286 



NATURE 



[Feb. lo, 1876 



this possible, and I for one cannot believe it until I know 

 whether the conflict between the two professors may not be 

 explained by differences in the conditions under which they 

 worked. 



We all know how fully Professor Tyndall's time is occu- 

 pied, but I hope it is not too much to ask him, in the in- 

 terests of science and for our instruction, to add to the scientific 

 value of his experiments on hermetically sealed flasks by pub- 

 lishing the details, so as to enable us to compare them 

 with the careful account which Prof. Sanderson gives of his, 

 and to judge whether we ought to trust the one or the other or — 

 what would be the more agreeable, and I cannot help thinking 

 the more likely, consequence — to trust them both in this as we 

 have done in so many previous investigations. 



Inquirer 



The University of London and School Examinations 



Having given some assistance to the preparation of the Report 

 referred to in your leader of the 3rd inst., I shall be glad if you 

 will allow me to correct the somewhat erroneous impression 

 which I fear your article is likely to produce. 



It was with some surprise that I found the Report of the Sub- 

 committee of the Convocation of the University of London forming 

 the subject of an editorial notice, seeing that, as yet, it is private 

 matter printed only for circulation among the members of the 

 University. At the recent meeting of Convocation I endeavoured 

 to explain the position which the Annual Committee occupied 

 with respect to this Report ; and from the absence of all reference 

 to the subject in the notices of the meeting which appeared in 

 the dailypapers, I had reason to think that I had succeeded in show- 

 ing why the matter was not yet ripe for publication. In answer 

 therefore to your query : ' ' But is it easy to speak with reason- 

 able seriousness of an attitude like that which the Annual Com- 

 mittee has adopted ? " I need now only state, with respect to 

 the Report, that it is not yet adopted by Convocation nor by the 

 Annual Committee. 



But I am inclined to think that you have lacked the opportu- 

 nity of carefully studying the proposals of the Sub-Committee, 

 or you would not have found it necessary to speak of them in 

 terms of "irony" or "levity." 



Your article suggests that the University of London has been 

 asked to adopt a scheme for the examination of schools with no 

 higher motive than that of " entangling schoolboys in its meshes," 

 and of withdrawing them from the influence of the other Uni- 

 versities ; and to establish this position you quote a passage from 

 one of the paragraphs of the Report, in which, inter aha, it is 

 stated that unless the University of London is prepared to take 

 some part in the examination of schools ' ' the number of candidates 

 for the London examinations will sensibly decrease,^' which last 

 words you have printed in italics, although in the Report itself 

 no such prominence is given to them. It is quite true that the 

 graduates of Burlington Gardens consider that the influence which 

 their examinations exert on education is, on the whole, beneficial. 

 They are consequently desirous that that influence should if pos- 

 sible be extended, and would view with regret, as the Report 

 suggests, any cause that might tend to dissociate from the Uni- 

 versity of London those schools which hitherto had acted as 

 feeders to it. But is it quite fair to characterise this honest en- 

 deavour to improve school-teaching as an attempt to entangle 

 schoolboys within the meshes of the Uni'nersity ? 



Your article further states that the Annual Committee have not 

 a word to say as to the efficiency of the work in which the 

 ancient Universities have for many years been successfully 

 engaged. Indeed they have : but it is not likely to be found in 

 the Report of the Sub-committeet The several weighty reasons 

 which have induced Convocation to request the Senate to under- 

 take the examination and inspection of schools have been 

 repeatedly and fully discussed by Convocation and its Com- 

 mittee ; and the result of these discussions has been the appoint- 

 ment of a Sub-committee for the purpose of suggesting what 

 might seem to them the best and most comprehensive system of 

 examination. Nothing would be easier, in reply to your article, 

 than to show how the proposals embodied in the Report of the 

 Sub-committee, if ultimately adopted by the Senate, would tend 

 to the improvement of secondary education, and would entitle 

 the University of London to receive that "debt of gratitude" 

