Extra Murals and Part-timers

Recent trends among university administrators appear to be in the direction of abolishing these two long standing and long, suffering groups.

There is little doubt that no university which claims the right to the title should allow either, especially extra murals. A university should not be a place for learning, but a place for learning by discussion. Whether unfortunately or no, the extra mural student cannot hope to belong to this stream of thought, and he cannot hope to be genuinely a university student

It may be a bad thing that he loses the chance to study for technical qualifications. There was seen years ago a need for some sort of institution—apart from the university—which would cater for this technical preparation. It is more obvious now.

What is obvious at the moment it the trend is dangerous. Not because it seeks to abolish the methods of part time or extra mural, study, but because it seeks to abolish them precipitately without substituting for them any real alternative. By all means raise the standard by making it necessary for students to get into the atmosphere of study full time. But for the Lord's sake, what is the use of making it necessary without making it possible? Certainly make the conditions tougher, the qualifications harder: but please give everyone a fair chance to measure up to those conditions.

Before university administrators have that slash at extra mural and part time study which is clearly coming up, they should be right behind a scheme for bursaries which is the only answer. The negative method of preventing non full-timers must be replaced by the method of making it possible and desirable for students to become full time.

(Salient has two major articles on the two subjects coming up. These will be printed in the two issues after the mid term break—we hope. These will note the recent decisions about extra mural study, and it is hoped to have some information about the committee set up by the Executive to, study university trends. Ed.)

Proneness to Error

I have just received a copy of your issue of March 16, containing the review of Arachne 1.

I would like to thank the reviewer for his kind words about my poem, and commend his perspicacity as the poem contained two misprints which greatly altered the sense.

But when he quibbles about the uneven-ness and the errors, mainly editorial (and with his points I agree) he is inclined to overlook the human proneness to error. For instance he too, makes slips, and misnames my poem.

He makes no point at all when he attacks intellecuallty per se.

A university college should not only have Cappicades to its credit and the warning that the publication is sponsored by a literary society should not entitle the reader to expect comic strips.

Comparison with the literary publications of colleges both in England and America should convince him that Arachne is yet an intellectual lightweight

Present trends abroad indicate that literary life will centre more around the seats of higher learning. Preparations for this should be made, and a certain liberty assured cultural activities. The demand for making the level more accesible and less personal should be re-considered.

The artist, the thinker, is above all else, a person