Physical science banished

Sir—After reading Jonathan Cloud's articles on the examination system, I have come to the conclusion that his ideal university is one from which the physical sciences are banished.

Much of his discussion deals with the type of question asked, and it is apparently traditional in the subjects Mr. Cloud has studied for the essay to predominate. But in those disciplines concerned with measurement there is another tradition, based on the fact that discussion involving quantities is often too complicated to be carried out in English, and must therefore be done mathematically. Hence, the traditional question in these subjects is the "problem", in which the student is asked to find some quantity in terms of others, or make decisions from data. An example from statistics might be:

"A survey showed that 627 of 800 persons interviewed preferred to live in medium sized towns. Using a two sided alternative and a 5% level of significance, test the hypothesis that the true proportion of person's preferring to live in medium-sized towns is 75%. (It is)

This type of question is often rephrased in the form "Show that ... ", "Prove that ... " so that it includes its own answer.

For reasons which would require too much space to elaborate. I think we must reject any idea that problems are merely essays written in another language. We must therefore consider them entirely separately. something Mr. Cloud makes no attempt to do.

If we were to consider the effectiveness of exams and term work based on problems, we would be foolish to do so in isolation. At the high school level, many of the physical sciences are in the midst of major changes in teaching methods. In America, completely new approaches to the subjects have been developed, introducing schoolchildren to concepts formerly not encountered until stage III or Honours level. The Physical Sciences Study Committee material (P.S.S.C. physics), for example, is already in use in New Zealand schools.

In England, the Nuffield schemes have developed the heuristic approach to Chemistry and Physics to what must be close to its practical limits. We can expect the effects of these schemes to be delayed here because of the expensive equipment they require. Nevertheless, we are entitled to ask what reaction the University should have to them, when they come. This reaction could well involve changed teaching and assessing methods, because it would be a tragedy for initiative developed in the schools to be stamped out in the University.

Mr. Cloud has not considered any of these problems; nor has he given any indication that he is aware of their existence. But he must surely be aware of the growth of mathematical methods in psychology, economics and political science, which makes his omission all the more surprising, as these subjects may sooner or later face the same problems.

Yours faithfully,

David Wright.

Our reviews attacked

Sir—Your reviewer, Bob Lord (Salient, March 19), is better at making snide cracks than at reviewing. He spends so much space on them he never gets to telling us what are the flaws he perceives in the third act of the play. How, I wonder, does Mr. Lord know Mr. Mason "strived" for pathos in his last act? that it was not achieved in the eyes of more sensitive members of the audience? But he finds pathos in the bald listing of an unpublished book of essays in the programme notes: well, bless him then for his cute tender little heart.

He appears to take exception to the inclusion by Downstage's secretary of a briefly stated author's biography in the programme. Is this because Mr. Lord is more knowledgeable than the rest of us? But I found the list valuable and intend to preserve it. (And the Lions Club would have done well to read it when they booked an entire performance and sent a circular to their members attributing the play to another playwright.)

Bruce Mason has the normal writer's concern for how his piece emerges, he has had wide experience as a producer, the opportunity offered. Why is it then "a fanatical concern for the correct staging of his plays" that he produced Birds in the Wilderness for Downstage? Bernard Shaw advised writers to produce their own plays. In any case, Mr. William Austin, Artistic Director of Down-stage this year and a producer in two mediums, acted as Mr. Mason's assistant.

The tone of this review was always patronising and sometimes offensive. I don't know how the suggestion that Mr. Mason's "fanatical concern" extends to "the maintenance of his image as New Zealand's leading playwright" would stand up in a libel action. If—though it is unlikely—this gratuituos statement came from some international giant of letters, it might be borne, but from Mr. Lord, well, hardly.

I suggest, sir, that you subedit unwarranted spleen from his future reviews (if any), also see he gets his dates right.

Marie August.

Architectural Shambles

Sir—Victoria University is an acknowledged academic joke and administrative balls-up, but why must it also be an aesthetic disaster?

The new lecture theatre is only the latest addition to Vic's architectural anarchy. Evidently the 'varsity architects, or draughtsmen, or office-boys—whoever does the design for our buildings, think that if the buildings facing Kelburn Parade have bricks in them that there will be a unity of design, or something.

Why then have that cacky yellow stuff on the bottom two floors of Easterfield? Actually the only common observation I could make about the varsity buildings facing Kelburn Parade is that they get progressively worse as they go up hill.

