UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Reports Mar 13, 1969

Item Metadata


JSON: ubcreports-1.0117874.json
JSON-LD: ubcreports-1.0117874-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): ubcreports-1.0117874-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: ubcreports-1.0117874-rdf.json
Turtle: ubcreports-1.0117874-turtle.txt
N-Triples: ubcreports-1.0117874-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: ubcreports-1.0117874-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

•* *
New Arts I Program Gets
Its First Assessment
Dr.   Douglas  Kenny  has  resigned as  head  of  the
psychology department to become associate dean of
^irts at UBC. See story below.
Arts Dean
Prof. Douglas T. Kenny has resigned as head
of the department of psychology to become
associate dean of arts at the University of B.C.
Dean of arts Dr. John Young said that as
associate dean Prof. Kenny would assume direct
responsibility for the management of the current
budget of the faculty, take charge of the allocation of existing space and assist the dean in a
variety of ways.
The appointment of Prof. Kenny, who will take
up his new position on April 1, was made in consultation with the heads of departments in the
arts faculty, Dean Young said.
Prof. Kenny will continue to hold his appointment as professor in the department of psychology and will continue to teach in the department.
Dean Young also announced that the appointment of Mr. Robert Harlow as acting associate
dean of the arts faculty would terminate on June
30. Dean Young said Mr. Harlow had agreed to
take the position for one year and was anxious to
return to full-time duties as head of the department of creative writing in the arts faculty.
He said department heads in the faculty had
approved a motion of appreciation for the work
of Mr. Harlow during the past year.
Prof. Kenny, 45, has been a member of the
UBC faculty since 1950 and was named head of
Please turn to page four
Reserved on
New Program
UBC has begun to make some tentative
assessments of the New Arts I program now that
the experimental project has completed its first
year of operation.
The reports caution that data resulting from
the first year of operation of the program can
hardly be regarded as representative and that
it will be necessary to wait until the products of
New Arts I have reached the third and fourth
year levels before any definitive results emerge.
Here are some of the results which have
emerged from the assessments:
Arts I students, who as a group scored somewhat higher mean totals in the UBC Freshman
Test Battery than freshmen enrolling in the regular first-year program, also achieved higher
grades in final standings.
Final standings obtained by Arts I students in
the experimental part of their program were:
first-class, 23.9 per cent; second-class, 43.6 per
cent; pass, 24.7 per cent; fail, 2.9 per cent. In
the experimental course plus the two regular
courses Arts I students achieved these standings:
first-class, 17.4 per cent; second-class, 35.9 per
cent; pass, 38.5 per cent.
A report by the faculty of arts curriculum
committee in January, 1969, quotes the following
figures on standings achieved by all first-year
students in Arts: first-class, 3.1 per cent; second-
class, 24.2 per cent; pass, 17.7 per cent; fail,
13.5 per cent.
In its report to the faculty of arts, the curriculum committee said that any comprehensive
assessment of the Arts I program should be made
with the greatest caution. It noted that it would
be hazardous to assume data based on the first
year of an experimental program were representative. The committee added that it is not
known how the 1967-68 Arts I students are doing
in their second year or how they will perform
in their third and fourth years.
The committee concluded: "It is at least open
to debate that we can measure the effects —
long-term and short-term — of such a program
merely by grade point criteria. Even had our data
revealed that Arts I students performed no better
than their non-Arts I classmates, we doubt that
we could reasonably have concluded on this
basis that the program had been a failure."
In a report issued in January, 1969, Dr. Ross
said that the results obtained in Arts I and in
the regular courses bear out a contention that
is now new; that given more opportunity for
direct involvement in learning and more attention from faculty, students will respond with a
sustained effort to raise the calibre of their work.
"Beyond this, it is hard to generalize about
the students of the first session," he said.
"All of them had their ups and downs in the
program: moments of insight and realization
about themselves and what they were studying
and periods when they floundered in Serbonian
bogs of facts and theories."
