UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Publications

The President's Report 1956-1957 1958

Item Metadata


JSON: presrep-1.0115188.json
JSON-LD: presrep-1.0115188-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): presrep-1.0115188-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: presrep-1.0115188-rdf.json
Turtle: presrep-1.0115188-turtle.txt
N-Triples: presrep-1.0115188-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: presrep-1.0115188-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Array  THE
1958  To the Board of Governors and Senate of
The University of British Columbia
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Two events made 1957 a most important year for Canadian
universities. The Federal Government passed legislation creating
and endowing the Canada Council, thereby recognizing responsibilities in higher education and in the arts, the humanities and the
social sciences. And the Soviet Union launched the earth satellite
Sputnik. Inevitably both events will influence our universities.
The first, in my opinion, can do nothing but good. Hasty conclusions about the second, however, could do us serious harm. I
have thought it worthwhile, therefore, in this annual report to
consider some of the implications of Sputnik for Canadian
I should like to report my satisfaction with the way all faculties
are developing and record my appreciation of the work of the
staff. We have many reasons to be proud of their contributions to
knowledge, their teaching, and their devotion and loyalty. Expansion inevitably brings problems, and for us it has frequently
involved additional responsibilities and some personal sacrifice.
President President's Report
September 1956 to August 1957
Education in a Satellite World
In recent years we have seen a welcome interest in education
and in the problems facing schools and universities. The public is
beginning to realize that the tremendous increase in the number
of children is bringing innumerable difficulties to educators.
Public interest has been revealed by numerous articles in the press,
by discussions in Parent-Teacher Associations and on radio and
television, and by the controversy over such books as So Little for
the Mind. The Soviet achievement in launching earth satellites
has aroused still more interest in education and has given an unprecedented hearing to those who felt that something was wrong
with our system of education. We have been inundated with
information about Soviet education and with suggestions as to
what we should do with our schools and universities. The first
reaction to Sputnik was that we should make drastic changes in
our educational system, and it is with that reaction in mind that
I should like to consider the implications of Sputnik for our
schools and universities.
First, let us grasp that the Soviet successes in science and
technology do not come solely from the Russian educational
system. In large part they are the result of a government which
has directed a substantial part of the country's economy—materials
and manpower—into education and into scientific research and
development. The magnificent indexing, abstracting and translation facilities in Russian, for example, are services which our
governments, or our industries, could have set up, quite independent of our educational system. Secondly, it should be made
clear that there is no necessity for an unconsidered abandonment
of our own system and its values. The Soviet Union is not yet
ahead of the West in all branches of science. Undoubtedly, how- ever, it will overtake us soon unless we rediscover the respect for
knowledge that we once had, and unless we put considerably more
money into education than we do now.
Having made those two points, I may say that I heartily agree
with all those who have interpreted the Russian successes as
meaning that we must give more of our young people a more
thorough education than we have been doing. I have been dismayed, however, by much of the reaction to Sputnik. Some of it
reveals much more about our society than it does about the means
by which the Russians achieved their technological advances. The
air of surprise, bewilderment—even resentment against our own
scientists—in some comments, shows only too clearly what has
been the attitude of large sections of our society to our own
scholars. There was no excuse whatsoever for any so-called
educated man to be surprised at the Soviet achievement. Our own
scientists and industrialists had repeatedly warned us of the rapid
advance of Soviet science and of the speed with which Soviet
scientists were overtaking us. In 1956 the Soviet Union had
announced that it was launching a satellite for the International
Geophysical Year; our journals had reported the announcement,
and our scientists had taken it seriously. If anyone was surprised,
he reveals a lack of knowledge of, and respect for, our own
scholars. If we do not start listening to our scholars, we can look
forward to a succession of "surprises" from the Soviet Union.
And if we do not act on the warnings of those scholars—and
action will cost money—we shall richly deserve whatever
"surprises" we suffer.
I was even more dismayed by the reaction, only too common
in academic circles^ that took the form of an attempt to find a
scapegoat for our weaknesses, that attempted to blame all the
failings of our educational system on teacher training institutions.
Democratic societies get the schools, teachers, and systems of
education they want and deserve. We have for years underpaid,
undertrained, and overworked our teachers. Teachers who were
"too well-qualified" found it difficult to get jobs because school-
boards, backed by the public, did not want to pay the extra
salary deserved by extra training. The public, for example, agreed
to one year teacher training programmes with much less protest than the educators. It is undoubtedly true that the teaching profession in recent years has not attracted enough of our best
students, but the reason is to be found primarily in our society.
We did not show that we wanted the best students as teachers—
show them by paying them well and by providing them with the
teaching conditions in which they could be effective. If anyone
is responsible for our failure to keep up with the Russians in
education, it is the public and the various levels of government.
If we must blame someone, let us be sure that we put the blame
where it belongs. If we do not, we shall not take the right
measures to correct our deficiencies. We could "reform" our
teacher training courses, our school curricula, and our philosophy
of education as many times as we liked, but without a change of
attitude towards education on the part of the public, we should
be wasting our time. The deficiencies—and the virtues—of our
schools, teachers, and universities are those of our society. If we
want to change education, we must change ourselves. Finally,
before I leave the subject of teacher training, may I again remind
everyone that in this University the students in the Faculty and
College of Education receive their academic courses from other
faculties in the University, primarily from the Faculty of Arts
and Science. If they have not mastered the subject matter they are
supposed to teach, the academic faculty must at least share the
blame. Unfortunately many schools employ people as teachers of
English, for example, who were not trained in English at the
University, but that is the fault of the public. I do not imply that
the College of Education is perfect. No one is more aware of its
deficiencies than its own faculty, but I am tired of hearing educationalists made the scapegoats for all the sins of our world.