This may give you an idea of what I think of our new lecture theatre, already —but wait... . Some imagination has been shown in its design: I admit it's unusual, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's good; and the curving inside wall in the foyer is interesting (reminiscent of the Otago Student Union−the 3rd best union in the four main centres —guess whose is the 4th best?). However, despite these good (?) points, the building doesn't fit in with any others on campus, and looks like a cross between a medieval fortress and a lavatory block. If the designer thought of it as a fortress type structure, a few long narrow slits in the facade would in my opinion, have added to this conception. These could be double glazed in dark glass to avoid the distraction of traffic movement and noise. But I'm afraid that the escape hatch, or ventilation hole, or whatever it is, plus drainpipe, does not achieve this.

Why can't our university be conceived of as an aesthetically pleasing whole rather than a architectural mish-mash and functional Cinerama cashier.

Don't try to find me to throttle me, I'll be gone before this letter is printed.

Yours,

Pat Bolster,

Victoria University Labour Club.

S.C.M. books

Sir−In reply to W. J. Watson's letter in Salient (March 19th) about his buying an obsolete edition of a book at the S.C.M. Secondhand Bookstall, I would merely state that we cannot be responsible for buyers making mistakes.

We have a responsiblity to both our buyers and our sellers. As a result we try to sell the books people bring in to sell although we recommend that these books be current university textbooks only.

Many students are not aware which books are still current and it is therefore up to the buyer to take care that he is getting the correct book before he buys it.

We cannot possibly check that all the books that come to us are current editions, but we did go to the trouble of moving 2,000 books which were not selling, into another room so that they would not be bought.

We are sorry about mistakes such as made by W. J. Watson, and do our best to avoid these.

Yours sincerely.

Jon Boyes.

Bookstall Manager

Blatant transgression

Sir,—I must protest at what I myself consider to be a blatant transgression of some editorial privileges which you enjoy. I am referring to your editorial of Tuesday 19-3-68, wherein you gave a list of needs for more student power.

While I agree with most of your proposals, I think it is wrong from the point of view of editorship to publish as an editorial the personal views of students however prominent they may be and in addition ask them to sign their name on the editorial in agreement. The shepherds have spoken — now the lambs must follow.

I must ask Sir, whether you have fully considered the task of editorials. For in my view an editor can publish any editorial he likes; but have you ever seen Mr. Holyoake and others sign a Dominion editorial. These prominent members of our student body could have written a letter to the editor, or an article in which they have every right to express their views. But they should never have been asked by yourself to subscribe to your personal view to give it weight. You have enough power as editor not to need the backing of others. Your axe is strong, Sir. Wield it well. Wield it or not at all.

J. N. Lenart.

[(1) I wrote only a minor part of the editorial. (2) I see no reason why an editor should necessarily have any part in an editorial so long as he agrees with it. (3) I do not intend to follow the example of the Dominion or Mr. Holyoake. (4) In this specific case I will leave the results to explain my actions.—ed]

Sludge

Dear Sir,

Re your application for funds to bring God to New Zealand.

We are inclined to think that this would be inappropriate for several reasons which we will list for your perusal.

1. The timing of the proposed visit is entirely unfortuitous in that it would immediately precede the arrival of His Royal Highness the Duke of Somewhere or Other. We think you will appreciate the undesirability of allowing the Duke to feel that he is being made to play second fiddle to God.

2. We fail to see how the said invitee can be seriously considered alive when "Time" magazine has quite clearly declared him to be dead.

3. It is well known that the Prime Minister considers himself to have the loudest voice in the country and to disillusion him at this stage would not be in the National interest.

4. You claim that "God is Everywhere". We have referred this assessment to the Minister of Labour and Immigration who has replied "not if I've got anything to do with it he isn't".

5. A thorough investigation of your claim that the invitee is a respected author was found to be highly speculative. Indeed the claim might be said to be on a par with the notion that "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare". After much detailed research we found that only one short treatise ("The Ten Commandments" restricted sale hardbacked copies only) was in any way authentic. The authorship of this has also been disputed; with our preference going to Cecil B. De Mille. It might also be added that we could find scant evidence of the work being respected anywhere in the World.

6. From the pictures we have viewed it is obvious that the invitee is unshaven and probably has chronic B.O. It follows from this that he is a born troublemaker (particularly if his son is anything to go by). We should add that this viewpoint has judicial approval inasmuch as all plagues, floods, earthquakes and governmental cockups are officially blamed on the invitee. (Q.v. "A dictionary of New Zealand Law" under God: Act of")

7. Finally we feel that we should add that in view of the current Vietnamese situation it can no longer be asserted that the invitee is "on our side" as was traditionally thought. Until such time as he can prove his loyalties he must take his chance with the pinkoes.

Yours pathetically,

The Absurd Bank