New Arts I is now well into its second academic year with an enrolment of 319 students
divided into three study groups. Group I is
studying the theme of Freedom and Authority, the
theme of Group B is The Forest and the City and
Group C is studying the theme of Identity and
Environment.   In addition, a New Arts II  group
with an enrolment of 21 students is studying the
theme of The City.
Prof. G. F. McGuigan, chairman of the New
Arts II group, has made some interim observations on learning problems encountered by his
students, although he notes that any estimate of
student accomplishment can only be made at
the end of the year.
"Despite the experience of and the advances
made in Arts I, the students in Arts II were still
labouring during the first term to escape the
habits of learning and attitudes toward intellectual life obtained in high school," he said.
"For example, a tendency to passivity in
learning, a confusion between information
gathering and education, and a naive faith in the
teacher as a dispenser of authoritative information," he said.
"To a large extent the students are aware of
Program Interests
Other Universities
New Arts I, an experimental approach to
the education of first-year arts students,
was begun in September, 1967, at UBC as a
three-year pilot project.
Dr. Ian Ross, co-chairman of the program,
described its objectives in the following
terms: "Its chief aims are to introduce the
student effectively to the intellectual life
of the University, and to give him a less
fragmented view of education than is normally offered to freshmen. The studies undertaken will encourage a broad, though
disciplined approach, to the world within
and without the University."
The program offered a clear departure
both in content and methodology from
normal first-year arts courses and was of
considerable interest both to UBC faculty
and  to  educators  at  other  universities.
The main features of New Arts I include
a thematic approach to curriculum, teaching
through group discussions and tutorials
with sparing use of lectures, special field
trips, encouragement of individual study
and the use of a variety of media as source
Nine units of credit were given for successful completion of the new program and
students took two regular first-year courses
in addition. Two teaching groups were
formed with six faculty members assigned
to each group of approximately 120 students.
these disabilities, but the task remains to replace
these attitudes with more positive ones."
Prof. McGuigan said some of the intellectual
difficulties students encountered included an inability to formulate significant questions, a disaffection from or even a complete rejection of
the use of specialized sciences as a basis for
understanding the city, and a search for "total,"
simplistic solutions to the problem of the city
based upon some sort of multi-dimensional
psychedelic experience.
The work of the second term in New Arts II
will be directed toward dealing with some of
these problems.
In looking to the future of the Arts I concept,
Dr. Ross and other faculty members involved
have suggested that development of a college
for such programs may be necessary to incorporate them as a part of the continuing life of
During UBC's recent Arts Week from Eebruary
10 to 14, three faculty members discussed the question of "Disciplines vs. Non-disciplines." The speakers, who used the Arts I and II programs as the
focal point of their addresses, were: Dr. Richard Tees
and Dr. Douglas Kenny, both of the psychology
dept., and Dr. Gerald McGuigan, one of the founders of the experimental Arts I program and currently
director of the Arts II program. What follows are
excerpts from the addresses of Drs. Tees and McGuigan, and part of the question period in which
Dr. Kenny participated.
DR. RICHARD TEES: There are things that we
can do quite well and which we should try and
do a little better. There are some other things
which, no matter how valuable and necessary
they might be, do not belong at the university, in
terms of its curriculum at any rate. What I'm
suggesting is that subdisciplinary general education programs do not belong at a university.
It seems to me that anybody who has looked
at a particular discipline finds that the discipline
is very broad banded, yet has absorbed methods
and information from a great many sources. The
only thing they have in common is a common
language and some common methods. The idea
that important and eternal truths are somehow
lost in the cracks between departments is a difficult idea to come to grips with. Missionary general education people always suggest that since
the world is not encompassed by the disciplines
at a university therefore what is important must
lie between or underneath them.
My feeling is that problems do lie across and
between disciplines, but in order to study problems that do lie across these disciplines a person
has to work twice as hard to be able to attack
these   problems.    Workers   with   different   back-
grounds who are concentrating on a problem in
order to be stimulated by each other's ideas
have to know something about the other person's
Now, the idea of trying to produce a good
citizen who can use leisure appropriately, to
state that general education courses overtly
should have this goal is to my mind somewhat
arrogant. The only thing I can ask is, show me
some data to indicate that general education programs do serve this function, because I don't
know of any such data.
