Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Spike or Victoria University College Review September 1924

Special Schools — Attitude Of The University Senate

page 12

Special Schools

Attitude Of The University Senate

During February of this year the Press of the Dominion contained varied comments on the application of Auckland University College to have its classes in engineering recognised by the University Senate. It was hardly to be expected that in the heat or controversy the truth would become apparent; now that the feeling has died down it seems an opportune moment to consider the history of the manner in which the Senate has dealt with the problem of the so-called special schools.

The University of New Zealand was originally intended to be merely an examining body, but it has gradually obtained power over the university colleges and secondary schools by the pressure that it has been able to bring to bear upon them by its control of the courses for the examinations that are taken by the students of these institutions. As far as the "recognised" schools are concerned, the power of the Senate is exercised by its refusal to recognise the teaching for a professional course unless it is undertaken at an institution recognised for this purpose by the University. Hence any of the affiliated institutions wishing to begin a professional course must obtain recognition for its school, for otherwise the Senate, by refusing to examine its students, may defeat the very purpose for which the school was started—the training of candidates wishing to enter the profession.

At the present moment Otago has recognised schools in medicine, dentistry, home science, and mining; Canterbury in engineering (mechanical, electrical, and civil), agriculture, and forestry; Auckland in architecture, mining, and forestry. Wellington has no recognised school. According to the University Statutes (Calendar, page 7), every recognised school is to make an annual report to the Senate, and any school may cease to be recognised on application to that effect by the governing body of the school, or, if the annual report is not made, or if provision for the necessary instruction ceases to be sufficient. But the minutes of the the proceedings of the Senate contain ample evidence that the Senate in this particular ignores the requirements of its own statute, and that the decisions on questions connected with the recognised schools are determined more by the needs of university politics than by those of university education. The southern colleges, that were early in possession of special schools, have listened with dull ears to the increasing demands of the northern colleges for similar treatment. The special school has been a trump card for winning the trick of Government financial support, and the southern colleges are anxious—perhaps naturally enough—to keep that card in their own hand. This desire has been "rationalised" into the form of a demand that university training in professional courses shall not be weakened by increase in the number of schools. We shall see that a little psychoanalytic treatment enables us to reach the latent content of the minds of most of the advocates of this doctrine, and shows us clearly the defence-mechanism of those who use this argument to defend interests. When there are no interests to defend a very different turn is given to the story. I propose to substantiate and exemplify page 13 these general statements by reference to the methods adopted by the Senate in dealing with these problems.

Before doing so, however, it may be well to point out that, at least on one notable occasion, an effort was made to have this question lifted from the ignoble level of university politics to the high standing of university education, and the responsibilities of the higher citizenship. At the time of the university reform movement the Minister of Education of the day, Sir James Allen, was asked to call a conference of the governing bodies of the colleges, which would determine once for all the distribution and location of the special schools. Unfortunately, the vested interests were too strong, and nothing was attempted.

(1) Some twelve years ago, as a new member of the Senate, I was struck by the fact that my request for the reports of the special schools, as required by the University Statutes, was considered rather impertinent. Indeed, it was clear that most members of the Senate did not know that the reports were required, and obviously no one had bothered his head about them. The same attitude has continued ever since, and when the question of the efficiency of the teaching at the recognised school of agriculture at Lincoln was raised two years ago, it was again noted that reports were lacking, and the Senate fulfilled its momentary duty by passing the following resolution: "That the attention of the governing bodies of the recognised schools be drawn to Section V., Chapter III., 'Affiliated Institutions and Recognised Professional Schools,' Calendar, p. 8" (vide Senate Minutes, 1923, p. 35). And this, after ten years of effort to see that these reports were provided!

Indeed, in one case the whole treatment was reduced to a farce. For many, many years there had been no report from the Mining School at Auckland, and that for a very good reason: There is not and there has not been for very many years a Mining School at Auckland, although one there is recognised by the University. In 1914 I proposed the following motion (vide Senate Minutes, 1914, p. 64), "That the Senate Committee report to the Senate whether it is advisable to continue the recognition of the Mininig School at Auckland." The motion was defeated by 15 votes to 5, the division list being as follows:—

Ayes.—Professor J. R. Brown, Rev. Mr. Cameron, Rev. Mr. Evans, Rev. Mr. Hewitson, Professor Hunter.