One other major kind of reaction to Sputnik merits comment.
A number of people have tried to use the Russian success as a
stick to beat old and worn out drums. We have been told that
as a result of Sputnik our children should start school earlier,
should receive corporal punishment, or should specialize earlier.
We have heard that we must cut out such "frill" courses as painting, music, handicrafts, and hygiene and personal development.
We have been exhorted to give up co-education, to revive the
nineteenth century "classical" education, and to reduce the pro- portion of our students who go to high school and university.
It may be that one or more of these panaceas would work, though
I doubt it, but let no one attempt to impose them on us by appealing to the example of the Soviet Union. Even were it expedient for
us to follow its example, that example would not lead us to any
of the above "remedies". According to a recent study of Russian
education published by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,* Russian children start school a year later
than ours (two years later than children in Britain); they do not
receive corporal punishment, and they specialize later than our
children. They spend a considerable portion of their time on
some of the so-called frill courses, and their schools are coeducational. And they have more students, proportionately, in
institutions of higher education than we do. We must not let ourselves be stampeded into hasty "reforms" or returns to past
practice by those who are emotionally reluctant to live in the
twentieth century.
What, then, is the truth about Soviet education? And what
should we learn from it? It is generally agreed that the Russian
High School graduate knows more mathematics, physics, chemistry,
biology, more about the literature, history and culture of his own
society, and far more of foreign languages than does a graduate
of our high schools. Moreover, he will know more about more
subjects since he is expected to carry all subjects through high
school and not begin to specialize till university. The reasons for
this superiority are not in any way mysterious. On the contrary,
they are so brutally simple that I can only explain anyone's
failure to grasp them by assuming that he does not want to grasp
them, that he will not face their implications. Essentially the
Russian system differs from ours in four ways:
(1) Soviet Russia has put a far greater proportion of its
economy into education than we have.
(2) In the Soviet Union success in education is rewarded
very well.
* Education In The USSR, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Division of International Education, Bulletin 1957, No. 14.
Unless otherwise specified, all of my factual information about Soviet
education is derived from this comprehensive and reliable report. (3) Education is respected throughout Soviet society.
(4) The Soviet attitude, or at least policy, toward hard
work differs from our own.
It is as simple as that. If we look for the immediate causes of
the difference between Russian students and our own, we find
them in teacher-pupil ratios, in the number of hours teachers are
expected to teach, and in the amount of hard work that the
students are expected to do and must do. The Soviet Union has
persistently lowered the teacher-pupil ratio in its schools, so that
where it was 33 : 1 in 1927-28, it is 17 : 1 in 1955-56. In British
Columbia, it is now more than 30 : 1 and in the U.S.A. it is 26.9
: 1.* The American report does not give the teaching load in
Russian schools, but a recent press report maintained that teachers
in Soviet secondary schools spend only 18 hours a week actually
teaching. The rest of their time they are expected—and able—to
spend on preparation, on marking, on helping individual students
and on keeping up with new developments in their subjects. Our
secondary school teachers frequently teach 30 hours a week and
are expected to supervise many extra-curricular activities as well.
If we turn our attention to their students, we find that their
gifted children have their schooling supervised by specially
trained—and paid—teachers, with help from near-by universities.
Once they get to university, they spend ten months of the year on
their studies and then enjoy holidays, whereas our university
students spend seven months and then have to work in the
summers, frequently at jobs that do nothing to help their studies.
What can we learn from the Soviet Union about education?
Primarily, I think, the importance they attach to it, and the amount
they are willing to pay for it. We cannot import their system as it
is. Schools must be indigenous. For better or worse, they reflect
the society of which they are a part. If we do decide that we want
to change our system, we will have to do it by changing our society,
* Comparative statistics of this kind for countries are large and diverse
as the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. are never more than approximations. We
can say definitely that in B.C. government grants are given on the basis
of a ratio of 40 : 1 for elementary schools and 30 : 1 for secondary
schools. This ratio is not always achieved of course. not by trying to transplant a foreign system, torn from its social
context. And if we do want a change, I suggest that we begin by
considering what we think education is worth, what, in other
words, we are prepared to pay for it, and what respect we are
prepared to accord it.
We must realize that we must make some decisions and that
decisions involve accepting particular priorities. Do we want
more teachers or more motor cars, better education for our
children (and thus a better future for us all) or lower school
costs? These may not be the only, or the particular, alternatives
involved, but we can be sure that some alternatives are. We cannot go along blithely and blindly with the assumption that things
will look after themselves, that there is some automatic adjusting
mechanism at work excusing us from the human responsibility—
and human dignity—of making decisions. Ultimately these decisions are political and social, and no one in a democratic society
like ours can make them effectively but the public. It may be that
the universities will have to learn how to use the mass media
much more effectively than they do now in order that they may
help to provide the public with the necessary information on which
to make decisions. We are a long way behind the British example
which can make an academic philosopher, Professor A. J. Ayer,
one of the year's television stars, without in any way making him
condescend to his public.
