4?§ 



NATURE 



[June 17, 1920 



is not a remote possibility is becoming- sufficiently 

 obvious to those who are watching the present 

 trend of University affairs. A teacher does not 

 enter on his career in the hope of amassing riches. 

 With such an ambition the teaching profession is 

 among the last to which he would resort. De- 

 barred from the financial prizes possible to a busi- 

 ness career, he has the right to expect emolu- 

 ments which will enable him to live decently and 

 to move in a social circle to which his education 

 and training entitle him. This is especially true of 

 the University teacher. 



, .Now, as a matter of fact, the stipends of Uni- 

 versity teachers in this country at the present time, 

 partjcular,ly in the non-professorial staff, do not 

 confpriB to this standard, but fall miserably short 

 of it;. , A large proportion of assistant lecturers 

 and demonstrators, full-time teachers, receive no 

 more, ^nd some much less, than 250L a year — a 

 salary or wage which, under present conditions, 

 would, ibe accepted by no self-respecting mason or 

 miner. The grade of lecturer, comprising as it 

 does a great number of men and women who can 

 never hope to attain professorial rank, however 

 well qualified for it by ability and experience, fares 

 little better. The average salary of this class 

 ranks somewhere near 400Z. a year, and one may 

 take it that the pre-war value of this sum is 

 approximately equal to 200I. a year. If the aver- 

 *age rate of remuneration of such posts remains 

 at these figures, it requires no gift of prophecy to 

 predict that the flow of talent to the teaching 

 staffs of the Universities and University colleges 

 will inevitably be checked. 



The question of the remuneration of the non- 

 professorial element is most important. The num- 

 bers are great, the aggregate hardships intoler- 

 able. But the stipends of professors as a whole 

 also show little relation to the emoluments in 

 corresponding positions outside the University. 

 A large ; number of professors receive less than 

 800L a year, and considerably more than 80 per 

 cent^ less than the professorial salary indicated by 

 the Association of University Teachers as a mini- 

 mum — viz. iiooZ. a year. Obviously, again, the 

 gift of prophecy need not be conjured up to pre- 

 dict the result. Already the professorial ranks have 

 been, and are being, depleted by the superior in- 

 ducements offered in industrial, scientific, and com- 

 mercial business organisations. It is futile to 

 argue that public benefactions should make good 

 these pressing needs. One cannot dragoon public 

 benefactions. It is too much to expect the local 

 authorities and the students to make good the 

 NO. 2642, VOL. 105] 



deficiencies. Generally speaking, both contribute 

 reasonable proportions. The matter is a State 

 affair, and the State must implement to the full its 

 responsibilities. 



The present position regarding superannuation 

 is very unsatisfactory. As a general principle, it 

 may be laid down that anything which restricts 

 the field from which the University recruits its 

 staff is inimical to University interests, and hence, 

 in the long run, to education in general. Now the 

 effect of the School Teachers (Superannuation) 

 Act, 1918, is to restrict this field. Any school 

 teacher eligible for its benefits cannot accept an 

 appointment in a University without sacrificing 

 pension rights, in whole or in part. Thus it inter- 

 poses a barrier — in some cases insurmountable— 

 between the University on one hand, and the 

 technical colleges, the training colleges outside 

 the University, and the schools on the other. The 

 free transfer of teachers to the University is ham- 

 pered. Already cases are on record of candidates 

 refusing University appointments on finding that 

 acceptance would entail a loss of pension benefits 

 •accruing from the Act. It would be most unfor- 

 tunate if service in schools — a most useful experi- 

 ence for a future University teacher — is to be a 

 bar to later service in the University. 



Another effect of the Act is to draw an invidious 

 distinction between existing University teachers 

 and other teachers. Ninety-five per cent, of the 

 whole teaching profession are now eligible for 

 pension benefits incomparably superior to any 

 previous teachers' scheme; while 5 per cent., the 

 University teachers, are excluded, and excluded 

 without any compensation. The position is 

 illogical, unjustifiable, and detrimental to educa- 

 tion. One or two illustrations will make this clear. 

 In the University of London some schools of the 

 University come within the provisions of the Act; 

 the rest do not. Thus transfers from one school 

 to another within the same University are made 

 difficult or even impossible. The principal of the 

 Government School of Art attached to a certain 

 University college is said to be the only principal 

 of such a school who is not qualified under the 

 Act — this solely because his school forms part of 

 the University college. In other districts neigh- 

 bouring institutions engaged in the training of 

 teachers are distinguished from one another in the 

 matter of superannuation, because one forms a 

 department of a University and the other does 

 not. This is in spite of the fact that the two 

 institutions are doing the same kind of work, for 

 the same purpose, under the same authority (the 



