Dusty Answer
SIR,-1 agree with all that Mr. Theobald says about the inadequacy of the " tutorial system " at Cambridge. When he argues the case for a " General Honours Degree " I feel bound to say that this would not further the sort of ideal which Lord Beveridge sees as the aim of the University. In particular it would rob a degree course at Cambridge in any one of the humanities of its particular value.
The major objection to the Cambridge system is that it allows the undergraduate " to specialise in a subject in which he is not particularly interested." The result of this process is to foster the development of the University towards the status of 'a "cramming school." Such is the condemnation.
In the first place, if the student is " not particularly interested," Mr. Theobald begs the question of whether he should be at a University at all. Or is it better for him to be " generally " but " not particularly " interested in several subjects ? More important it is vital to appreciate the fact that the " one subject system " operates in a direction quite opposed to the creation of " narrow specialists." As a way in which it adds to concentration and to discipline of mind Mr. Theobald admits the value of the single subject at least as a " valid objection " to the General Degree. In this lies part of the significance of the Cambridge method, time-worn as it may be. Most undergraduates have already acquired a G.C.E. at Advanced Level in about three subjects when they arrive at Cambridge, and by this time they ought to derive benefit from the chance of getting their teeth into one subject and relatively plenty of time in which to do it. More relevantly, instead of dissi- pating his mental energies among three subjects the undergraduate should be trained to direct them to certain problems and to marshal his facts in a coherent fashion. While it will be admitted that there are other quicker and cheaper methods of mind-training, the advantages of the Cambridge system do not stop there. It may be paradoxical to say so, but it is the " specialist " degree course which is more likely to produce a broad outlook and a finer appreciation of contemporary matters than the so-called " general " course.' The student who specialises, so far from " crawling about like a myopic ant " over his subject (as William James designated the Ph.D. hunter), in fact begins after a very short while to relate his subject to wider problems because of the very fact that he is studying it intently and with singleness of mind, and to see in it a hundred " jumping-off points for thought." The type of study which an undergraduate at Cambridge in the Modern Languages, English or History Faculties undergoes is particularly wide in its implications. To take but one instance, the third year under- graduate reading for the Historical Tripos must consciously be aware of the multitude of subjects upon which he may touch in the course of his reading—political theory, philosophy, psychology, sociology. He inevitably—if he is intellectually aware at all begins to relate his knowledge to contemporary and to eternal problems. He is educated in the sense that he can with Carlyle, " sit still and label his thoughts." Is this not nearer to the ideal of a Liberal Education as opposed to a merely utilitarian one which Lord Beveridge expressed when he suggested that the Universities should teach their members how " to
use freedom " 7—Yours faithfully, R. A. BIRCH.
(Downing College) 2 Deal Castle Road, Deal, Kent.
Previous page
