What sort of men are these that that have been thus treated I Mr Low was a Provincial scholar ; lie was eminently successful at the High School ; he was always, we believe, well up in the University classes, and he has been a New Zealand scholar. Mr Wilding is well known as a very able mathematician, and that not merely in the school-boy sense of the word ; on the contrary, he is well known as one who is able to take his place and hold his own amongst scientific men. If these are the sort of men that are to be plucked for an ordinary degree examination, we should like to know what is to become of students of only average ability and industry like the poll-men of Cambridge, for instance. Even if it had been generally understood that students would be required to pass the examination, it would not have been quite so bad; but we have been given to understand that the candidates generally had no idea that they were to be subjected to any such test. Anyway, we hope that the whole matter will be looked into by the University authorities ; if it is found that a mistake has been made in the matter, it is not too late to rectify it. The Chancellor and the examiners are not infallible ; and if they find that they have done wrong, as we believe they have, there is no earthly reason why they should not do their best to set the matter right.