THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1875.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2077, 31 August 1875, Page 2

THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1875.

We have now, before us published in the Auckland papers the report of the Committee appointed by the Board of Education to enquire into the circumstances of the failure of the Auckland candidates at the late University examination, the statements of Mr Macrae head master of the Auckland College tind Grammar School, and the correspondence Between that gentleman and the Chancellor of the University. The result is this—the Auckland students, such at least as belonged to some institution affiliated to the University, looked at the matter in one light; the University authorities in another. Each side from his own point of view acted right, and each side feels aggrieved at the other taking an opposite view of affairs. It is of course much to be de.plored when others cannot be prevailed upon to look at things with the same eyes as we ourselves; but as the University were the party conferring the honour sought, in the way of a New Zealand B.A. degree, and the Auckland students those who sought that honour, it would have been wiser if those who gave them the advice which caused them to adopt the line of conduct they did— for we suppose that they did seek advice from the heads of their institutions—had first made themselves. acquainted with the way in which the Chancellor and his subordinates regarded the clauses laid down. We have not space to give fully the view each side took of the existing regulations, but the following is a brief resume of the alleged grievance looking at it from a middle and unbiassed point of view :—ln March, 1875, the regulations .of the University were altered, one of tha results of the alterations being that those students who belonged to institutions affiliated to the University were allowed to count their terms as "kept" without passing the usual examinations the University required from others, provided they passed successfully the exami-. nations of the institution to which they belonged. This, by the May, seems to us a most absurd law, but it has just enough resemblance to the Oxford and Cambridge systems to make those who know nothing whatever about them imagine that there is a. party who wish, according to the Herald, to fashion New Zealand University on the model of the two older English ones. It is true that these Universities at home are composed of various bodies, or, if the name be preferred, "Affiliated Institutions," and that an undergraduate, to enable him to stand for his degree examination, must keep a certain number of terms subject to the discipline of some one of these colleges, part of which usually consists in passing a terminal examination; but these examinations are not at aIL regarded as a substitute for the University examinations, but only as supplemental to them, being generally required by the College to enable the undergraduate to practise for the University examinations; neither does the passing them in any way excuse the passing the public examinations, r. So that if those who made the regulation in JS Tew Zealand that an undergraduate by passing his College examination should be excused the University examination in any way imagined they were copying Oxford, and Cambridge they have made a great mistake, as well as, we think, done much to lessen the value of a New Zealand degree, for it is certain that each head-of an institution will not hold the same views as to what standard of knowledge a graduate of the University ought to possess, and some may. let their students pass through with but very little trouble, reserving them for the great effort at the B. A. examination, while others will adopt precisely different views,and make their examinations harder than even those of the University itself. But, however that may be, the Auckland undergraduates either considered or were led to consider that they had already complied with the University rules, by passing their own examination in December 1874, and only attended the general examination held in May last with a view to compete for scholarships; consequently they were not even endeavoring to pass, having already done 10 according to their view of the matter, and object naturally to have the disgrace of failure cast upon them in a matter in which they never attempted to * succeed. On the other hand-the Chancellor argues that the students named all matriculated under certain regulations, and for aught he knew, intended to compete for their degree under these regulations. Neither does he see how an examination passed in December, 1874, under rules then binding, can do away with the obligation of passing an examination imposed by a lay made four or five months later. In other words, the regulations of May 1875 could not have a

" retrospective effect to make a college examination held in 1874 supersede the corresponding additional obligations to pass a University examination." And in this we think he is right. But the whole: matter seems a confused jumble. The Auckland authorities seem to have assumed too much for granted, and where explanation was demanded the amount given was either very inexplicit or very tardy. The upshot is that the Auckland undergraduates are victimized, though now the affair is made public we should, think all disgrace, however implied, is removed both from themselves and tutors. The misunderstanding about scholarships has all arisen from the endeavours of the University to unite things altogether incompatible and give their scholarships simply to the best of those who offer themselves. It is with this view, we suppose, that but one set of papers was given to all the candidates alike, passman and scholar having no distinction drawn between them. And so it has come to pass that the second list of failures and aggrieved scholars is brought about in this way. Those who had scholarships—at least some of them— . imagined that they had already passed in the way we have.just now shown, and so only presented themselves in a limited number of subjects. The University not noticing their college examination;©! 1874, considered that no one who did hot" obtain half marks in all the subjects could be allowed to pass, a matter, as we. have bqf^spolhol out, almost of impossibility^ in the case of some, and so recorded them as failed and escheated their scholarships to their own use. Here is the evil: a scholarship is given to some candidate" for special excellence in one subject, and it is manifestly unfair to expect him to show equal excellence in all. On' the other hand it is perfectly right to expect that he shall come up to the standard of a passman in other respects. Now the University have made this mistake?*-they have mixed together both passman and scholar, and required a classical or mathematical scholar to come up to the average of a scholar in natural science or modern languages, thus expecting from him the average excellence of a scholar in at least three subjects, while they only award to him a prize in one; This: is certainly unfair. Let him earn his scholarship in the grade of scholars, but be examined in other subjects among the passmen. A scholarship is not a thing which should be treated merely as a' prize and given simply to the best of those who present themselves for it. It is a mark that a man aims at a higher standard of knowledge than that affected by the ordinary ru.n of students, and has been successful'in his aim as far as'the particular branch of knowledge he takes in is concerned. There must therefore in justice to all be two grades, the pass and the scholarship; it is •as unfair to" the passman to expect him to come up to the" scholar, as it is to expect the scholar in classics to come up to the average scholarship of each of the other subjects. Yet this the University authorities have required, and this to a great extent explains the failure of the scholars. The failures of the affiliated students we have- already accounted for ; but there still remains the case of those not affiliated, about whom no explanation .has jet been given.