SIR, —Mr. A. P. Rossiter claims that I write from the
viewpoint of a " testy anachronism." I, however, believe that my four major points are commonly accepted. These were:
(1) That the dons, due to marriage, increased research work, and tutorial paper-work, are unable to devote as much time to the under- giaduate as they did in the past.
(2) That the degree courses have grown out of all recognition in the past twenty years.
(3) That the average undergraduate (horrible abstraction) has less background learning on his arrival at the University than formerly.
(4) That present grants are inadequate.
Mr. Rossiter only challenges me directly on the last of these. Although I realise that supplementary grants are available, it would seem evident from the concern expressed in responsible quarters, that they must be insufficient, either in number or amount.
I feel that the developments listed above are harmful to the character of Cambridge. I therefore made several suggestions which I hoped were constructive. I realised that they might, be criticised as impracticable or useless, but I did not expect to have them dis- missed as the particular grouses of the married undergraduate.
As Mr. Rossiter introduced this personal note, I must state that as I intend to make my career in Economics I would not advocate the General Honours Degree for personal reasons, but only because I feel that its introduction would benefit the university.—Yours
Previous page
