Information

But she was really worried about women and university. "There are two kinds of women. . .?" she assured an astonished audience. . . . "those who get married and those who don't" (There is a middle course remarked someone). If they marry, then he's bound to be the wrong man—a graduate. Her colleagues illustrated this point. Home Science Grads could at least marry doctors ("free delivery") who were so eligible. Why, we can't even knit in lectures. Women learn nothing at varsity as it simply isn't ordered for their needs. They do learn how to queue, admittedly, but the rest of their education was unfitting (K.B.O'B.: This isn't a corsetry school). The spinsters were even worse off: if they come here as lecturers, they work long hours, they climb the hill—and not even hill money.

"It is surely an unusual situation to see three members of the staff negating their own best, interests," suggested Denny Garrett who commented that he agreed the evening would prove the case—for the negative. Here were three staff members impartially examining their own right to exist: capably arguing a case, which they couldn't believe: being quite derogatory about university staffs. Surely this showed the advantages of university education—the impartial questioning of truths was basic to a university, and the staff were proving that they lacked not in integrity. Their capable argument without real belief proved their fitness for a legal life—no mean advantage: their slighting remarks about graduates was proof of their modesty—another advantage. Since these were the epitome of education, he suggested that they were living refutation of their own case.

Miss Stevens, he said, had dealt with women in general for 12 minutes, he had dealt with one in particular for five years and was by no means so pessimistic about university women. He proved the rest of his case by showing that society in general, students and the public, all under-rated these advantages. He quoted the best possible authorities for his contentions—the two books of one, Dr. J. C. Beaglehole. These showed quite clearly that the society underrated its educated People so much that they were ultimately persecuted (and to the Individual, as he said, it wasn't really such a disadvantage to be persecuted out of existence nowadays).

Now come, come, adjured John McCreary. It's all very well to talk about the university education, but where in fact does it come in? Where on earth was the full rounded personality which he had been hearing about going to develop inside the walls of a university? We were surprised to hear that we were guilty of all sorts of horrible sounding psychological quirks—retroactive inhibition? was it? Anyway it was clear that the roseate gleam of reminiscence when we looked back over past activities at VUC was all a figment of our own imagination.