Mr. Ashby's views were first given prominence among New Zealand students in Canterbury College's "Canta" on June 20. Since Mr. Ashby is probably best known to students for his utterances against Soviet science, it may seem strange that S.L.F. should give him so much space; but his views on this student topic are certainly worthy of consideration.

Noisy Homes

The problem is, Mr. Ashby suggests, not only one of lack of nocturnal accommodation, but one of a proper atmosphere for study. "In thousands of homes," he says, "family life revolves around one fire in the house, with father listening to the radio, with young sister learning French in an undertone, and mother needing help with housework. This is the intellectual climate in which many day students work, and it is a serious threat to the integrity of scholarship."

Is there no alternative to "halls of residence" as a solution to the problem of the home student? Mr. Ashby thinks so.

He points out that 54 per cent, of the "ideal" hall of residence is set aside for study-bedrooms, passages, stairs, lobbies and that much expense goes in "keeping students asleep." He suggests that many of the benefits of these places could be secured and many of the difficulties of the home dwelling student avoided, if students took their sleep and their porridge and toast at home or at digs and were able to spend the rest of their time at the university under suitable conditions for studying.

Room for Five Times as Many

"Suppose," he said, "it were arranged that the university fees (or bursaries says we) included a composite charge for lunch and dinner and the regulations for undergraduates required a regular attendance at both lunch and dinner. And suppose there were comparatively little class work in the afternoons and that labs and libraries and study-rooms were open until 10 p.m. And suppose refectories provided a cup of tea or cocoa up till 10.30 p.m. And suppose it were regarded by members of the teaching staff as part of their jobs to be in the university a couple of evenings each week, among their students. Would arrangements such as these not go quite a long way to bring the benefits of community life into a civic university?"

"If such a proposal were considered," comments Canta, "Mr. Ashby points out that it would be a matter of 'extension of library and union facilities, particularly of studies (similar to those provided at any boarding school), of alcoves in the library and the club rooms in the union, together with a small theatre, small rooms for gramophone recitals and informal parties (!)' and nearby sports facilities. Such facilities as these are often on the university's programme as it is"—but we would add, seldom further than on its programme.

Such proposals would be, Ashby admits, expensive; but, he says:

"It may be worthwhile to enquire whether the £250,000 necessary to provide residence for 150 students (with a corps of wardens and cleaners and other "superfluous luxuries" as SLF Newsletter puts it) could not in fact, provide accommodation up to bedtime for five times that number of students."

Is this scheme applicable to V.U.C.?

It seems to us that half the battle would be won with the erection of this so-near-and-yet so-far Student Union Building. There we would have ample facilities for at least some of us to study in as well as play in. But the whole problem seems in the final argument to revolve around the need for more fulltimers; and that, in turn, on the Government's duty to spend a little more on living-allowance bursaries and a little less on guns.

—C.B.