 which you say "the nation would owe it," if it undertook in 

 good faith to offer to schools a better system of examination 

 than they at present possess. But I am not at liberty to publish 

 the contents of a Report which is at present nothing more than a 



series of recommendations which the Annual Committee have 

 accepted as the basis of conference between Convocation and the 

 Senate. I may, however, be permitted to refer to one important 

 feature in that Report which I might have expected would have 

 gained for it the support of a scientific journal such as Nature 

 — that in the examinations for certificates the same weight is 

 given to Science as to Languages and Mathematics. If the Uni- 

 versity of London should determine to undertake the new duties 

 to which the Report refers, many schools would be enabled to 

 choose between two systems of eximination differing in many 

 essential particulars from each other; but what is more im- 

 portant is the fact that the scheme of the University of London 

 would cover a far wider range of schools Uian is included within 

 that of the Joint-Board of Oxford and Cambridge ; and that 

 those schools which stand most in need of careful inspection 

 would, for the first time, have the opportunity of being affiliated 

 to a University. 



In conclusion, permit me to add, that so far from desiring to 

 compete with the older Universities, the Senate of the University 

 of London expressed a strong desire to co- operate with Oxford 

 and Cambridge in their great educational work ; and it was not 

 till after the Joint-Board had given reasons why they were unable 

 to act in conjunction with London, that independent action was 

 even suggested. Philip Magnus 



Feb. 5 



Will you spare me a few lines of space to reply to your first 

 article of Thursday list? A portion of that article was directed 

 against examinations in general, and would apply to the Oxford 

 and Cambridge scheme, as well as to that put forward by our 

 Sub-committee ; far more so, in fact, as an important part of our 

 scheme relates to inspection of methods of teaching, school- 

 books, &c., which is not included in the conjoint scheme of the 

 older Universities. Our object is to improve the education given 

 in schools other than primary ; and if the author of your article 

 will suggest any method besides examination and inspection by 

 which this may be effected, we will gladly give it our earnest 

 consideration. 



Oar Report was drawn up for the" Annual Committee of Convoca- 

 tion, and not for the outside world. It was not necessary for us 

 to inform Convocation that the University of London has a tradi- 

 tion and principles of its own, principles distinct from, and some- 

 times antagonistic to those of Oxford and Cambridge. Among 

 these traditional principles are, firstly, that all education ought 

 to be many-sided, and not solely either mathematical or classical, 

 and secondly, that Science ought to hold a place co-ordinate with 

 Language and Mathematics. ?It was not necessary for us to point 

 out to Convocation that if the number of candidates for the 

 London eximination? were sensibly to decrease, these two prin- 

 ciples would have a diminished influence upon the education of 

 the country, for there is in Convocation a strong attachment to 

 these principles, and a vivid appreciation of the raison d'etre of the 

 University. Neither was it necessary for us to state what we 

 thought the deficiencies of the Oxford and Cambridge Local 

 Examinations. It was upon the ground that these examinations 

 tended to become too much "an end instead of a means " that 

 we were commissioned by Convocation to draw up a scheme, 

 under which we should rather inquire whether the schools have 

 done well what they profess to have done than dictate to them 

 what course of studies they should pursue. A careful comparison 

 of our scheme with that of the Conjoint Board will mike the 

 divergence of aim apparent. 



And now we are advised to admit that we have no inlepen- 

 dent mission as a University, and to stand by to see whether or 

 not the older Universities will do our work, on the ground that it 

 would be a "more dignified course." Dignity and usefulness 

 often appear to stand in inverse relation one to the other. The 

 University does not exist for the sake of being dignified, but of 

 doing work ; and the scheme we have elaborated will, if carried 

 out, do work not even proposed by the Conjoint Board. That 

 Board is intended to deal only with such schools for boys as have 

 a governing body, whereas our scheme includes " private adven- 

 ture " schools both for boys and for girls. 



Fmally, I may be allowed to express my surprise that Nature 

 should desire the one University which gives Science its true posi- 

 tion to stand aside, and should characterise ou" wish to assert 

 and to spread its distinctive principles as ' ' cynical." 



Hampstead, Feb. 5 H. A. Nesbitt 



[The Convocation of the University of London is a very large 

 body, and its proceedings, are reported in the daily papers. A 