Teachers, school administrators and universities can do their
best within the limits approved by society, but they are powerless
without the support of the public. Let me give you two examples.
We need more scientists and technologists. It is estimated that we
shall produce only one twentieth of our needs in the next ten years.
To get the students we need, at the level of attainment we need,
we should have more, better and harder science courses in the
schools. Some people propose that we make the courses harder by
refusing admittance to those who do not keep up with extra work.
That may very well be, but what is to be the spur to the borderline student when it is those who are forced to leave school who
enjoy high wages, cars, and the prestige of fellow teenagers. Perhaps the student who leaves will realize later that he has made a
mistake, but that is of little use to him, or to us. Restricted ad-
6 mission is only effective in raising standards of work in the long
run when students passionately want to be admitted. And they
only want to be admitted in that way when society respects them,
and rewards them. Similarly, we need good science teachers—even
more desperately than we need students at the moment, but we
shall get them only when we provide them with the conditions
under which they may work effectively. One of our graduates,
a man who liked teaching and had taken first class honours in
mathematics and physics, followed by an M.A. in English, and a
first in teacher training, left the teaching profession after only
two years because he had to teach so many hours a week that he
was unable, in his own opinion, to give the students the attention
he felt they deserved. A senior science teacher in a good English
grammar school teaches about fifteen hours a week. When we
let our teachers do the same, we shall be justified in asking that
they get the same results. Until then ? We get what we pay for.
It may be argued that we cannot afford to spend more on
education, that we already have difficulty providing money for
schools and teachers. That is convenient self-delusion. In our
society 'affording' is a matter of choice. A man says that he cannot 'afford' five dollars for a book, but he frequently 'affords'
the same amount for a bottle of whisky. He says that he cannot
afford more for schools, but he drives a $3,000 car. When people
say that they cannot afford more for education, they mean that
they value some other things more, and that they choose to spend
their money on other things. A particular man may choose a better
house; a municipality may choose better roads, street lighting, or
garbage disposal; a province may choose more hospitals, or—
ironically—more prisons; and a country may choose more social
security or more armaments. But there is always a choice. To say
that we cannot afford more for education—in a country with one
of the highest standards of living in the world—is just not true.
At this point in our history, the choice as far as education is concerned is clear and simple. Do we allow ourselves to drop behind
other more dedicated nations or not? And if we are prepared to
drop behind others, are we willing to see the demands of our own
economy go unmet? As I pointed out last year, this is not only a
matter of competing with others; it is also, perhaps even more importantly, one of satisfying our own best needs and interests.
Since our whole future may depend on our making the right
choices, I would urge that we avoid the errors I have been discussing—imagining that we can salve our consciences and save our
pockets by making "scapegoats", or that we can implement some
hackneyed panacea.
If we are given the money we need, however, what should the
University do about Sputnik ? Should we encourage more students
to study the sciences? Should we reduce the attention now given
to the humanities, the social sciences and the arts, both in the
university as a whole and for the science student in particular?
Should we encourage students to specialize much earlier than they
now do ? Personally, I do not think that we should do any of these
things. Certainly the Soviet Union has not achieved its success by
these means. Soviet students, including science students, spend
more time on languages, history, literature and philosophy than
ours do. Admittedly, their philosophy is a variety of materialism
that we would reject as the answer to all philosophic problems, but
it is philosophy, a subject with which the vast majority of our
students never come in contact. The Russian work in the
humanities is not insignificant either in quantity or in quality, and
it is growing at much the same rate as Russian science.
More important than what they do in the Soviet Union, however, is what we should do in our own interests. I do not believe
that the University should guide students into science, or that it
should direct the distribution of students into particular studies.
If an overall plan for the distribution of students must be made,
it should be made by responsible government, and carried out by
means of the traditional mechanisms in our society—scholarships
and jobs. I do not wish us to wash our hands in respect of this
matter, but I believe that the university has a different responsibility, that of maintaining, advancing, and disseminating knowledge wherever it can. The role of the university is to cherish,
pursue and protect all those studies that its scholars think worthwhile. Were we to take on the responsibility of directing students
into particular studies, we should not only be arrogating to ourselves something that should lie with our society as represented
by its elected government or its various, industries, but we should also be betraying our historic role of preserving what is important
in spite of all of the external pressures of expediency. During the
last war, for example, considerable pressure was exerted upon the
universities to abandon the humanities and the social sciences 'for
the time being' and devote themselves entirely to the production
of students who could be "technically" useful to the war effort.
I opposed that policy then, just as I would oppose a similar policy
now. The postwar world could have used far more humanists and
social scientists than it had. The present international situation did
not arise from new weapons alone. The weapons are only symptoms of the tensions between the various powers, tensions which
develop from failures in the relationships between nations,
frequently failures of understanding or communication. And it is
precisely in those areas that the humanities and the social sciences
can play an important part. A new weapon will not bring peaceful
relations; a new philosophy or a new understanding of past
conflicts may.
A refusal to jettison the arts, humanities and social sciences
implies a refusal to accept earlier specialization. Great Britain has
long provided the example of the earliest specialization in the
world. Students there may begin to specialize as young as fifteen.
