V.U.C. and C.U.C. moved the first motion after a report by Mr. P. Brewster on ways of redistributing present bursaries. These colleges and Otago felt that although bursaries had remained constant since 1949, wages and prices had gone up. This, in effect, meant a drop in the effective value of the bursaries.

The chairman (Mr. O'Brien), pointed out that one reason for this wax the emphasis on primary and secondary schools, rather than the university, when considering education budgets and that some move had been made to have university finance handled by the Treasury rather than by the Education Department.

This was election year, claimed A.U.C. If some action was taken on a political level it might have effect. Otherwise, the matter might go no further than it did two years ago when a very full and convincing report was prepared on the topic but was not acted upon by the Government. Chairman: "We very nearly did something recently."

He then explained that the contemplated action was withheld as the Vice-Chancellor wished to have discussions with the executive on the matter of bursaries.

Cases Wanted . . .

Both the Chairman and Mr. Brewster then emphasised that statistics were not enough. What was needed were actual cases of hardship of students or of potential students who could not attend university for financial reasons. Colleges, then, should do their utmost to get such cases, while it might be possible to circularise secondary school headmasters and find out how many potential students could not afford to go to university.

"Our students don't give a damn about the philosophy of education: they only want enough money so that they can live." said the A.U.C. delegate, commenting on the mention of the function of the university and how to serve that function through bursaries. Therefore, A.U.C. presented a series of motions suggesting methods of taking direct action.

Little could be done actually to bring pressure to bear on the Government, admitted A.U.C.. but certainly both Parliament and the public could well be made aware of the situation. The case for increased bursaries was just, and the resident executive had already stated that case in very clear and precise terms. For that reason, it was now possible to take action.

In his report on the redistribution of bursaries. Mr Brewster raised the question of part-time students. There was little justification for cutting down part-time bursaries, which would save up to £30,000, but might prevent, say, civil servants coming to university, since if they came full time they would lose seniority. The main function of the university in a small country like New Zealand was to supply the community with graduates, and cutting down on part-time students might well reduce the number of graduates. On the whole, it seemed that the encouragement of full-time students was in conflict with the Education Department's policy of no increased aggregate payout.

Other points were raised by Mr. Brewster, including the desirability of bringing boarding bursaries into line with living costs, and the possibility of a merit scheme for basing the allocation of bursaries

One important point, however, cannot be under-emphasised. We quote from the submissions made last year to the Ministers of Finance and Education: "The bursary is not to be likened to salaries or wages which haw been earned by the people who receive them, except insofar us the bursaries are awarded on merit and encourage students to greater endeavour. The bursary is more in the nature of a gratuitous reward given by a government wise enough to realise the nation's future dependence upon educated citizens. . . Thus the question of whether students have any right to receive bursaries is answered in the negative.