March 9, 1876] 



NATURE 



369 



be necessary for them to abolish in a nearly complete 

 manner the existing idle fellowships. 



In fact the term " Fellow " will cease to be the name for a 

 successful candidate in an examination, who, as a reward 

 for his success, receives for a longer or shorter period a 

 considerable income, and will become the title of one 

 engaged in University work. 



It must not, however, be lost sight of that the abolition 

 of idle fellowships is only valuable as a means to an end 

 — that end being the increased efficiency of the teaching 

 and research in the Universities. On this account it 

 becomes important to follow out the further changes 

 which will be entailed by the abolition of idle fellowships. 



On the abolition of these fellowships, all the colleges 

 will be in possession of a large income entirely available 

 for University purposes. A considerable part of this will 

 no doubt be at once employed for the buildings and other 

 permanent structures needed by the Universities, and will 

 be handed over to the Universities either in the form of a 

 yearly tax or a share of the college property. Of these two 

 methods of contribution the former appears on the whole 

 to be attended with the fewest inconveniences, and will 

 have the further advantage of suppljing at once an avail- 

 able income to the University. 



On the most extravagant estimate it seems clear that, 

 after all the requirements of the University for permanent 

 buildings, &c., have been satisfied, the available revenues 

 of the colleges will by no means be exhausted, but a con- 

 siderable sum A\-ill still be left to meet the urgent need of 

 fresh Fellows to carry on the work of the University. 



Ought the money intended for the payment of these 

 Fellows to be handed over to the University, or left in the 

 hands of the colleges ? Although some advantages might 

 accrue from handing over the money directly to the Uni- 

 versity, yet the proposal cannot be entertained. No 

 Conservative Government could thus despoil the colleges. 

 The opposition would be too great and not improbably 

 the whole scheme of reform might be ruined. If it 

 is admitted that the money is to remain in the hands of 

 the colleges, a further question arises as to the system 

 under which the new Fellows are to be elected. 



Is their election to be carried on by the colleges on the 

 old system, or to be more or less directly imder the con- 

 trol of the University ? We believe that the value of the 

 proposed reforms depends greatly upon the answer given 

 to these questions. 



In dealing with them in a practical way it is neither 

 possible nor desirable to overlook the fact that a collegiate 

 system of teaching exists. Were it proposed, while still 

 lea\dng the money in the hands of the colleges, to remove 

 the election of the Fellows completely from their control, 

 they would feel greatly aggrieved and would offer the 

 strongest opposition to the scheme. It certainly could 

 not be looked on as otherwise than a hardship for the 

 colleges, that they should have no voice in the election of 

 the men who were to form their governing body. 



It must not, however, be overlooked that so long as 

 Fellows are elected on the present system, a great increase 

 of efficiency in the teaching staff of the University cannot 

 be anticipated. 



The causes which render the present system unsatis- 

 factory are for the most part easily detected. In the first 

 place Fellows are not elected for their efficiency in teach- 

 ing or in research, but on account of their success in an 

 examination, a very unsatisfactory test either of their 

 powers of research or their powers of teaching. 



In the second place, the standard requisite to obtain a 

 fellowship, especially at Cambridge, is very different in 

 the various colleges. In some of the smaller colleges the 

 standard is very low, yet were the present system to be 

 continued, these colleges would go on appointing Fellows 

 totally incompetent for their University position. 



In the third place, the nature of the colleges as closed 

 corporations causes it frequently to happen that, after a 



man has been elected to a fellowship and continues to 

 reside, he is appointed to a lectureship in spite of 

 evident incompetency. In addition to these inherent 

 faults in the existing mode of election to fellowship, the 

 present system labours under great defects owing to the 

 absence of centralisation. So great are these defects, that 

 both Universities have recognised, and to a certain 

 extent attempted to cope with them. Cambridge has 

 done so by starting what is known as the " intercollegiate 

 system of lecture ; " a system which consists in the com- 

 bination of the greater number of the colleges for the 

 purpose of having common lectures open to the students 

 of all the combining colleges. Oxford possesses a some- 

 what similar system, including several combinations of 

 three or more colleges with the same objects as the one 

 combination at Cambridge. 



We cannot enter into the details of these systems, but 

 confine ourselves to pointing out that they are generally 

 recognised as very imperfect substitutes for a completely 

 centralised system. They contain no sufficient guarantee 

 for the efficiency of the teachers employed, and in the 

 case of subjects where the students are few, the very 

 existence of these systems interferes with the appoint- 

 ment of fresh lecturers, however incompetent the existing 

 lecturers may be ; and lastly they afford no help what- 

 ever to research. 



The past action of the Universities themselves, as well 

 as other considerations, indicate that the present system 

 of election to fellowships ought to be abandoned, and 

 a system involving greater centralisation substituted 

 for it. 



Though Lord Salisbury does not distinctly state that he 

 regards this centralisation as necessary, yet the general 

 tenor of his speech clearly indicates that he does so ; and 

 the very argument he has used against permitting the 

 colleges separately to reform themselves, applies equally 

 against their separate action in the election of Fellows. 



To meet the requirements of the University in the elec- 

 tion of Fellows, it is necessary to devise some system in 

 which a central board, directing and influencing the 

 elections, shall work in concert with the colleges in whom 

 the actual election must be vested. 



The function of the central board ought not only to be 

 the indication of the men to fill the fellowships, but also 

 the settlement of the branches of study in which teaching 

 or research is required. In the election of Fellows by a 

 college, no preference ought to be shown to a member of 

 the college, and the lectures of the Fellows ought to be 

 equally open to all the students of the University. In 

 such subjects as natural science, rooms ought to be 

 assigned to the Fellows in the University buildings. 



Whatever system of election of Fellows may ultimately 

 be found advisable, the colleges will necessarily be left 

 completely free to elect their Tutors, Bursars, Deans, and 

 other officers, and the election of a certain number of 

 Fellows for college teaching ought to be left in their 

 hands. 



The partial inefficiency of the present staff of Uni- 

 versity professors will probably be urged as an argument 

 against the centralisation of teaching in the University. 

 This inefficiency, so far as it exists, has mainly arisen 

 from its not being possible for men who have obtained a 

 University post to rise in their profession ; and we believe 

 that by instituting a series of grades, the highest of which 

 shall only be held by distinguished men, it will be pos- 

 sible to supply the stimulus as necessary for efficiency in 

 a University career as in all other professions. 



The efficiency ©f the Professoriate in the German 

 Universities appears to be mainly due to the existence of 

 this stimulus, and we may therefore hope that the pre- 

 sence of this alone is necessary in order to render the pro- 

 fessors in the English Universities as efficient as those in 

 the German ones. Promotion ought of course to be 

 granted for research as fully at least as for successful 