Far from being happy with this situation, however, an increasing
number of British scientists and educators is protesting vehemently
against it. The new University of North Staffordshire has been
organized in such a way as to attempt to make up for the deficiencies brought about by too early specialization, and other
universities are considering ways of tackling the same problem.
More and more we are coming to see the values of a thorough
education in a wide variety of subjects before specialization, values
both to scholarship and to the individual. The common complaint
that scholars in different studies can no longer talk to one another
comes in part from too early specialization. Too often the specialist
in the humanities is a barbarian in science or mathematics, just as,
though perhaps less frequently, the scientist can be a barbarian in
the humanities—and that means a barbarian among men.
The need for humane studies, both in themselves and for
scientists and professional men, is greater than it ever was. In
international affairs and in a world where we have already reached the point where we can annihilate ourselves, the problems that we
face will certainly not be solved by better and better weapons in
the hands of opposing armed nations. They will be solved by a
better understanding of men, by diplomacy, and—as far as we are
concerned—by a public educated and enlightened enough to support that diplomacy. Until that solution appears, our governments
must continue to arm, and to develop weapons against the idiotic
possibility of war, but our only hope of a longterm peace comes
not from better weapons, but from humane agreement between
men and nations.
And for the individual, too, the need for humane and artistic
studies grows. As science and technology give us more and more
leisure, it becomes more and more important that we can use that
leisure wisely and profitably—on the best and most satisfying of
man's works. Already too many of our people are passive receptors
of the inanities of mass entertainment. We do not want to see a
future in which the majority of the population is kept happy by a
modern equivalent of bread and circuses, while a few make all the
necessary decisions for them. And the few who inevitably plan
and run the automated marvels of the future will need the arts
and humanities as well. A scientist is a man like other men. He,
too, must face the problems either of celibacy or of marriage. He,
too, must live with and understand many different kinds of people.
He, too, must know himself if he is to harvest the potential of his
personality. And given the power that the scientist will inevitably
have in the future, it is perhaps more important for him to have
an all-round education than for anyone else. An important and
powerful scientist whose attitudes to the world stem from all that
is worst in mass culture, from the stereotyped characters of pulp
fiction and bad films, will be dangerous beyond our imaginings.
It was bad enough in the past that a general commanding an army
or an industrialist ruling a manufacturing empire could arrogantly
rejoice that he had no use for education, but it could be far worse
in the future. We have finally learned that typhoid or small pox
in the slums is a danger to us all. Ignorance, wherever it is, can
be as dangerous as either of these. In a democratic society one
informed voter is balanced by one ignorant voter. If there is one
more ignorant vote in the final count, then ignorance, prejudice,
10 and intolerance may decide the issues at hand.
Before I leave the matter of education in the humanities for
the scientist, and vice versa, I should like to bring to your attention another serious problem, one that has attracted considerable
interest in Britain and in scientific circles here. According to a
number of different methods of calculation—all of which give
roughly the same result—the growth of science over the last two
hundred and fifty years has been exponential. Science has doubled
its size every ten years. There is no doubt whatsoever that we cannot continue to expand at this rate. Already, as everyone knows,
we are short of scientists. We might put off by a few years the
inevitable time when an absolute shortage of scientific manpower
must limit scientific activity, but sooner or later we must face the
fact that science cannot continue to expand—as it has done—in
all directions at once. We shall be forced, that is to say, to decide
which branches of science we want to develop most, which
problems we want to tackle first. It is essential, and herein lies the
relevance of my point, that those faced with the responsibility of
making these decisions be humane scientists or humanists with an
understanding of science; essential that they be at home in both
the sciences and the humanities—in the sciences for obvious
reasons, and in the humanities because their decisions will have to
be influenced by beliefs in what is good for man. Many of the
decisions will be, in effect, moral and philosophic decisions. Shall
we devote research to a disease that kills x people per year, to the
problems of population control, to better transportation, to mental
health, or to earth satellites? These are ultimately moral and
humane questions rather than scientific ones. But the decisions
will have to be made in the light of scientific possibility as well,
by the selection of those subjects of research in which what the
scientists call a 'break-through is possible. We have at best a very
few years' grace before we must begin making such decisions, but
the people who will have to make them—and the public that will
have to endorse them—are undoubtedly those who will be our
students in the next few years. In this matter, as in education
generally, we must realize that we cannot drift. We must make
choices, choices that will almost certainly involve material
sacrifices. The Faculties
In recent years I have reported the work of individual faculties
in detail. Since there have been only two major developments this
year, however, the creation of the Sopron Division of the Faculty
of Forestry and the institution of the degree of Bachelor of Science
in the Faculty of Arts and Science, I intend to devote most of this
report to these two developments and to some segments of the
University which are not regularly reported on, the students and
the Department of Extension.
On November 4, 1956, the Soviet Army moved into Hungary
in force, and it became clear that the heroic Hungarian revolution
was doomed. In Sopron, students and staff of the School of
Forestry who had taken part in the revolution decided that rather
than live again under Russian rule, they would leave Hungary en
masse. Altogether, 200 students, including 40 women, 17 faculty
members, and 65 wives and children crossed the border into
Austria, thus keeping intact an entire school. When the Honorable
John Pickersgill visited Vienna to see what Canada could do to
help the Hungarian refugees, he heard of the Sopron exodus and
decided that Canada should try to bring them here as a group.
