PAYING FOR TALENT

New Zealand Listener, Volume 18, Issue 460, 16 April 1948, Page 5

PAYING FOR TALENT

Sir-What is the main objective of decent men in all walks of life? Surely it is to provide for themselves, their wives, and their families a reasonably good standard of living. The standard to which a man can attain in this respect depends upon the amount of remuneration he receives on account of such services as he may render to the community. One of the most noticeable features in this connection is the inequality of a very wide range, which prevails so far as the remuneration paid for different kinds of service is concerned. Strange to say, those who are engaged in the more desirable and attractive occupations receive from three to six times as much remuneration as do those in much more arduous and less desirable jobs. This, as a matter of course, implies that the wives and children of the latter are, in some

way not very clearly defined, regarded by society as a whole as being unworthy of the happier economic conditions enjoyed by those of the former. If the present wide range of inequality of pay is to be maintained surely it is only reasonable to suggest that those who are engaged in the most essential services should receive the higher rates. Among these would be included those who are engaged in the production and distribution of food, clothing, shelter, and the mariy amenities necessary to the enjoyment of a high standard of living. Our professors and scientists have, of course, a useful but not absolutely essential

function to fulfil, but society could far better dispénse with their services than it could with those of the other class referred to. If essentiality and arduousness decided the issue so far as rates of payment for services rendered are concerned professers and _ scientists weuld be well down towards the bottom of the list. Those who think that the present unequal rates of pay for different services rendered are justifiable might be asked to, put forward some moral, ethical, or even legal justification for their attitude in this respect. They will have a somewhat difficult if not an impossible task.

R. S.

MACKAY

(Auckland).

Sir,-In answer to "Graduate" I feel that I must make the following comments: (1) Like all those who criticise a professor’s long vacations, "Graduate" shelters under a nom-de-plume. I challenge him to come out into the open and investigate my working hours. He can shadow me at any time he chooses. I.am quite sure the surprise would be all on his side. Since coming to New Zealand I have never worked fewer than 60 hours per week for 49 or 50 weeks in the year and a good 10 in the other two. This includes research, which is the most important part of a professor’s duty. ‘ (2) During the two years here my "extra" earnings have been well under £100 but I have spent over £100 in typing, books, and journals made necessary by inadequate facilities here. I still subscribe to-as many journals as the department does. (3) I want to make it clear that any efforts to secure better pay for those at the top of the profession automatically create a precedent, if successful, for raising the salaries of all other academic workers in universities and _ allied institutions. (4) In fairness to my homeland I must make it very clear that England did nat "fail to retain me." ‘The same is probably true of all of us who have come. In my own case my income in England from all sources was very nearly the same as it is now. Indeed, I came to New Zealand two years ago at a small financial . loss. My superannuation, research and clerical conditions were far better than they are here. I came because New Zealand offers unique ‘opportunities and, experience to botanists;\not because of Social Security or any other man-made facilities, but because of natural gifts that were here

before professors or graduates. In addi+ tion,. British Universities have always encouraged experience abroad and the fact that graduates are prepafed to come to get this experience does not mean that New Zealand should not make her conditions (and these include more than salaries) attractive. (5) There are two remarks’ of Mr. Childs’ that I cannot pass without com-ment-(a) There may be a world-wide tendency. towards greater equality of rates of payment, but in. the one country where this has been carried to the extreme, namely the U. S.S.R., I believe that it is true to say that academic persons still receive more favoured treat. ment than others; (b) Whilst it is true that scientific knowledge made by New Zealanders abroad will benefit. New Zealand, nevertheless, unless she can retain a percentage of her more distinguished brains, indigenous and imported, she will not be able to main« tain flourishing schools of research, nor will she attract other distinguished scholars. (6) I failto see why the ever-popular subject of New Zealand State education must make its way into a controversy on salaries for academic workers, but as "Graduate" makes the point I feel I must take him up. He has obviously not kept in touch with developments in England during the last 10 years. It ig a very common occurrence for boys girls from State secondary :schools to wi major scholarships at Oxford and Cambridge every year. I would without hesitation challenge any boy or girl of 17-¥8 from a New Zealand State secon dary school to sit these pa ab ‘on acquit himself well. I woul first to withdraw all my I were proved wrong. But until education here can compete with that at Home I do not feel it fair to throw it out as an attraction to workers here, and most of our "imports" after all do come. from England.

V. J.

CHAPMAN

(Professor of Botany, Auckland

University College), —

(This correspondence is now closed.-Ed.}