TRAINING AT THE UNIVERSITY

New Zealand Listener, Volume 20, Issue 507, 11 March 1949, Page 6

TRAINING AT THE UNIVERSITY

Some Further Answers From Graduates

A Lawyer (Julius Hogben, LL.B.) HAVE read again the newspaper reports of the Chancellor’s address to the University Senate in general and agree with his views. University education has changed from a liberal education in the humanities for some students alongside a specialised technical training for other students, so that to-day the humanist knows little about much and the specialist knows much about little. The spreading of education over more and more fields is inevitable in the modern world, but I agree that workers in the special fields are certainly better citizens if they first acquire a wide general culture. It might be true that in some specialised fields technical knowledge and skill as provided by a University training may be sufficient, but such fields must be few. All education must be . related to*the society which creates it and which it creates and techhical skill in any profession can only be of value to society when it is directly related to it., Consequently no professional man (in my view) is completely equipped unless he has that general cultural education without which he cannot properly appréciate the place which his profession should have in society as co-operating with all other trained trades and professions to make a social whole and the contribution which his profession can and should make-to that end. I am asked to say something of my educational experience. In my student _days the syllabus for the law degree differed from that of to-day. Forty odd years ago the student had to spend two years at University before sitting his first section of the degree, which comprised Latin, English (or Philosophy), Juris- » Prudence and Constitutional Law. These last two subjects are now placed at the end of the LL.B. Course and the first division (what were sections are now divisions but a military analogy would not be applicable to the change of name) gives students a wide option of five out of thirteen subjects, all with some general cultural value, but-a very large but-the student spends only one year at each subject and consequently hardly reaches what a proper critical appreciation would call a University standard in that subject. There is open to students of to-day the expedient, which I found most valuable, of failing one’s first.degree examination and so spending an extra year at the general subjects, but ‘to-day a pass in two subjects only is allowed; in my day you passed in all four or were failed. I had had in addition the advantages of two years in the sixth forms at school without any examination bogey in front of me, and a home where both knowledge and learning were regarded as normal and necessary. I have no doubt whatever that the liberally educated specialist: is happier himself and more efficient in his profession and for the community, ,_I know many in my own profession whose education has been continuous since their

student days and I know many whose education stopped then, if it had ever been education, and not a mere being taught. : The remedy for to-day’s weaknesses? Raise the standard for University entrance and raise it in such a way that every student entering University has a sound cultural education, so that the University does not have to waste its

time on elementary teachifig but can devote it to true education. I have recently marked some hundreds of papers of first-year University students and can therefore speak with knowledge and feel-

ing of thefurgent need that the entrance standard should be raised. If all students entering University are truly ripe for a University education, their work and that of the University teaching staff will be happier and they will be better equipped to enter upon professional studies and to take their place as citizens. A University degree should be something immeasurably greater than a certificate of technical knowledge. Lawyer and Town-Planner (John Cox) THINK that the majority of my generation look back upon our education from the early primary school to University graduation as a deadly dull process. Any critical faculties that we had were soon suppressed by ridicule or crowded out by the daily grind of keeping up with the examination syllabus and the testing of last night’s homework memorised from the text-book. After 15 to 20 years of this even the most independent minds had usually been deformed into the current degree mould. I certainly do agree with the opinion of the Chancellor, but I do not think that the solution necessarily lies in taking more so-called "cultural" or "social" subjects, although this would be all to the good. In my opinion the’ real trouble arises from the teaching. of each subject as a self-contained unit in an exam-

ination syllabus. This happens even within the specialist courses. The result ‘is that professional people are turned " out with 10 to.20 unrelated packets of knowledge which add up to a degree. Is’ it any wonder that when we were re‘leased into practice we usually had neither a philosophy nor an awareness of where we fitted into society? Actu-

ally I don’t think that to most of us the University was much more than a means of qualifying in some profession. The universality of the education that . we might have had did not occur to us