After conversations between the Honorable James Sinclair and
myself, it was decided that we would assist the government in
making arrangements for the Sopron group to come to the University of British Columbia. Dean George Allen, and Mr. F. H.
McNeil of the Powell River Company Limited, who provided
initial accommodation for the Hungarians at Powell River, flew
to Austria to make the final arrangements in consultation with
Government representatives there. Dean Kalman Roller, the leader
of the Sopron group, and two of his students flew back with Dean
Allen, and in due time, the whole group arrived here.
Because we are desperately short of accommodation, it was
decided that for the time being the Hungarians should live at
Powell River in a construction camp provided by the Powell River
Company. On March 3, 1957, the Sopron School of Forestry, at
an appropriate ceremony in which Chancellor Sherwood Lett
and I participated, was rededicated at Powell River, and the
students resumed their studies under their own faculty, as well as
12 undertaking an intensive program of English and lectures designed
to help them adapt to Canada and to Canadian forestry conditions.
In September, 1957, the Sopron school moved on to the
campus proper and became the Sopron Division, Faculty of
Forestry, with the status of a school, parallel to that of the Schools
of Architecture and Physical Education. I should like to take this
opportunity of welcoming, on behalf of the University, Dean
Roller and his students. We have gained by having them here, and
I hope that in time the tragic circumstances of their coming will
be mitigated by what they have found here.
The Faculty of Arts and Science instituted a new degree this
year, the Bachelor of Science. Students who devote most of their
time to science will henceforth receive the new degree. So many
universities offer a Bachelor of Science degree that we concluded
that we were being slightly misleading in continuing to give
science students the degree of Bachelor of Arts. Science students
will continue to take courses in the humanities and social sciences,
however, and the change is mainly one of name.
The major part of the time and energy of the members of
all faculties continues—as is proper—to be devoted to teaching.
The University would be failing in one of its major duties, however, if it neglected the pursuit of new knowledge. The best teaching, in fact, as one moves up the educational hierarchy, depends
more and more on research and the ability to transmit the fruits
of research to students. I am happy, therefore, to report that the
amount of research carried out by the faculty continues to grow.
The Publications of the Faculty and Staff, September 1, 1956—
August 31, 1957, lists 434 publications, as compared with 136 in
the 1950-51 catalogue, for example. It should be remembered,
moreover, that several pieces of research are in progress for every
one that results in publication.
In addition to teaching and research, members of the faculty
give many lectures and addresses to various community and professional groups. These range from highly technical lectures—by
members of the Faculty of Medicine to practising doctors, for
example—to attempts to illuminate current issues in international
affairs, education, or the arts to groups of laymen. This year, not
13 counting lectures given in Extension courses, members of faculty
gave over 1,000 lectures to over 100,000 people. Scarcely a community in the Province was without someone from the University.
In addition to these lectures, members of faculty gave over 250
radio or television broadcasts.
In reporting the retirement of the following members of the
staff, I would like to express the gratitude of all those associated
with the University to these our teachers, friends and colleagues.
Dean H. F. Angus, Economics and Graduate Studies.
Dr. A. W. de Groot, Linguistics and Classics.
Dr. F. Dickson, Biology and Botany.
Dr. A. P. Maslow, Philosophy.
Mr. S. C. Morgan, Electrical Engineering.
Dr. William Rose, Slavonic Studies.
Mr. F. W. Vernon, Mechanical Engineering.
Dean M. M. Weaver, Medicine.
Mr. C. B. Wood, Registrar.
The following members of the non-teaching staff retired after
many years of service, and I should like to record my sincere
appreciation of their contributions to the University.
Miss M. Gruchy, Biology and Botany.
Miss D. Jefferd, Library.
Mr. T. Erwood, Buildings and Grounds.
Mr. E. C. Jillings, Buildings and Grounds.
Mr. M. McVeigh, Buildings and Grounds.
Mr. P. Rubython, Buildings and Grounds.
I record with sorrow the deaths of the following members of
staff during the year, and on behalf of all their colleagues I
acknowledge the University's debt for devoted services.
Dr. J. G. Brown, first Principal of the Union Theological
College. October 15,1956.
Dr. O. J. Todd, Professor Emeritus of Classics, former head
of the Department of Classics. January 16, 1957.
tA Miss Marjorie J. Smith, Professor and Director of the School
of Social Work. October 26, 1956.
Dr. George F. Strong, Clinical Professor, Medicine. February
Miss Isobel D. Todd, Secretary-Stenographer, Bacteriology
and Immunology (1930-1957). July 28, 1957.
Mrs. Jennie Benson Wyman Pilcher,  Associate Professor
Psychology and Education  (resigned 1938). November
Mr. J. Friend Day, Associate Professor, Economics and Commerce (1929-1939). July 13,1957.
Dr. Lavell H. Leeson, Clinical Associate Professor, Surgery.
June 29, 1957.
Public Occasions
The Autumn Congregation was held on October 26, 1956.
Honorary degrees were conferred upon The Very Reverend Henry
Carr, Sir Hugh Nicolas Lihstead, William Alexander McAdam,
Angus Maclnnis, Stephen Henry Roberts, and Sidney Earle Smith.
Dr. Roberts gave the Congregation Address.
The Spring Congregation was held on May 21 and 22, 1957.
