Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol 1, No. 12 June 22, 1938

Whither?

Whither?

Mr. A. T. S. McGhie, a well known past identity at V.U.C., now holding a secretarial position in England, has kindly forwarded us the following interesting article on "Whither the University in the World Today.

Just before [ unclear: Easter] I saw something of the English University student at close quarters and heard much that may be of interest to his New Zealand contemporary, whose problems, it seemed to me, are much the same. It was the occasion of the Annual Congress of the National Union of Students (the body in this country corresponding to the N.Z.U.S.A. in New Zealand) and it was held at University College. Nottingham. There, amid ideal surroundings and under idyllie conditions, some 150 earnest minded young men and women met to consider and discuss a programme that can only be described as ponderous in its intellectual intensity. I should have thought it ambitious that we had as a preliminary to settle the chief needs and problems of the world today; but not so the burnished mind of the British undergraduate we took the "needs and problems" aspect in our stride and went on to consider the contribution to the solution of these problems which it would be reasonable to expect from the University educated man or woman, as compared with the man or woman whose formal education ceased at 14 or 16. Lastly, we enveloped ourselves in a discussion on curricula, teaching methods and examinations, seeking to decide whether these commonly despised aspects of a University are so designed as to develop a capacity to make any contribution at all to world problems.

Questionnaires.

Before the Congress began a certain amount of preliminary work had been done, various University Unions had issued questionnaires to their students and the replies had been collated and issued in the form of a report which formed a basis for argument. Several noted speakers had been briefed to lead the discussions and Sir Ernest Simon, lately Lord Mayor of Manchester a Liberal and a noted authority on housing and in his own opinion at any rate on affairs generally led off with a rather unsatisfactory review of modern problems and the position of the Universities in relation to them. It very quickly became evident that in the mind of the Congress there is only one modern problem, or only one at least of any significance before which all others must be set aside, and that may be summed up in Mussolini's slogan: "Believe, Obey, Fight." Sir Ernest Simon did not want a dictatorship because he felt that democratic rule as exemplified in the British Commonwealth of Nations has been built up through the centuries on qualities of human nature, human experience and human habit which, under the unfavorable influence of a dictatorship, will be swept away in a night and, once destroyed, can never be regained. His remedy as far as Universities are concerned, was a greater emphasis on the social sciences.—to use a phrase of Sir Arthur Salter's "Every student should have some sort of course in public affairs."

So much Sir Ernest Simon; the next speaker was Mr. R. Noun May, Secretary of the N.U.S. who may be remembered in New Zealand as a visiting University debater some years ago. He felt that it is essential that a University should be isolated from the distractions of the outside world, but while a protective wall is a necessity, he thought at least there should be some windows in the wall.

Broadened Curriculum.

As to how they were to be put there he was not so certain, but suggested general courses of lectures, the broadening of the curriculum and an emphasis in all courses on the study of civics and a practical application of the arts. Here he admitted a slight anomaly, however, as a in his view there are already too many lectures and the average course is already too long to allow of broader interests; yet in spite of this, the proposal to remedy this state of affairs was the institution of still more lectures. Another difficulty as Mr. May pointed out, is that we go to the University to learn to think, and thinking, he agreed with most modern psychologists, is a muscular process; just as you cannot learn to play tennis by being told about it but only by having balls banged at you and learning to bang them back, so you cannot learn to think by being lectured to but, only by having ideas banged at you and learning to bank them back. Hence he thought the emphasis in the ordinary courses should be on a decrease in the number of lectures and an increase in the number of tutorials, and seminars with closer relationship between students and staff: in this way the student will presumably be taught to think, and he is then fitted to receive instruction in public affairs which will have to be given him in lecture from, although the lectures should probably be more in the nature of public addresses.

Charity at Home.

There were other speakers, notably Professor Sir Bernard Pares of London University whose principal theme the broadening of the syllabus—as said, you cannot teach a language you do not also teach its country's history; and Dr. Lincoln Ralphs, lately President of the N.U.S., and a lecturer at the University of Sheffield, who had many finely phrased things to say. He wanted a vigorous discontent for the educative system, which under modern conditions he regards as a charity suffering from all the defects of a charity. He was very concerned at suggestions which had been made that attendance at lectures should be made optional, his view being that if this were an established fact lecturers would attend to become entertainers—remembering my own University. I wondered if this were not already so!

(This article will be concluded in the next issue.)