University Reform

Social institutions preserve the achievements of the past. But, as times and circumstances change, there is a constant call for every institution to adapt itself to the new conditions. Institutions that keep pace with the requirements of the times are being continually modified by the progress of knowledge and by the new social demands made upon them. It is only institutions that have been started on wrong lines or that have failed to march with the times that must be "reformed," i.e., suddenly and radically altered in their organisation and methods so that they may not defeat the very purposes for which they were founded. Unfortunately the University of New Zealand falls into this category and ever since its foundation there has been a demand, now weak, now strong, that the University should be brought into line with modern educational ideals.

The reason for this is not far to seek. University education was introduced into New Zealand in 1869 by the Provincial Council of Otago, when a teaching University was established in Dunedin. But in the year following, steps were taken to found the University of New Zealand, and as the governing bodies of the two institutions could not agree on the site of the University (Otago would agree to amalgamation only if the University were placed in Dunedin), the plan was adopted whereby the University of New Zealand became an examining board. The teaching institutions were affiliated to it and thus began the divorce of examinations from teaching that has done so much to impair the effectiveness of our higher education.

It may be said that New Zealand followed the example of London. So it did. It should, however, be remembered that the old University of London owed its character to human perversity just as did the University of New Zealand. Lord Brougham, with the laudable idea of establishing a University free from the religious tests of the old British Universities, founded University College. But the Anglicans, who thought that University education could be of value only if it were religiously toned, immediately founded King's College, and the struggle for a charter resulted in the pitiable compromise of an examining university to which the teaching institutions of University College and King's College were affiliated. Neither in London nor in New Zealand was the form of the constitution of the University decided on educational grounds; much meaner motives decided the course of events.

Those who read the report of the Royal Commission of 1878 on New Zealand University Education will realise that hardly had the new condition of affairs come into existence in New Zealand than most vigorous objections were taken to it. The Commission decided against the system of that day and urged that in the interests of higher education there should be co-ordination of university government and an internal system of examination. The subsequent controversies have waged round these subjects.

The recommendations of the Commission were not carried out and though the evils were increased when colleges were established in the North Island, the system of university government and the conditions of university education remained in all essentials as they were at the time of the report of the Commission.

In 1908 Dr. Starr Jordan visited New Zealand, and in a memorandum to the Chancellor of the University of New Zealand, condemned our university system, especially emphasising the same points as the 1878 Commission. As a result of the stimulus given by Dr. Starr Jordan's visit there was established in Wellington in 1910 "The University Reform Association" which promoted petitions to Parliament, asking for a Royal Commission on university education. The Association also collected a large number of opinions on the existing New Zealand methods from educational experts in Great Britain, America and Australia, which, with few exceptions, were against the local methods. Parliament did not set up a Royal Commission but it referred the petitions to the Education Committee of the House of Representatives, and this body, after investigation, decided that certain reforms ought to be instituted. The main result of these investigations was that an additional University Court—the Board of Studies—was established. This body has been of great assistance to the Senate in its efforts to deal with academic legislation, but it cannot be said that it solves the difficulty of academic control of courses, for it is a body consisting of only live representatives from each affiliated institution.

Meanwhile, the increase in the numbers entering for university examinations threatened to bring about the breakdown of the system of examination in England, for the official results of the examinations on the work of one year were not available till near the middle of the year following. Under these circumstances the Senate was compelled to adopt a local examination for the Pass Course of the B.A. and B.Sc. Degrees, and more recently have decided to find examiners for some of the law subjects in Australia rather than in Great Britain.

Thus neither of the vexed questions—university organisation and. method of examination—has been finally disposed of; the changes have simply prevented the complete breakdown of the system. To many who have been interested in this problem it appears that the time has come when the difficulties can be met. effectively only by giving the colleges the status of universities.

If no restrictions were placed on the universities then set up the change might easily result in four very ineffective university institutions, for it is obvious that New Zealand cannot yet provide financially for four modern universities with all faculties and special schools. But this danger can be obviated by giving each of the new universities a charter that would restrict its activities within the limits of its academic effectiveness and its financial resources. Such a change would remove many pressing difficulties and would undoubtedly improve university education in New Zealand. Among many points the following may be mentioned:—

1.	It is not possible to have effective government of a university by a Senate that meets only once a year. The College Council—the new controlling authority—meets monthly and can have special meetings as required.
2.	Academic legislation requires more consideration than can be given by a Board of Studies that meets for five days once a year and a Senate that meets for ten days once a year.
3.	The vexed problem of examination would be solved because each of the new universities would have in the staffs of the other universities a fairly wide field from which to draw competent external examiners.page 10
4.	University education would have its whole spirit changed; it would become enlivened by a new enthusiasm; it would be dominated by the spirit of teaching and research, not by that of examination.
5.	Local interest in the university would be greatly stimulated. If the change were made it would be necessary to provide for a common matriculation examination and for an equitable arrangement of scholarships; but these problems could be easily solved by the new institutions.

The New Zealand University and its colleges have played a not unimportant part in the history of New Zealand, but has this country not reached the stage when we must carefully and thoroughly consider whether reorganisation along the lines indicated in this article is not necessary if we are to preserve the gains of the old system, and to be ready to exploit the newer conditions that are rapidly developing in this Dominion?

Graduate.