I think that if you're dealing with material
at a subdisciplinary level the student has no information on which to base his later choice. In
other words, I don't think he can choose to go
into psychology or any other discipline on the
basis of his experiences in a subdisciplinary
general education course.
2/UBC Reports/March 13, 1969
Now there are some very real problems in
teaching general education courses. They're the
hardest courses that a university should try and
teach. There are problems in terms of trying to
recruit staff. But there is another problem, and
that is the problem of a historian trying to talk
about behaviour or psychology. In my very brief
reading of others' views on general education
courses, the suggestion is always made that a
historian or somebody from another discipline
is bound to be superficial in his treatment of,
say, psychology. The historians simply do not
have the information with which to evaluate Freud
or whatever it might be.
By dealing with information at almost an
opinion level in a subdisciplinary course, it seems
to me that both faculty and students are inculcating one another and they're getting the idea
that they should have a perhaps over-zealous
faith in their own opinions and a disrespect for
informed opinion, because no one in the situation has the expertise, has the information, to
evaluate whatever they're reading unless it happens to be in his particular discipline. So I think
that students get an over-inflated idea of how
much they know about something and it probably is a very bad model of intellectual enquiry
at a university.
Now, let's look at some of the less ambitious
goals of general education programs. The student who goes through a general education
course should be able to think critically, to evaluate, should be able to communicate orally, in
writing and so on, and think broadly and get
some enthusiasm for learning. Now let's assume
for a minute that students going through a general education program do achieve this result,
and I'm not sure that that's so clear.
After nine units of Arts I, which is an optimum,
and a very expensive environment, students were
said to have some of the following problems according to their instructors: an inability to formulate significant questions; a lack of appreciation
for the role of premises in an argument; they
completely rejected or at least disavowed the
use of specialized disciplines as an approach to
their topic, which happened to be The City, and
they searched for a very simple solution for their
My feeling is that these objectives can be
accomplished in the framework of disciplines.
At Stanford and Harvard small seminars in disciplines and very specialized areas are put on for
freshmen in their first year. It's a very expensive
form of education, but probably no more expensive than Arts I. Senior faculty are dealing with
specific topics and it appears to turn the kids
on, they seem to get excited about it. I'm not
suggesting that this is the sort of data on which
to base any conclusion, but I think that it has
been tried. In other words the ability to communicate, to think, to have some enthusiasm for
learning has been tried in a disciplined way and
it seems to have the same kind of success that
a general education program has.
Let's say that Arts I is successful. What has
its success to do with disciplines or non-disciplines? The faculty-student ratio, the special
building and so on, may have a great deal to do
with how successful a non-disciplinary program
could be. I think that control groups should be
set up in a disciplined framework in order to
evaluate what the effect of a non-disciplined
versus a disciplined program is, and what effect
the low faculty-student ratio and other factors
Let's compare a student who's had nine units
of psychology in three years — a student who
has, say, reached the level of psychology 306, a
laboratory course. Most of the good students are
able to do quasi-independent research. They are
able to find out new information for themselves,
to test their opinions and ideas. You could say
that if the person in 306 does turn out a good
project they have met the objectives that a non-
disciplinary program was supposed to have and
they also have something else going for them.
They have the ability not only to generate
opinions, but to test them.  So in a sense they've
reached, in a very limited but a very real way,
frontiers of psychological knowledge in this particular area. They are able to help design an
experiment, to extend knowledge, and they have
the information and the skill to do it. And I don't
think in a non-disciplinary program anybody Ira
this kind of skill or that one develops it 4^J
non-disciplinary program.
What I'm saying is that people, to learn to
think critically, must be deeply immersed in the
substance of their discipline. I would like to see
general education programs put on in fourth year
where students are coming from a discipline, and
have an awareness of how complicated big
issues such as war and peace or freedom and
authority are, and bring to this kind of general
education course some skills, some information
with which to enrich the program.