On the first day honorary degrees were conferred upon Clarence
Meredith Hincks and Edgar William Richard Steacie; on the
second upon Herbert John Davis, Merrill Chapman Robinson, and
Doris Boyce Saunders.
The Students
Students and student life do not change very much from year
to year, and I have not always thought it necessary in my annual
reports to, comment on them. I do so this year for two reasons.
First, it seems to me that our students excelled themselves this
year. They maintained their tradition of taking a responsible
interest in the University by undertaking a second Great Trek, by
building an extension to the Brock Building, and by organizing
the Academic Symposium. The second Great Trek was an attempt
to obtain greater financial aid from the Provincial Government to
enable the University to provide the facilities for the increasing
15 Registration 1956 - 57
Canada      .  6,767
Mexico  2
United States  96
Costa Rica     4
Dominican Republic   1
Nicaragua      1
Salvador  1
Barbados ,  1
Jamaica      17
Trinidad       95
Other British West Indies     5
Argentina  1
Brazil  1
Chile      2
Guiana, British  1
Peru  1
Venezuela  2
Burma  1
Ceylon      1
China  53
Hong Kong  10
India  35
Indochina       1
Iran  1
Japan  12
Korea  2
Malaya  4
Pakistan   ... ,  2
Israel  4
Philippines  2
Syria  2
Turkey  3
Egypt  2
Gold Coast  4
Kenya       l
Morocco  2
Nigeria  5
Rhodesia  2
Tanganyika      1
Union of South Africa  4
Austria  5
Belgium  3
Czechoslovakia  8
Denmark  . 10
Eire (Ireland)  4
Finland      4
France  12
Germany — Western Zone  84
Germany — Eastern Zone     3
Great Britain and Northern Ireland  230
Greece  8
Hungary       4
Italy      7
Netherlands       56
Norway      11
Poland     8
Portugal     4
Romania  4
Soviet Union  25
Sweden     1
Switzerland  6
Yugoslavia  9
Australia  9
New Zealand  5
TOTAL   7,699
17 numbers of students. The students hoped that they would be able
to repeat the success of the Trek of 1922. Under the chairmanship
of Mr. Ben Trevino, they organized a petition, gained widespread
publicity, and prepared a brief to present to the Government.
A petition containing 86,000 signatures and the brief were
presented to the Provincial Cabinet by the President of the Alma
Mater Society, Mr. Donald Jabour, the treasurer, Mr. Allan
Thackray, and Mr. Trevino. The Cabinet gave the students a long
interview and later said that the brief was one of the best they
had ever received. Not long after the presentation of the brief,
the Provincial Government announced that in addition to the
$10,000,000 already promised for capital development, it would
match any contributions to the University up to $5,000,000. I
have no doubt that the activities of the students did much to bring
about the Government's offer, and I am very happy indeed to be
able to report that the second Great Trek must be considered a
worthy successor to that which led to the original establishment
of the University at Point Grey. It is fitting that the first donation
made to the University as a result of the Government's offer—
before we had organized any campaign at all—was made by the
graduating class of 1957. The students have always proved the
sincerity of their demands by backing them with their own money.
The Brock Extension is being built now at a cost of $350,000
to the students, and is one more contribution—made possible by a
self-imposed levy of $5.00 per student per year—by the students
to the capital equipment of the University. It will be open for the
beginning of the 1957-58 year and will include an Art Gallery,
a Games Room, a Barber Shop, a new College Shop, and improved
facilities for many clubs. Later the students hope to add another
extension, which will include a cafeteria.
I would not want you to think, however, that the students'
activities are confined to fund-raising, worthy though that is. This
year they held the second Leadership Conference at Camp Elphin-
stone to discuss student affairs, primarily the problems of the Alma
Mater Society, and organized an Academic Symposium at Parks-
ville. This Symposium was made up of students and faculty and
was an attempt to discuss the academic problems of the University.
.Both students and faculty were so much impressed by the success
British Columbia   1,590
Alberta ....'  33
Saskatchewan  6
Manitoba   14
Ontario  18
Quebec  2
New Brunswick  3
Nova Scotia  4
Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories  2
Non - Canadian  136
British Columbia — full ."   294
British Columbia — partial .  213
Alberta  . .   49
Saskatchewan  38
Manitoba   .....       26
Ontario      32
Quebec  4
Nova Scotia  2
Prince Edward Island   1
Non - Canadian  .  55
One Year Victoria College   69
Two Years Victoria College  45
Undergraduate above Senior Matriculation     163
Graduate  168
Non - Matriculation  4
University Entrance Level  1,808
Senior Matriculation Level  783
Above Senior Matriculation Level  376
Non - Matriculation     4
19 of the attempt that it is hoped to make the Symposium an annual
event. Members of faculty who attended were unanimous in their
high opinion of the seriousness and responsibility of the students
and in their belief that mueh was gained by discussing with
students such academic problems as standards, lecture methods,
examinations, compulsory courses and courses in the humanities
for students in the professional schools.
The second reason for commenting on student activities this
year is that it is necessary to remind ourselves occasionally of the
vast amount of student life that is not spent in the classroom. As
Chancellor Grauer said to the students when he opened Clubs
Day this year: "Recreational activities are not only important for
your undergraduate years, but will have a lasting significance in
later life. Nothing is more useful than knowing how to make
use of your time." And there is no doubt whatsoever that the
students make use of their time. Seventy-seven clubs and twenty-
six fraternities and sororities enlivened campus life this year.