Noes.—Professor J. M. Brown, Professor Chilton, Dr. Collins (by proxy), Dr. Fitchett, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Von Haast (by proxy), Professor Hight, Professor Marshall, Dr. McDowell (by proxy), Professor R. J. Scott, Professor Segar, Professor Shand, Mr. Tibbs, Hon. Mr. Tole (by proxy), the Chancellor.

And the Mining School at Auckland that does not exist is still recognised by the Senate!

(2) As there was no demand at Auckland for teaching in mining, the Council of the University College gave its attention to satisfying the needs of the citizens who were clamouring for higher education in engineering. Again and again the Council asked the Senate for recognition of its teaching in this subject, and again and again the Senate refused this request. In the course of time the Senate decided to "encourage" the study of architecture by arranging examinations for a degree course in the necessary subjects and by recognising a School of Architecture in Auckland. This latter step the Senate took even before Auckland had provided page 14 effective teaching in the subjects of the course. The decision of the Senate was determined mainly by the demands of university polities. The Fellows of the Senate from the south, particularly those of Canterbury, thought that they would pacify Auckland (which had been demanding recognition of its engineering course) by giving it the School of Architecture; but, unfortunately for peace, the Senate Committee (Professor R. J. Scott, convener), in drawing up the courses of examination for the degree of architecture, adopted the easy method of prescribing for the examinations in architecture a number of the subjects already prescribed for the engineering examinations. So that now we have this anomalous result: Two students may sit in the same class in Auckland University College (e.g., in the subject 'Strength of Materials '), they may do the same laboratory work, and pass in the same terms examination. The university examination in this subject is identically the same for both architecture and engineering, and yet, while the university examines the student of architecture, it steadily refuses to examine the student of engineering. This is the real gravamen of the Auckland charge against the Senate; and there has been, and can be, no answer to this charge. Is is not really a question of special schools, it is not a question of money; it is simply that of two students, each prepared in the same subject, the Senate examines one and refuses to examine the other.

(3) But see how the attitude alters when the conditions of university polities demand. With the later call for education in forestry, the Senate again encourages the study of this group of subjects by providing examinations for a degree. There were two claimants for the school—Auckland and Canterbury. But this time all the arguments that show the impossibility of having two schools are suppressed, strife ceases, the representatives of the rival colleges fall on each other's necks, and the Dominion learns that it has two recognised Schools of Forestry. What the country did not learn, however, was that in this case the Senate's recognition was given on each college agreeing that it would give part of the time of a gentleman, who was already assisting the professor of biology, to the necessary instruction in the subjects of forestry. What humbug! Relatively, it is clear to anyone that Auckland is many times stronger in civil engineering that it is in forestry. Yet, while it fails to obtain recognition of the former, it has no difficulty in obtaining recognition of the latter.

I might mention other points, but I think enough has been said to justify the statements with which this article opened. One shot more. For some years there has been a tendency in some of the special schools to go their own sweet way without due respect to the Statutes of the University and the rights of students. The Home Science School in Dunedin has been an offender in this respect. At its meeting in January the Senate had before it a recommendation from the Board of Studies, urging that the special schools should be compelled to conform to the Statutes of the University. The Senate passed the following resolution by 18 votes to 4: "That the Senate will not allow the regulations governing its approved courses to be infringed by any 'recognised' school." The only members of the Senate to vote against this motion were representatives from Otago, and all the representatives from Otago, except lone, did so vote against the motion. Quite recently, too, it was reported in the press that two of the gentlemen who represent the page 15 University of Otago on the Senate were given quite plainly to understand that their duty on the Senate was to support the claims of Otago—university education, I suppose, can look after itself. What is the moral? The Senate is no longer a body that can deal effectively and honestly with the problems of university education in New Zealand. These are centred in the colleges, and the sooner these teaching institutions are freed from the incubus of the University of New Zealand the better it will be for university education and for the higher training of the youth of this Dominion.

T.A.H.