approach only

1 don't doubt that any setious consideration of this suggested degree design would reveal major inadequacies: I am only suggesting the approach which should be adopted. One important immediate benefit which would accrue from a structure such as that suggested above, however, would be an improved stanlecturing. I have sat through Stage One lectures in six Arts subjects (5) and have found them almost invariably to be thoroughly boring. The most important failure in Stage One lecturing, however, lies in the wide neglect of definition of the scope of the subject involved, and of explanation of the subject's essential distinctions (if any) from other subjects, and of description of exactly what academics in the particular field concerned are trying to do. Under the present system, where a minimum number of Stage Two units is required for completion of a degree, and where nine units are required in all. every department can be reasonably confident of attracting sufficient students to ensure lhat the administration doesn't start asking awkard questions. (6) Lecturers may plumb fresh depths of boredom, evoke mountains of intellectual tripe—they're still safe. But what would happen if department had to demonstrate that their subjects were interesting and relevant to the modern world? No one would lake a subject to an advanced level if it had been demonstrably boring and tenuously relevant to the contemporary world when the student had sat his first papers. The results of such a changed situation might be very pleasant for students—and challenging for the academics.

The Students' Association's Education Officer. Caroline McGrath. mentioned to me that the Committee is unanimous on the question of abolishing the language requirement. She also said that it might justifiably be made compulsory for language and literature students. I can see how this might remove some anomalies but I cannot see how the principle of the oft-repeated statement that the requirement is a bad one will have been upheld should this proposal be adopted. If the requirement is bad—it's bad. Abolish it altogether! The fact that Miss McGrath feels that languages have some role in an Arts degree is a good point for discussion. I presume we all accept that a degree must have some compulsory features For example. it should be taken over a certain minimum period and should include courses which are fell to be prerequisites for postgraduate study.

Why did the University make the language requirement mandalory in the first place? I suppose they thought lhat knowledge of another language was intrinsically valuable in some way, that overseas requirements should be borne in mind, and that a certain minimum slandard for the B.A. degree should be set somewhere. Have these hypothetical considerations any relevance at the present time?