February 6, 1908] 



NA TURE 



m 



the "pass" man), the tutor has not rendered the 

 " coach " superfluous. Elsewhere the teaching is 

 good of its kind. But since good teaching aims at 

 enabling every fool to appear a genius, it is not an 

 end in itself. The teacher's ideal therefore has to be 

 controlled by a higher, the examiner's. 



(3) These two functions are quite distinct. Thf 

 good examiner is not necessarily a good teacher, nor 

 ■nice versA. The excellence of the teacher lies m his 

 ability to instil knowledge and a desire for know- 

 ledge; that of the examiner is held to be the exposing 

 of ignorance and pretence. Experience has shown, 

 also, that competitive examinations are among those 

 aids to learning which appeal most forcibly to the 

 national character. They appeal strongly also to the 

 critical faculties of the academic man, and to the love 

 of power in a class which has naturally few occasions 

 for gratifying this instinct. It has been discovered 

 that though knowledge is power, yet the power ot 

 testing knowledge confers superior power. It is 

 possible to control all knowledge by conducting exam- 

 inations in it. This, therefore, is what we have set 

 ourselves to do, and the regular genesis of a new- 

 branch of study is, first an examination, then students, 

 and last of all the provision of teachers. This is dis- 

 tinctly suggestive of Looking-Glass Land, but to one 

 who has grasped the rationale of examinations it will 

 not be the paradox it seems. 



Now it need not be wholly denied that examination 

 has its uses. A certain amount thereof is necessary, 

 and even })eneficial to the soul of the examinee, pro- 

 moting in him a willingness and capacity to absorb 

 and reproduce teaching and to arrange his know- 

 ledge w'hich are very conducive to mental efficiency. 

 But the qualities which examination fosters and re- 

 wards are not the only qualities of value. Moreover, 

 the benefits to the soul of the examinee are offset bv 

 grave dangers to that of his examiner; for the ideal 

 examiner becomes one who is wholly devoted to the 

 exercise of his function, and wholly critical. He can 

 examine everything but produce nothing. 



When, therefore, for these and other reasons which 

 it would hardly be decorous to mention, a university 

 sets up an examination system, and gives it power 

 over the whole realm of knowledge, it runs a risk 

 of sacrificing to this idol all its other functions. 

 Teachers and taught alike are sacrificed to it at the 

 annual holocausts, the results of which are contem- 

 plated with such reverence that their fame clings tc 

 their victims throughout life, and forms an importani 

 factor in their subsequent success or failure. Hence 

 it is an ingenuous refinement of crueltv when pro- 

 fessors of eugenics argue statisticallv that there is a 

 " high degree of correlation " between success in 

 examination and in life. Does it not follow rather 

 that when a university conceives too great an ad- 

 miration for its examinalorial function, it will grow 

 a mental atmosphere which affects the national mind, 

 and is deadly to all its other ideals? The "perfect 

 gentleman " and the devotee of culture (mental or 

 physical) will be forced by the menace of examination 

 into undignified and banausic efforts to escape expul- 

 sion. The ideal of the perfect researcher will hardiv 

 be allowed to germinate; for such a universitv will 

 have as little use and real regard for researchers as 

 for " pass " men, 



(4) Yet the Laputan ideal of an academic life 

 of pure contemplation (or, in a more modern but 

 lowered version, of scientific productiveness), exempt 

 from the sordid duties of disciplining, teaching and 



. examining, is in some wavs the prettiest dream of 

 them all. It is a sad pity that ever since the davs of 

 pean Swift mankind has laughed at it. For there 

 is some good in the researcher's ideal, even though 



NO. 1997, VOL. yy] 



in its extreme form it is absurd. In practice no seat 

 of learning can be made up of professors who do not 

 teach, and exist only as objects of distant contempla- 

 tion by students fearful of perturbing their sacred 

 meditations. Neither the country, nor our purses, 

 nor our sense of humour, would stand it. Besides, it 

 is a psychological fact that a certain amount of teach- 

 ing is good for research, just as a certain amount 

 of research is good for teaching. The one helps to 

 clarifv the worker's exposition, just as the other helps 

 to imbue the teacher with a flavour of originality. 

 Whether a similar connection could be traced between 

 researching and examining seems more disputable. 



But there can be no doubt that at present Oxford 

 sets too low a value on research because it sets far 

 too high a value on examination. This sterilises re- 

 search both by the excessive selection of minds pos- 

 sessing the excellences of the examinee without 

 possessing those of the real student or of the scientific 

 originator, and by the enormous absorption of time 

 and mental energv which our vast masses of examin- 

 ing exact. The wonder is that with such a system 

 we produce anything at all. It is a still greater 

 wonder that, despite contrary assertions based on our 

 habits of self-depreciation, our scientific output, 

 taking it all in all, is not inferior in quality or 

 even in quantitv to that of any other academic insti- 

 tution in the world. The explanation lies in the ex- 

 cellence of our recruiting system. We make our- 

 selves so attractive that even the ablest will welcome 

 an opportunitv of joining our ranks. And then the 

 perversitv of human idiosvncrasy will divert some of 

 this surplus abilitv into researches which we tolerate 

 without encouraging. For genius, like murder, will 

 out. But with the high average of ability we have 

 in Oxford we could, and should, produce much more, 

 if onlv more value were put upon productiveness and 

 less store set bv criticism. 



Enough has been said, perhaps, to give an idea of 

 the root of the evil. But it is not so easy to suggest 

 remedies; for radical measures are Utopian, and 

 ignore the psvchological hold which the examination- 

 svstem has over the national character. But the fol- 

 lowing- suggestions at least seem w'holly practicable, 

 (i) In sorhe subjects, e.g. natural science (but not, 

 perhaps, in classics, mathematics, and philosophy), 

 the lead just given bv the modern historians might be 

 followed, and a research thesis be permitted to form 

 part of the undergraduate's examination. (2) Most 

 of the university prizes, &'C., should be awarded to the 

 best researcher rather than to the best examinee. 

 (3) There ought to be a great development of 

 graduate studv, and our teachers ought to be enabled, 

 and even required, to acquire a greater initial 

 superiority in knowledge over the taught than is com- 

 patible with a system under which most of them arc 

 appointed immediately after examination. It will be 

 a red-letter day when an Oxford college elects a 

 research student pure and simple, a mere B.Sc. or 

 B.Litt., to a fellowship. (4) Fellowship examinations 

 of the sort we now have ought to be abolished ; for 

 what is the use of deciding over again whether a man 

 possesses the qualities of a good examinee? A col- 

 lege should ascertain rather whether he possesses 

 also the capacity of working at his subject. And, as 

 we saw, he is not the less likely to make a good 

 teacher on this account. From this point of view it 

 is to be hoped that our new Chancellor will give us 

 at least an object-lesson in self-reform by inducing 

 an alteration in the .'\II Souls fellowship examina- 

 tion. (5) The university and the colleges should 

 largelv increase the inducements to their members 

 to proceed to " superior degrees " and to undertake 

 the researches which a doctorate ought to imply. M 