I think the non-disciplinary course has a
place, in the larger picture, but it probably should
be at a liberal arts college, not at the university.
And I think, most importantly, that research has
to be done to test some of the notions that
general education people and discipline pei^fc
have about how successful they are at educat^g
students.  This just has not been done.
DR. GERALD McGUIGAN: I think the non-
disciplinary idea prejudices the argument in
favour of the implication that the opposite of the
disciplines is somehow fuzzy, inexact, the giant
sort of bull session which apparently gets nowhere. That is not what I have in mind if I must
use the word non-disciplinary.
I think we're confronted with the task in the
university of making up for a number of lacks
which exist in the high school. What we are
doing in Arts I and Arts II is something that
should have been done much earlier. I am not
against specialization. Specialization must come,
but I think it's largely a question of when it comes
and the context in which it must appear.
I think specialization is better understood in
a larger context than the one we have so far considered. The notion of specialization can be seen
in several senses. First of all, with respect to its
subject matter. There we speak of economics or
psychology or anthropology, etc. I think it also
can be seen from the point of view of the types or
the numbers of senses that are involved in the
learning process. I suspect that in the social and
the physical sciences the process of learning
concentrates especially on the sense of sight and
its ability to tabulate things that have been reduced to a quantitative measure.
The educational process as it has become
concentrated in the university leaves out our
valid reference to reality through touch and taste
and hearing. It tends to downgrade these as a
valuable part of the education of the whole
I think also we must look at the notion of
specialization in terms of the role that one plays
in society once one has mastered a certain body IL UBC PROCRAMS
of information.  Then, too, we must look at specialization in the notion that the university is by
definition, at least in our present time, a specialized way of learning.
** I'd like to consider this from the point of view
of decision-making in our present day society.
And this must be seen in the light of the tremendous increase in information that has become
available in our society through specialization,
the multiplication and the increasing division of
I think that part of our problem is control of
information in the service of human decisionmaking in society. While the subjects are becoming more and more specialized, the types of
problems that we must deal with in society are
becoming broader and broader and cutting
across disciplines. To take the example of pollution; this is an economic problem, it's a health
problem, it's a political problem, it's a social
problem at one and the same time. Now, given
the need for some kind of specialization, what do
we do about the problem of decision-making in
•,-these areas which go beyond the particular
capacity of any one discipline to exercise moral,
political, and social control over the consequences of individual actions within our society?
ie way to do this is through the notion of
in^paisciplinary subjects.   When  I  speak of a
...general education I'm not referring to interdisciplinary subjects. I'm speaking of learning
how to learn, and this includes the recognition
of the biases, of the packages of information
that we receive, whether in the news media, on
TV, on radio, in economic history, in psychology.
What are the assumptions under which the conclusions of these particular sciences are valid?
What I would ask my students to do is to
step back, to step out of the environment of the
^'learning in which they have been brought up in
high school, and say, what are we doing, what
are the assumptions under which I have been
confronting reality? This is not to deny the validity of these ways of looking at things, but to know
their limitations.
^Bthink this is necessary simply because of
theTremendous amount of information that is being poured in on us. In my own subject, Canadian economic history, I can't possibly keep up
with it or master it, and I have no desire to de-
(.-•■stroy its unity by having half a dozen people
study it for particular periods of time. We'd just
multiply our problems that way.
We are faced with the very difficult problem
in our society of the information overload that
comes from increasing specialization, and the
inability to focus these specialized ways of looking at things in a total decision and those things
that affect our society.  The way that I approach
t -it is to speak in terms of metaphor; that our approach to reality, even perhaps our own language, is a metaphorical approach to reality, an
indirect way of looking at reality by seeing similarities and differences so that the novel is a
sort of metaphorical concept within certain sets
of assumptions. The front page of the newspaper
is precisely that sort of thing, so is the TV program, and so is a social science model.
