Salient: Victoria University Students' Newspaper. Vol. 24, No. 11. 1961
Dr. Gupta said to equate lust with love does love a great wrong, and the company was so much in agreement mat we progressed to me next topic.
"Does the lecture system do anything to stimulate the intellect—an evaluation of our lecture system at Vic."
Most people, without much enthusiasm, agreed that the lecture system was a necessity.
Miss Benefield stated that the average student needs guidance.
Mr U'Regan said that in a lecture one is passive—you can absorb information but not evaluate it.
Dr. Gupta quoted: "There are lecturers and lectures, students and students, and bloody fools."
Miss Picton said that in an university education we get too many facts and no time to think.
The chairman added that students should have the right to "vote with their feet."
"Advertisement as an integral part of modern living."
Popular opinion seemed to agree that it was, and proceeded to defend it as informative or (majority) to attack it as an invasion of privacy.
Miss Frost wished to thank the advertising men for their contribution to contemporary music.
Mr Stone pointed out the advantages of advertising—it keeps the National Orchestra, the daily newspapers and cappicade going. He then waxed indignant about "Brand X" which "washes whiter." "Whiter than what? Banging the cloth with a piece of rock?"
Mr Knight described how advertising was an integral part of our economy. Advertising encourages people to buy which keeps money in circulation and prevents a depression.
The panel with the exception of Mrs Maxwell disliked advertising but believed it necessary. (Miss Barnao: "It's a rat race." Mr O'Regan: "I hate it.")
Mrs Maxwell advocated a social change eliminating advertising and the establishment of a less wasteful economy.
Other discussions followed on: "The significance of the Commonwealth to us" (unity, economic advantage, same ideology); "That there is a double standard of morality—one for men and one for women"-it was agreed that this exists and also that it is prejudiced, immoral and unfair. A discussion of "the moral and social problems of the widespread use of contraceptives" tended to become a religious controversy; while faculty loyalty prevented agreement on the argument "Have the humanities accepted the challenge of science?"
Everyone agreed that the even-inn had been a profitable one and adjourned in search of less (menially) exhausting occupations. Over to our social reporter . . .