PROFESSORS’ CRITICISM

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1052, 16 August 1930, Page 10

PROFESSORS’ CRITICISM

ABOLITION OF SCHOLARSHIPS

DECISION UNJUSTIFIED !f the scholarship system were abolished the universities would be supplied with a number of students whose training had been less thorough and fess extensive in those subjects essential for university work. This statement is included in a criticism which has been issued by the Professorial Board of the Auckland University College of the Parliamentary report on education. A special meeting of the board was c alled to consider the recommendation in the report: “That the funds now applied to the provision of National and University Rntrance Scholarships be utilised for the purpose of providing maintenance bursaries to assist deserving pupils to continue their education to the higher stages.” At the meeting it was resolved., “That in advocating the abolition of the University Entrance Scholarships the Committee has come to n decision unjustified by evidence or by existing conditions.” Tho board fully recognises that, in •the matter of University Entrance Scholarships, pupils of country secondary schools are at a considerable disadvantage compared with those ot (own schools, continues tho statement of tho board. It strongly disapproves, however, of the particular method which the committee proposes to adopt for the purpose of removing this disability.

While admitting further, that there may have been, through no fault of the University, undue dominance of secondary education by the requirements of the University Entrance Scholarships. the board contends that it does not necessarily follow that the scholarship system is at fault. Preparation for University Entrance Scholarships undoubtedly stimulates to a marked degree the study of subjects which are pre-requisites for University courses._ Discontinuance of the scholarship system would remove the element of competitive examination which is an important inducement to individual effort on the part of the student, and would remove also, the valuable criticism of examiners who are experts in their respective subjects. It would in consequence, in the opinion of the board, react unfavourably on the .standard teaching in the seboofs, and result in less satisfactory preparation of some of the best scholars entering the university. Under the proposed maintenance bursary system, the university would have no voice in the selection of the bursars nor any power in directing the lines which should be followed in the later and more important years of their pre-university study. It is significant that in Edinburgh University it has recently been found that a nomination bursary system has failed to select the right, type of* student, and its replacement by an extension of the existing system of competitive examination has been recommended by a statutory commission. The proposed system of award of maintenance bursaries would apparently vest iu the Education Department —centralised in Wellington—the complete right to say whether or not individual students should be granted such bursaries. It is impossible to imagine how, under a system of recommendation by individual inspecors. the bursaries could be awarded in an impartial and democratic manner on a national basis. No special evidence on university entrance scholarships was apparently called by the committe; nor, it seems, were other methods considered of regulating the distribution of the existing scholarships. The board is emphatically of opinion that, before this drastic changesuggested by the committee be made the subject of legislation, full evidence should be called from all bodies con eeraed.