Now, if we see that I think one has made a
great intellectual advance. He may not have mastered the particular content of a particular subject, which is the sort of on-going criteria by
which we judge that a person is educated. Not
that content isn't important, but there is a priority
in knowing what the biases of the given content
are. I think that a student becomes much more
capable of absorbing relevant content once he
^ knows what the biases are.
DR. DOUGLAS KENNY: I can certainly appreciate the difficulties of obtaining data, hard data
from a program like Arts I but I would certainly
agree that we do have the techniques available
today to obtain that data.
If you take a significant problem, say treatment of people who are neurotic or psychotically
i       disturbed,   society   is   spending   a   tremendous
amount of money trying to find out whether various forms of treatment are effective or not.  And
similarly education is spending a tremendous
amount of money on various forms of instruction. And I think it is incumbent upon education
to find out whether the claims being made for
these forms of instruction are really the case.
And we do have the technique.
DR. McGUIGAN: In a sense I agree perfectly
with what Doug is saying. I think our claim would
be that there are other criteria which are just as
legitimate as the empirical data which might be
searched out in psychology. This is an assistance
to it. But should this be the final judgment, the
final step as to whether or not it is valuable that
psychology is able to test it in this way? I don't
think that it's reasonable because ordinary
human experience coming from many directions
simply cannot be reduced to the sort of testing
that Mr. Kenny would ask.
DR. KENNY: I would basically say that, in
terms of my own value system, a person can get
the best kind of liberal education by being trained
in a specific discipline. However, I would be
prepared to see other approaches to it for the
simple reason I don't think we are in a position
today to state what is the best way of structuring
a person's mind within a liberal education tradition.
DR. McGUIGAN: Well, I'm inclined to let people do what they want in this respect. If somebody wants one kind of education that's fine, if
somebody wants another education that's good
too, but I think they should be given the privilege
of choosing which sort of education they are
seeking out.
The university is a human community trying
to uncover the great mystery of reality and there's
as much variety as there are individuals approaching it — and this is no argument against
disciplines  or  for  disciplines  —  there   is  just
simply this variety of ways that we can go about
things. I don't know why we should be so hard-
lined, that it must be either/or, if one person's
going to do it then everybody must do it.
DR. KENNY: All that I would say, if you wish
to understand human behaviour certainly you can
take psychology, and that's one way of understanding it. You can also study religion, that's
another way. You can study poetry, you can
study the contemporary novel, and I would take
my hat off to anyone who wants to understand
human behaviour through studying anecdotes, by
studying novels and so on. I would simply say
that in terms of my own temperament'and I'd
answer it at a temperament level, that doesn't
make too much sense to me. But there's no one
God-given way of accumulating information
about human behaviour. However, each of those
avenues does make different assumptions about
behaviour. I don't think that Prof. McGuigan is
entirely correct when he seems to assume that
the Arts I approach is the only way of getting
at the underlying assumptions in each discipline.
Professor foseph Tussman is the head of an
experimental two-year arts program at the University
of California at Berkeley, which is similar in its
philosophical approach to learning to the Arts I and
Arts II programs at the University of B.C. The following article, based on a lecture which Prof. Tussman gave recently at UBC, explains the underlying
concept of the Berkeley program.
The adventure of attempting to institutionalize
and carry on a rather unique educational program
has led me increasingly to try to grapple with a
notion that I'd like to explore informally in several
The central notion is that of the teaching
power. I put it that way because I want to develop, among other things, the conception of the
teaching power as the great fundamental inherent
power of government which needs to be placed
alongside the judicial, legislative and executive
powers, and the implication of seeing teaching in
all its forms as stemming from and constituting
an exercise of a fundamental governmental
Let me begin with the idea of man as a political animal. I don't know how many of you remember the myth of the metals in Plato's Republic. Most of us remember that part in which
Plato argues that people are different and conform to different types. Some are reflective and
deliberative and their strong suit is understanding; some are heroic, ambitious or administrative.
On the basis of this difference in character he
develops the theory of classes in society operating co-operatively.
