UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5139, 12 September 1877, Page 2

UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. ■ Sib, —Mr. K. Wilson’s answer to my very simple questions is entirely unsatisfactory to me, and I do not think it will satisfy anybody else. He says that 'the standard for the matriculation examination of the New Zealand University is “ very low.” Now, on pages 49 and 57 of the New Zealand University Calendar I find the following information as to this “ low” examination. There are twelve subjects, as follow:—Greek, the grammar and very easy passages for translation at sight; Latin, same standard ; English, grammar and composition ; arithmetic, the fundamental rules, vulgar and decimal fractions, proportion, and square root; algebra, to simple equations inclusive, with easy problems ; Euclid, the first two books; elementary chemistry, the nonmetallic elements and the' atomic theory; elementary physics, one of the following branches —(a) electricity, (b) sound and light, (o) heat ; elementary natural'science, one of the following—(a) botany, (b) zoology, (o) geology; modern languages, grammar of /one modern language and easy translation at sight; geography (too long to transcribe); history, outlines of English history to the end of the 18th century. Candidates must pass in at least six of these subjects, and of these Latin, English, and arithmetic must be three. Now whatever may be the fault of this standard, it is certainly not “ low.” But Mr. Wilson gives me no means of comparing it with the “ local” so as to get at the “difference in detail ” which I asked for. So far as I gather from the little he says about the Cambridge examination the standards seem to be about the same.' But he says the New Zealand examination is not “definite,” and that its details are settled hy different examiners m each of seven centres. What has Mr. Wilson to do with any centre but the local centre here 1 And could he not learn the “causes of failure" here if he wished ! Mr. Wilson’s answer amounts simply to a refusal to explain his own connection with the papers. What have I, “ personally,” forsooth, to do with the matter, that I should go to him privately ? He publicly offered to supply information on a matter affecting the public ; and as one of the public, and on behalf of the public, T asked him these questions. Then, again, there is another evasion of my query as to the marked success of his pupils at these “local" examinations and their comparatively indifferent success at the competitions of our University. Mr. Wilson, as usual with him when pressed, winds up wifi a sneer about people talking “ loosely" on the subject. It is a pity he cannot avoid “ talking loosely” himself. My:question was not as to the contrast between the marked success of his pupils at the “ local ” examination and their “ comparative failure ” at our. University competitions. I said plainly “ comparatively indifferent success,” which is not the same thing. I say again Mr. Wilson’s letter, and that of his friend in the same issue, are altogether unsatisfactory. Truly it is very difficult to get anything satisfactory about this pampered and useless institution. Let me ask one more question ; perhaps something will come of it Is it true, as I have heard, that the Board has by some means contrived to get from the Government the promise of another sum—£lsoo —although the Premier had specifically notified to them that they must not look for anything after the 30th of June last? If so, where is this to end ?—I am, &c., Inquirer, September jlO.