There are clubs organized on the basis of studies, such as the
Classics Club, Biology Club, and the Dawson Club; on the basis
of future profession, such as the Pre-Medical, Pre-Dental, and
Pre-Social Work Clubs; on the basis of religion, such as the
Student Christian Movement, the Newman Club, the Hillel
Foundation, and the Varsity Christian Fellowship; on the basis
of nationality, such as the Indian Students Club and the Nisei
Varsity, or to bring nationalities together, such as International
House. And there is the largest group of all, those developed to
enable students to share common interests, such as the Varsity
Outdoor Club, the Camera Club, the Debating Union, the Chess
Club, the Radio Society, and the Dance Club. And, in spite of all
the competition, the two oldest clubs on the campus, The Players'
Club, which continues to provide us all with entertainment, and
the Letters Club, 'for the study of literature as a joy,' flourish as
they have always done. As far as I can understand it, if a student
cannot find a club he likes, he starts one.
Finally, before I leave student activities, I must comment on
our athletic programme. It has been the source of much argument
in recent years, and this year a student-faculty committee was set
up to study it. Whatever the committee decides, one item of news
20 Registration 1956 - 57
Agricultural     530
Clerical      198
Commercial     447
Communication     82
Construction      397
Electric Light, Power Production, and Stationary Enginemen 61
Finance      164
Fishing, Hunting and Trapping  80
Labourers (not agricultural, fishing, logging, mining) .... 42
Logging       139
Manufacturing and Mechanical      655
Mining and Quarrying     94
Professional       1,282
Owners, Managers - General     1,251
Service (exclusive of professional service)    325
Transportation      351
Unspecified, Retired, Disabled or Deceased  1,601
21 about our sports can be reported with pride. Our rowing teams,
after their successes in England last year, went on to still greater
successes this year. Our fours brought home one of the two gold
medals Canada won at the Olympic Games in Australia, and our
eights won a silver medal. Much of the credit for their success
must be given to Mr. Frank Read, who coached them with
devotion, and I should like to record here the thanks of the
University for his work. Rowing is one of the traditional university sports, and it says much for the students and the coach that
they have succeeded at it. I should add that it was possible to send
the teams to Australia only with the donation of $25,000 from
the public and $10,000 from the Provincial Government. I am
particularly pleased that our first major success in sports should
be in one where the amateur still reigns. No doubt there is a
place for professionalism in sport, but it is not at the university.
Running parallel with all this activity in recreation is the
much quieter—and much harder to report—attention to the
academic life of the University. It is fair to say, I think, that many
of our students do extremely well at other universities when they
go on to graduate studies and that, increasingly, the major universities of Canada, Great Britain, and the United States are offering
them attractive fellowships. Our students in the professional
schools compare favorably with those of other universities.
I do not want to eulogize the students or pretend that they
are all of equal merit. No doubt there are some who are neither
contributing to the University nor obtaining much from it. But
when one sees them as I do0 however, in their studies and in their
sports, in their running of the Alma Mater Society with its careful
use of the great freedom and autonomy which we have given
them, and in their essential tolerance and decency, it is impossible
not to report that they are students worthy of any university.
22 PARTICIPATION   IN   EXTENSION   ACTIVITIES   1956-57 Department of University Extension
This Year the Department of University Extension came
of age. Twenty-one years ago, it was set up with the help of a
grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. It has had
three directors, Mr. England (1936-37), Dr. Gordon Shrum
(1937-53) and the present director, Dr. John Friesen. Its staff
has grown from two to forty-four, and its services have expanded
to include the organization of lecture and correspondence courses,
the provision of advice and adult education in agriculture, forestry,
home economics, the arts and crafts, fisheries, business and communications, and the direction of the Summer School of the Arts.
It sends lecturers, records, films, and books to all parts of the
Province. It arranges discussions of, and provides information
about, human relations, family life and group development,
citizenship and public affairs. It arranges conferences and short
courses. In fact, it does in a hundred ways the things that we
originally dreamed it might do; extend the knowledge, facilities
and services of the University to the general public of the Province.
There is no better indication of the range of the Department's
activities than the list of conferences and short courses it organized
this year. When it is remembered that the following comprise
only a small part of the total work of the Department, its service
to the Province can be appreciated.
Mar. 8-10
Boy Scouts' Association
Apr. 4-5
Northwest Language Conference
May 21-27
United Church of Canada
May 25 - June 1
Canadian Home and School and P-T
June 2-6
Chemical Institute of Canada
June 2-9
National Convention of Y.W.C.A.