That is the part of the myth that I have always
noted. I've skipped over the early part of that
myth in which Plato apologizes for a monstrous
story that he is going to tell, which goes something like this: he says we must try to get all
the rulers, everybody in society, and especially
those who are admitted to full membership in the
community upon adulthood, to believe that everything they remember up to this point has been a
dream. Instead of being here, where they think
they have been, they have all been underground
and what has been happening to them is that
their equipment has been fashioned.
Now, for the first time, they are born into the
world and the womb which they have been in
is the community. It was with considerable shock
that I realized that that first part of the myth is
true and is the secret of everything. It is a way
of saying that a human being is an artifact.
A person is the product of the art exercised
on a biological, psychological organism by a
community. Childhood, or whatever we want to
call the stage before adulthood or full membership in the community, is a period in which a
person is being born. Birth in its significant
sense for a human being is not a biological fact.
It is what happens when there emerges from the
systematic, careful nurturing operation of the
community a mature human being who has been
equipped by the operation of the community with
everything we think is characteristic of an individual. It is no exaggeration to say that he is
born quite late after he appears as a physical
organism on the earth and he is given birth or
created by the community or the polus or the
polity. Man is a political animal. He is an animal
who has been turned into a human being through
the operation of a polus or a community.
That is one wing of the argument and, I think,
the most fundamental one. Then the community,
acting on its potential members, is exercising
what I call the teaching power. The teaching
power of the community is the power it exercises in shaping into humanity a potential human
When we think of government we tend to
think of the law and the police and the courts
and perhaps the legislature. I want to suggest
that the community acts at least as politically and
directly through the schools as it does through
Please turn to page four
UBC Reports/March 13, 1969/3 TUSSMAN
Continued from Page 3
Student Power Misguided
the other institutions and, in fact, the model of
the public official of the modern era is not a
policeman, or a legislator, or a judge, but a
school teacher.
A school teacher is in every sense a public
official, an agent of the community doing the
work of the community. The theory of the teaching power as an inherent power of government
really says that the community has first crack at
the minds of the young. Teaching power is the
power and the right of the community to provide
for its own life and continuity by the initiation
of successive generations into its own enterprise.
If a community did not have that power, did not
have that authority, it would die very quickly.
The notion that the teaching power is a
hitherto unnamed constitutional power means
that most of our difficulties with the problem of
academic freedom seem capable of some intelligible solution. Academic freedom is an extremely difficult doctrine to make sense out of.
There's one notion that a university, college or
school should be free in it activities from external
control but no one has ever given any good
reasons for this. The conception that I am suggesting makes that extremely easy to handle, I
The theory of academic freedom, which is the
theory of the authority of an educational institution to control its own life, is simply the principle
of the separation of powers applied to the teaching power. The teaching power of the community
is vested in its teaching institutions and its structure of authority. The theory of academic freedom is simply the application of the separation
of powers doctrine which precludes legislative
and executive or other public agents from interfering with the proper work of the teaching
That doesn't solve questions such as, should
the university be free from control in this or that
respect? But it does provide a clearly intelligible
basis for objecting to a legislature laying down
rules about what should or should not be taught,
for example.
The standard liberal doctrine we have inherited is that the mind is private and the body is subject to state control. This makes it utterly impossible to make sense out of a public school system
within the framework of a doctrine which says
the state is supposed to leave the mind alone.
There is no reasonable basis for arguing that
anything we call the mind is private at all. If I
am correct in saying that the school teacher is
a public official this poses some obvious problems about the intelligibility of the educational
Turning from theoretical to concrete problems of education I will tell you a few things
about how these concepts are incarnated in the
experimental program at Berkeley. We are operating as a part of the College of Letters and
Science at the University of California.
We have a lower division program which takes
students for the first two years and satisfies virtually all their requirements except science. It
occupies all of the student's educational time
except for one course. We have roughly 150 students and six full-time faculty members. We
have no grades, no courses, no examinations.
We have instead a required course of work over
a two-year period for which the faculty has put
together a fundamental, coherent series o4 readings which in their judgment constitutes initiation into, and understanding of, the contemporary
community as a moral enterprise.
