University and Educational Intelligence

Abstract

CAMBRIDGE.—The Board of Natural Science Studies have recommended a new set of regulations for the Natural Sciences Tripos, to take effect as regards the first part of the examination, in the Easter Term of 1881, and as regards the second part in Easter Term of 1882. In effect it is intended to provide for a class list in general natural science honours in June each year, founded on aggregate knowledge shown by candidates in the first part of the examination, provided no credit is given in a subject unless the candidate has shown a competent knowledge of that subject. Each of the three classes is to be arranged in alphabetical order. The general arrangement of subjects and practical work has already been settled, but the details will no doubt invite attention. The working of Regulation 6 is rather curious. “In the first part of the examination there shall be a practical examination, either written or vivâ voce, or both, in such subjects as the Board of Natural Science Studies shall from time to time determine, provided that in all those subjects in which there is no such practical examination, one or more of the questions in the printed papers refer to objects exhibited at the examination.” Regulation 7 states that there is to be a practical examination either written or vivâ voce, or both, in each of the eight subjects of examination in the second part. Regulation 14 proposes that, in arranging the class-list for the second part of the examination, the examiners shall have regard to general knowledge and ability as well as to special proficiency in one or more subjects. No candidate shall obtain a first-class for proficiency in one subject unless he show a competent knowledge of some cognate subject. When Human Anatomy is taken as the principal subject, either Zoology and Comparative Anatomy, or Physiology, be taken as a necessary cognate subject. Regulation 15 includes the following:—In each case of giving a first-class in the second part of the examination, the examiners shall specify the subjects for which the candidate is so placed, or the reason for specially distinguishing him.—A discussion in the Arts School on the proposed regulations for the Natural Sciences Tripos (on October 31), was opened by Mr. Sedley Taylor expressing great doubts about the desirability of giving such a prominent place to human anatomy in an honours examination. He read to those present the opinions of three eminent physiologists and anatomists specially obtained by himself on this point, and they Were, on the whole, against the proposed regulation as unnecessary, if human anatomy were to be taught in the only way in which it could fairly enter into the Tripos, for its general and not its professional value, while usually the memory work involved was enormous, and such as to be of quite technical character. Dr. Humphry strongly supported the regulations and the distribution of subjects, as a method of aiding in preserving a scientific study of human anatomy. Dr. Paget dissented strongly from this view, not as a means of discouraging the study of anatomy, but to lessen the. strain of constant change by questions which went to the root of the matter. He believed no sufficient settlement could be expected unless or until the Tripos was divided into two—biological and non-biological; it was unwieldy and unmanageable in its present state. Surely it was not impossible to frame some division of subjects which might secure this and be found workable. Mr. Balfour did not agree with the way in which human anatomy was regarded as so far apart from the anatomy of all other animals as to gain such distinctive marks, while no such division was made in physiology. Mr. Trotter thought it would be quite impracticable to enter upon the discussion of the Tripos at present, and that it would be impossible to divide the subjects into biological and non-biological. The geologists would object. Mr. J. N. Langley testified to the difficulty men often found in choosing or combining their subjects. Mr. Bettany strongly supported Dr. Paget's projected division of the Tripos into two, but with this difference, that men who gained a degree in the first part of the Tripos, as now proposed, in the “comparatively elementary” parts of the subjects, should be allowed to gain their final class in either biological or non-biological subjects, without such complex and often-uncertain or vague regulations to puzzle candidates.