Bulletin Special Supplement Jun 1965

Boards of Studies w i th assigned tasks remitted to them by the Senate. The general procedural principles common to all subjects — e.g., timing of examinations, duties of external examiners and so forth �一 should be laid down by the Senate, as also th e formal conventions and procedures by which the University's genera l interests as a whole are safeguarded; for the rest, we would suggest that the detail of examinations — number, length and scope of papers, level of difficulty, incidence of examinations in the various programmes and so on �一 should be considered as an integral part of the search for op t i mum teaching methods . L6.13 For small-group teaching in particular, college responsibility is desirable. For forma l lectures, College responsibility should without doubt continue i n those subjects in which a College is unique or specially placed. But f r om the moment tha t the Colleges are brought close together on their new site, a new situation arises in respect of those areas in which University lectures become prominent. It will then be increasingly necessary that the syllabus for a course should be drawn up w i th the greatest care — not only in the interests of the students, but also to make it possible in non-laboratory subjects for small-group teaching by Colleges to make the most effective and relevant contribution. I f this is done, there need be little or no real loss of the helpful relationship between examinations and courses which may already characterise th e more intimate arrangements of the first and second year. I f a carefully drawn-up syllabus helps to avoid a gap between University lectures and College small-group teaching, it will also serve as a sufficient link between these elements of teaching and the examination which terminates the course. In laboratory subjects, wher e advanced practical work can be organised on a University basis, there need be even less risk of the examination becoming a hindrance rather than a help to good teaching. L6.14 I f examination results are the basis for the award of a Universit y degree, than it follows that the examinations are themselves an object of University responsibility. Universit y Boards of examiners must therefore exist to consider results; and it is logical that such boards should also have the task of initiating and approving the papers to be set, whether or not a given paper has been devise d by an examiner in connexion w i th the needs of a course taught only in one College. It is for the Universit y to decide on what basis examination boards should operate; whether they should group examiners in a whole Faculty, or in smaller appropriate groupings (e.g. physical sciences) but under all such arrangements it is to be assumed that every college department w i ll be represented. Our concern at the present momen t is not w i th these questions (though they are of grea t importance) so much as w i th the bearin g of examinations on the principles to be applied in the organisation of, and the work of teaching. Se c t i on 7: Ge n e r al Studies L7.1 The report of the Committee on Teaching Methods included an important section (paragraphs 25 to 28) on this subject; and although our business is primarily w i th teaching methods — it may at this point be appropriate to comment on th e matters raised in those paragraphs. Our discussions w i th colleagues over this matter have not been uniformly extensive; but we have heard various points of view advanced, in addition to those touched on by the Committee on Teaching Methods. L7.2 In the firs t place, we wish to state our view that programmes whethe r of one or of two years which extend over Humanities, Social Studies, and Natural Sciences are in no way exempt f r om the problems that arise in a programme based on — say General History of China, Introduction to Philosophy, Logic and Sociology, or on Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry. Indeed, it must be apparent that certain problems arise under all circumstances when a wide range of subjects is studied simultaneously. I n what follows, we refer mainly to the idea of common courses in Humanities, Social Studies and Natural Sciences, rather than to the more limited proposal mentioned by th e Committee in respect of Physics and Chemistry. L7.3 The first problem is, very simply, one of limitation of student time. I f it is possible, in any programme, for a student to acquire a critical understanding of the real core of the disciplines he is concerned with, even if the range of example s or material he works at is limited, then that programme is effective. I f this is not possible, then the student w i ll fall back on memorising his notes an d cramming for examinations; he w i ll not respond to the teacher's wish to instil in h im a lively and constructiv e interest in a subject for its own sake, and he will respond even less to the challenge over a broader or more "general" field. We have drawn attention to the need for care in existing programmes. The fact that a programme is made up in a different way, directed to an ideal of general studies, and comprises courses in Arts, Social Studies and Natural Sciences, makes no difference. A development o f this kind, therefore, is as liable as any other to lead to disappointing standards an d results if the quantity of material in the course is so great that a reasonable load of work is exceeded. L7.4 I f students, on coming to the University, have in their last years at school been studying a wide range of Arts and Natural Science subjects without specialisation, it is easier for them to continu e w i th a wide programme of General Studies in thei r early years than if they have at school concentrated on one set of topics to the detriment of others: in the latter case they w i ll have to undertake a larger amount of quite unfamiliar work at an elementary level, at a 40