June 4-13
Presbyterian Church
June 10-13
V.L.A. Appraisers
June 10-14
Parent-Teacher Federation Board Workshop
June 11-16
B.C. Credit Union League
25 June 16 Young Life.Group
June 16-23 Canadian Agricultural Economic Society
June 18-21 Soil Survey and Fertility Commission
June 19-21 Conference on Research on Schizophrenia
June 23-29 Agricultural Institute of Canada
June 23-29 Junior Red Cross Leadership Course
June 25-27 Radio and Television Technicians
July 22 - Aug. 2 Vocational Agricultural Conference
July 26-27 Canadian Swimming Championship
Aug. 15-17 B.C. Arts Resources Conference
Aug. 27-31 N.W. Conference on Diseases Communicable
to Man
Aug. 30 - Sept. 2 Plymouth Brethren
Dominion-Provincial Youth Training School 29
B.C. Poultry Conference 140
Farm Forum Workshop 20
Television Workshop 51
Audio Visual Tools and their Use (3 courses) 78
Technical Fisheries 33
Demonstration in Pre-School Methods 29
Pre-School Supervisors' Institute 26
Alcohol Education 53
Driver Education 15
Teaching of Reading 30
Human Relations in Religious Organizations 36
Teachers, of Retarded Children 72
Seminar on Japan — 1957 41
Church Music 33
United Nations Adult Seminar 100
United Nations High School Seminar 90
Needs and Problems of the Aging 110
Citizenship Councils 45
Human Relations in Industry 253
Community Planning 23
26 B.C. Arts Resources Conference 75
Pre-School Supervisors' Workshop (4 courses)         220
Parents' Institute 196
Group Development Workshops 95
Film-Television Workshop 75
Labour Institute 210
TOTAL 2178
As the rate of change in our society increases—and as our
people have more and more leisure, the facilities for adult education become more and more important. It is impossible now to
give children enough formal schooling to sustain them for the
rest of their lives. We simply do not know what kind of world
they will be living in by the time they are middle-aged. Changes
in their work, changes in the kinds of skills they need, changes in
social patterns may overtake them within a few years of leaving
school. The University must provide the facilities whereby men
and women can continue their education after they leave school
and after they leave university. We must provide evening courses,
correspondence courses, short courses, single lectures, symposia
—whatever we find effective in adult education. And we must
explore, as we are exploring, the use of radio and television in
adult education.
The desire for adult education can easily be seen by studying
our evening class programme. This year we were forced by the
loss of the former Normal School to make the University Campus
the main centre for evening classes. We feared that enrolment
in the programme might suffer because of the increased distance
that students would have to travel. Our fears were quite needless.
A total of 4,034 students, more than ever before, enrolled for the
101 courses that were offered. Our problem is not, in fact, that of
finding people who want to take advantage of the work of the
Department of Extension, but that of finding staff and facilities to
satisfy the increasing demands that the public makes upon us.
When we look back at the growth of our offerings over the
last twenty-one years, however, we have no reason to suspect that
we shall not go on to improve them still further. The Department
27 of University Extension is devoting much study to the problems
of the future, and I am confident that it will do much to help the
people of British Columbia understand themselves and their
The Library
No matter how the University changes in the future, there
is one certainty: that it will need someone to catalogue, handle
and store—so that they can be made available quickly—the
materials with which scholars and students work. The materials
may change from books to microfilms, microcards, magnetic tapes
or something we cannot yet imagine, but as far as there are
certainties at all, we can be sure that someone will be needed to
process the material and somewhere needed to keep it. In other
words, librarians and a library.
Our Library has grown considerably since the foundation of
the University, to over 350,000 books this year, but we must face
the fact that it has grown primarily in keeping with the demands
of the increased number of undergraduates. The development of
graduate work has been retarded by the lack of library facilities,
and it is only very recently that we have been able to do anything
much towards obtaining the research collections necessary for a
graduate school.
This year we added 32,283 volumes (compared with 20,946
last year), of which 14,540 were bound journals (9,951 last year).
This is a record rate of increase (54%), and it is the largest
number of accessions in any one year. Several thousand volumes
of this increase were received from the Vancouver Normal
School when the Faculty and College of Education was opened
on campus. The Library also received 33,962 recorded but uncatalogued publications of governments and international agencies,
2,093 maps, quantities of pamphlets, micro-reproductions, and a
large number of publications in Chinese, Japanese, and Slavic
languages which are shelved but not yet recorded in the public
In spite of these additions, however, I must report that far
greater expenditure on the Library will be necessary if we are to
28 develop the graduate work that we badly need. And as we develop
graduate work, it will become ever more urgent that we provide
a "college library" for undergraduates—with an open shelf
collection of 40,000 volumes. Plans for the future are being made
now. I hope that we shall be able to find the money to carry them
out. A first-class library is indispensable to a first-class University.
APRIL 1, 1956 TO MARCH 31, 1957
REVENUE                                                        Total %
Government of Canada Grant   $1,286,833.01 15.0
Provincial  Government Grant      3,500,000.00 40.8
Student Fees        1,927,037.95 22.5
University Extension  .        115,139.08 1.3
Services and Rentals          63,289.54 .7
Other Income            42,334.20 .5
Gifts, Grants, Bequests and Income. . .     1,587,138.96 18.5
Ancillary Enterprises (Net)             56,046.33 .7
5,577,819-07       100.0
Academic Faculties and Departments
and Associated Academic Services $4,882,149.10        56.9
Administration   and   Non - Academic
Services         1,635,059-85        19-1
Fellowships,  Scholarships,  Prizes   and
Bursaries            253,884.08 3-0
Research            892,231.45        10.4
Construction and Land Acquisition... .        213,424.36 2.5
Miscellaneous           104,143-63 1.2
Government of Canada Supplementary
Grant    for    1956-57    deferred    for
special projects during 1957-58        596,926.60 6.9
$8,577,819.07      100.0
1957 — 58
^:'VE :—■ ■''
a   • ■ »
1st Year
1956-57 T^jT&&


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items