Examinations.

I would like to draw the attention of the student body to the very bad system, or rather, lack of system, followed by the University of New Zealand in respect to examinations, generally and specifically, in the hope that the students, by continued agitation, may have these matters put right.

(I.)	The time-tables for the examinations should be in the hands of all students at least 14 days before the commencement of the examinations. The University collects thousands of pounds annually in examination fees, and the students benefit only to the extent of receiving a time-table a day or two before the examinations actually commence, and I need hardly point out that nearly every year these time-tables are altered during the progress of the examinations. Most students received a notice from the University that entrance fees for the November examinations must be paid by July 10th. but this does not mean that the students will get an accurate timetable well before the examinations; it merely means that the University pockets the interest on the fees collected, and unless some reforms are instituted or a change made in the University office, the time-table will this year be as late as in the past.
(II.)	The results of the examinations in many subjects are published before Christmas, and the notification of marks is usually given in January, but the Law students are kept waiting till the end of January before the results of Jurisprudence and Constitutional History are even published. It is understood that this unnecessary delay is caused by the practice of sending the papers to Australia to be marked. The mere fact that the University of New Zealand will not allow the New Zealand professors to set and mark the papers, is a grave reflection on the professors, but it also reflects back to the authorities who appoint the professors, whom they thus acknowledge to be unequal to the task of examining their own classes. It is a farce to call a degree a degree of the New Zealand University when at least in some subjects the examiners are men of another country. A certain professor stated after a trip to Australia, that the New Zealand professors were as good as the Australian. Taking this statement as correct, it is ridiculous to have equal, or perhaps inferior, men examining the students, and even if the examiners are superior to the New Zealand professors, it is time our professors were changed for ones who know their jobs. The results of this practice of getting Australia, or any other outsiders, are: (1) Waste of time sending the papers away and the waste of time in sending them back. (2) Unnecessary expense involved in postage and cabling the results and marks,—assuming that they are cabled as they should be. under present methods, to save some time.page 41 (3) Considerable sums of money to pay the examiners leave this country every year and show no return. (4) The examiner can only have a vague idea of what is required. For example, in the Constitutional History paper for the LL.B. examination in 1928, the Australian examiner omitted to ask any question which had even a remote bearing on the subject of the British Empire overseas, although the University calendar distinctly sets it down for inclusion in that paper. (5) It is no satisfaction to be examined by a person who is not a New Zealander and who has no connection with the New Zealand University.
(III.)	The marks are not sent out to the students till after the executive meeting of the Council in April; most received their notices in the beginning of May, that is eight weeks after this College has started on another year.

This is the present position. A mere matter of form keeps the students waiting two months after the University year has begun, and the absurdly long time of six months after the examinations, for their results, and yet the University demand that the fees for examinations be paid four months before examination and 10 months before the results reach the students.

It is apparent that the largely useless and not very ornate figure-head, called the University Council, does not worry itself about such a trivial fact that students are expected to decide upon their course of study for the year two months before they know definitely whether they passed or failed in the examinations of the previous year.

It is not difficult to find remedies. I suggest these following, which occurred to a person of such mean intellectual powers as myself:—

(1)	Specify a time before which the marks must be released, such time to be at least fourteen days before the commencement of the University year.
(2)	Delegate power to the Registrar to release the marks as soon as they are received from the examiner.
(3)	If the power of the Council can not be so delegated, compel the Council to have special meetings to release such marks as soon as possible after they are received from the examiner, the time limit being as above.

It should be unnecessary to point out to the Council that without students there could be no University, but that the University could exist without the Council; therefore, the students are entitled to received consideration in matters so important to themselves.—I am, etc..