page 7

What they Think of "Salient"

In an attempt to obtain constructive and destructive criticism. "Salient" asked a group of representative students their opinions of the paper.

"Just an organ," said a sixth year Arts student.

"A religious compost heap."—Third year Am.

"More stimulating than any title since I've been here. I think "Salient" must have some line, and politics is as good as any. But I doubt whether it has touched the soul of the university."—Graduate.

"It's readable this year. Not a bad job."—Lecturer.

"Should have more international affairs, and more articles for science students."—Second year Law.

"Too much politics, too much religion."—Second year Science.

"Completely unbiassed."—National Party supporter.

"Disgusting, outrageous."—Another National Party supporter.

"Too many gross inaccuracies and misprints."—Fourth year Science.

"Should have more provocative student news, and attempt to rouse apathy."—Auckland student.

Third year Law pleaded the Fifth Amendment.

"I like the balance between general articles, politics, religion and student news."—Third year Arts.

"Twelve issues too many."—Aspiring editor.

"Balanced tone."—Labour Party supporter.

"A minority browbeating the majority."—Progressive Conservative.

"Out of step with student opinion."—Fifth year Commerce.

"Salient" this year has been a more vigorous paper and wider in its scope: it has discussed political matters more. But in its reporting of the Exec. I should prefer it, from time to time, to take a more objective stand, and critically assess the general trends and development in Exce. policy."—Student Association President

"Too much petty sniping at Exec."—Former Exec. member.

"You're doing a good job, but still loo many printers' errors."—First editor.

"To look at the tone of it I could have forgotten that I had ever been away."—Distinguished graduate.

"I find the layout very dull in comparison with Australian papers."—Australian student.

"Damn good."—"Salient" staff.