PAYING FOR TALENT

New Zealand Listener, Volume 18, Issue 457, 25 March 1948, Page 5

PAYING FOR TALENT

Sir,-I should like to congratulate you on the admirable sense of proportion which you displayed in your leading article on "Paying for Talent." The confused comments of V. J. Chapman hardly merit attention, but perhaps it is worthwhile to consider the principles by which salaries should be determined. There is firstly a broad dichotomy of payment according to market rates and payment according to "value" of service. I think we must firmly grasp the simple (but apparently neglected) fact that New Zealand has a population equal only to that of a large city. It

is as ridiculous for New Zealand to try to retain all her distinguished students, as it would be for Edinburgh or Chicago or Calcutta to confine their intellectual leaders within the city walls. Again, it is false to assume that New Zealand does not benefit from ‘the ‘scientific progress made by New Zealanders abroad. Scientific knowledge is rapidly disseminated throughout any political area. Further, there are many leading scientists who see in the spread df international scientific co-operation a powerful aid to world peace. A narrow and perverted nationalism seems to

me to be the only excuse for the policy of "New Zealand Brains for New Zealand Only." As to payment according to value. It is a platitude to say that our present rate of salaries for various professional groups is purely conventional, but since your correspondents seem to deal in platitudes, they may appreciate mine, Now there has been for many generations a world-wide tendency towards greater equality in rates of payment, and in this respect New Zealand is probably one of the most advanced countries in the world. This movement has been most persistent in the democracies and

has been a product of the Western humanitarian philosophy aided, belatedly, by the radical element in Christianity. To reverse this trend, and give more to those that already are near the top of the scale is surely contrary to our social ideals. It is also’ bad economics. With regard to the payment of £1200 a year to professors in arts subjects, I refer your readers to Education and World Tragedy, by Mumford Jones, reviewed in The Listener of February 27. I have just completed an Arts

degree and consider that attendance at lectures in most subjects is a waste of time. It serves only to foster the comforting double illusion-of the students that they are getting something for their money, of the teachers that they are earning their salaries. It is superfluous to add that there ate honourable exceptions. ; Finally, it seems to me that if salaries of professional workers are to be amended in the interests of justice, a substantial levy should be imposed on our host of doctors and dentists (most of whom have mediocre talent) and the money used to subsidise the salaries of members of the D.S.IR.

JOHN

CHILD

(Lawrence),