Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An organ of student opinion at Victoria University, Wellington. Vol. 23, No. 9. Wednesday, November 9, 1960

[introduction]

The recommendations of the Committee on New Zealand Universities (the Parry Committee) concerning university bursaries and scholarships have been the subject of intense activity over several months by the New Zealand University Students' Association (NZUSA). This article summarizes NZUSA's position and details the recent negotiations.

The Parry Report has been welcomed throughout the community as heralding a new era in the development of university education in New Zealand. That the Committee members had a deep and full understanding of the rightful place of the university in a developing nation like New Zealand, is evident to all who have read the Report and studied its conclusions. However, in assessing the Committee's recommendations on bursaries, your Association has major reservations.

Two fundamental arguments were promoted in the report as the bases of many recommendations. The first is that a far greater supply of graduates is essential to meet the nation's present and future demands: the second that there is an urgent need to encourage full-time study to produce those graduates as quickly and economically as possible. Proceeding from these arguments, the report recommended increased staff salaries; better facilities in the form of more laboratories, halls of residence, libraries and student union buildings, etc., and increased bursaries. With all the general principles and most of the specific recommendations NZUSA is in full agreement, but on examination it can be seen that two of the bursary recommendations strike deeply at the roots of many later recommendations, and a third strikes at a large number of New Zealand students who at present are unable to do much about the circumstances under which they study at our universities.

The three recommendations referred to are these:—

(a)That the value of the Higher School Certificate award be increased from £40 per annum to £50 p.a. for full time study.
(b)That a special Masters bursary of £125 p.a. for full time study be introduced but restricted to those students who achieve a second -class standard or better in the final year of the course in their major subject for a Bachelors degree in arts, science, or commerce, or in the final year of their course for a Bachelors degree in other faculties;
(c)That the present assistance with fees to part-time students be abolished.

Before discussing in detail the reasons for our disagreement with these three points, I should reiterate that the Association is fully satisfied with the other bursary recommendations. In a thoroughly documented submission presented to the Parry Committee, NZUSA sought first a review of the whole bursary system, and secondly an increase in the value of all bursaries to a more adequate level. Apparently impressed with the case advanced by the Association the following submissions were adopted with little or no variation:—

(1)Bonded bursaries, which have completely destroyed the whole merit basis of the scholarship system, should be abolished;
(2)Students with University Entrance should become eligible for the full Higher School Certficate bursary on passing three units for the B.A. or B.Sc. degree in one year;
(3)The boarding allowance to full-time students living away from home and holding the Higher School Certificate qualificatin should be greatly increased to meet rising living costs;
(4)The number and value of University Junior and National Scholarships should be increased to meet present-day requirements;
(5)Machinery for a periodical review of bursaries should be instituted, such a review to be carried out in consultation with NZUSA and other interested parties.

The University Grants Committee has since adopted all these recommendations and, where appropriate, they are now in the hands of the Minister of Education for implementation.

To revert to the three points where the Association disagrees with the Parry Committee:—