-at least not until later when we felt free to think for ourselves. It would be unfair to say that the University did nothing more for us than equip us as specialists. Some degree courses for professions such as law included various subjects which must have had a broadening effect on our studiés. The trouble was that the teaching in each subject was with few éxceptions circumscribed and unimaginative. Rarely were we stimulated to undertake further reading and study in a particular subject. But ‘the greatest fault was the failure to relate the subject to the rest of our studies and to human life and experience generally. The problém raised by the Chancellor has been the subject of considerable thought and discussion amongst members of the Architectural Centre in connection with the Centre’s School of Architecture and Town Planning in Wellington, and, by the adoption of the seminar approach with the tutor to guide, illustrate, contrast and relate, we hope to stimulate the critical faculties so that students will know why rather than just know. You pose the question finally whether a liberally educated specialist is more efficient than the man whose education has been technical only. The word "efficient" has become somewhat/debased but using it in its true meaning, I canhot see how a man with the wider responsibilities attaching to a profession

can be considered efficient unless he has had a liberal education. In a country where there is such an unquestioning respect for degrees and other letters, the specialist with a narrow technical training can be a positive danger. Plant Chemist AGREE with the Chantellor’s statement that the University of New Zealand does not provide a sufficiently liberal education ‘for the students in its professional schools, and _ particularly with his implication that the responsibility lies with the University. The granting of a degree to successful students in these schools, by the highest educational institution in the country, surely implies that the graduate is an educated person. There are of course all kinds of traps for the unwary in trying to define the term "educated person," but as an approximation I would venture to say that he is one whose mind is trained to accept and examine ideas, and to draw logical conclusions from the evidence presented. I do not think that a large proportion of the graduates of our professional schools would measure up to this criterion. Ideas in their own specialised field may be examined with meticulous care and without prejudice, but when a problem arises in another field their objectivity disappears and they are as prone to illogical conclusions as is any other member of the community. This criticism would be entirely unjust if it were confined to professional graduates, and I hasten to add that in my opinion it’s equally valid for graduates from the arts and science faculties. If the above conclusions are even approximately correct, it is natural that the Chancellor should be concerned, The remedy however is a very much more difficult matter. There is little doubt ° that much is expected from students in professional schools if they are to graduate within the length of time prescribed by -the syllabus. It would be quite impossible to crowd more subjects into the time allotted, and one is forced to the conclusion that the time spent at University should be increased. There are many implications in this solution, not the least important being the additional financial burden on the student who, at least in’my day, was already hard pressed. Adoption of the principle of an increased syllabus inevitably leads to the adoption of a more liberal system of bursaries and hence to a greater expenditure of public money. It is my own opinion that such extra expenditure would be wholly justified, but it is doubfful whether the majority of my fellow taxpayers would ety i Neurologist (Mary R. Barkas, M.D.) [N attempting to reply to your enquiry, I find my answers tend to become: Yes, but-; and to go on after the habit (continued on next page) ra

THIS is the second and final instalment of answers to the questions we asked in our last issue about the teaching in the University. ° as _

{continued from previous page) of Joad, with "It all depends on what you mean by ee 1. While I agree in general, the everincreasing demands for greater detailed specialist knowledge in each faculty make it more difficult to find time for a. more inclusive excursion into other fields. 2. The solution I should. like to propose would have wide social implications and need more space than here possible for its discussion. 3. If I had been prepared at school for the same subjects as those taken at the University, I could have ranged over a wider field still, but even so there were then no restrictions placed on my including any roving from my’ degree subjects to several others, in so far as the lecture timetable allowed. 4. Yes, most decidedly; and 5. I am convinced that the most creative workers in any profession are usually those whose range of vision and study goes far beyond their own speciality. 6. Yes, very many, and those the best at their own work. I see the most important function -of the University as being synthesis and research; and the training in ground-work of special professional skill and know- ledge as ancillary, to be done in special schools, inspired and united by the University research workers, whose separate valleys are constantly united by climbs. together to mountain top or outlook tower from which the whole landscape can be surveyed in its relationships, while also holding communication with other mountain tops throughout the world; thus some degree of harmony and integration among all spheres of knowledge may permeate and illuminate the fog of detail for the student and enable him to realise that the University is universal arid the world of knowledge is one world. In this connection I especially welcome the inclusion of music, plastic arts, and drama as part of the University. Architect (Vernon A. Brown, L.R.I.B.A., A.N.Z.LA.) r | DO agree. 2. Not within the University as it is in New Zealand. 3. In New Zealand, no. In England, yes. 4. Not only oi fa but essential. _5. Yes. : 6. Only those we have had an "3 tended time outside of New Zealand. It seems that an essential part of a liberal education is a civilised and developed environment in. which we live and work. In New Zealand the environment is essentially that of a commercial development similar to that holding in England 50 years ago. There are other standards besides those which require membership of Chambers of Commerce, Rotary and the higher football teams. It will take us another 30 to 40 years." Perhaps it might be illustrated by a comparison between the covers of the English and the New Zealand Listener.