We do nothing but read a number of books
which systematically develop these themes and
write an enormous amount of not very good
literature. We work at writing, we have a few
tutorials and seminars and that's it. The aspect
of the program most often criticized is that the
students has no choice at all about anything. As
a collective body they do not take part politically
in the determination of the curriculum or
methodology of instruction.
The problem is to create possible members of
a significant enterprise, an enterprise which is
in deep trouble. In its outward activity at this
stage of its development it is failing at almost
every point in ways which are so drastic that it
is threatening the possibility of induction of another generation into its enterprise. The state,
acting through its educational institutions, is trying to save itself by creating or developing human
beings who are capable of committing themselves
to the deepest and neglected values implicit in
that culture. That is the justification for the intrusion of the state or the schools onto the scene
at all. We do not accept the notion that civilization is an accident, that people arrive God knows
how, that they are here complete and the problem is to let them go their own way. We think
the community has a claim, a prior claim, and the
expression, "It is my life," is false. Nobody's
life is his.
There is also a practical justification for the
program. It turns out that most of us don't know
how to read very well.
We don't know how to pick up a book and
say, here is a human mind desperately trying
to convey something to me. The art of coming
into communication with a mind that is grappling
with important and complicated problems is extremely difficult and we learn to read so fast that
we have lost the art. And so the task of learning
how to read again is almost a fundamental task
of education. The art of talking to other people
is also highly undeveloped. The analysis of what
happens when seven people get together to discuss something they have read in a seminar —
there's hardly an analysis to it. Every time somebody says something in that discussion he is
making a claim on the attention of half a dozen
other human being's minds. You should not do
that lightly.
We have a program which runs for two years
in which a handful of faculty members and a
relatively small number of students are trying to
teach each other how to do these things with
the greatest of freedom and with no holds barred
intellectually. To do this it is necessary to create
an intellectual environment and a pedagogic environment conducive to the development of human  minds.
I have tried to suggest two wings of the theoretical argument which would explain why an
educational program which addresses itself importantly and relevantly to our fundamental concerns requires a retention of certain principles of
government. The school, I think it has been
said, is not a democracy. This does not mean
that it is not vitally concerned with preparing
people for life in a democracy. The operating
principles, so far as the educational reforms
that we are involved with, set us up squarely on
the basis of control of educational life by the
faculty. This puts us quite clearly out of step with
most of the educational reform agitation which
is rampant on campuses.
The general tendency is an assertion of the
legitimacy of student power. Student power with
respect to determination of the educational life
of the student is thoroughly misguided — a premature rebellion which is self-defeating. The
education scene will be saved, if at all, by the
assumption of faculty of greater responsibility for
the shaping of education. If students want to
protest they should insist that the faculty come
up wih completely required programs that they
have to take.
Students tend to be doing just the opposite.
Their pressures are all in the direction of getting people to,relinquish responsibility for education. So my terminal advice is if you want to
bother the faculty about education don't ask them
to abolish requirements but insist on their development of more — a new requirement every
That will give them something to think about.
KENNY    Continued from Page One
the psychology department in 1965.  Bom in Victoria, he attended Victoria College before enrolling at UBC, where he received his bachelor and
master of arts degrees in 1945 and 1947.
He held a graduate fellowship and was a
teaching associate at the University of Washington, where he received the degree of doctor
of philosophy, from 1947 to 1950.
He is a former president of the UBC Faculty
Association and the B.C. Psychological Association. He is a member of the UBC Senate and
chairs the Senate Committee on Academic Building Needs.
Dean Resigns
Professor William M. Armstrong has resigned
as dean of the University of B.C.'s faculty of
applied science to devote more time to his duties
as UBC's deputy president.
Prof. Armstrong, who has been a member of
the UBC faculty since 1946 and dean of applied
science since 1966, was named secretary to
UBC's Board of Governors and deputy acting
president in 1967.
He was appointed deputy president last year
and has continued to act as Board secretary.
Dean Armstrong said his decision to resign
as dean resulted from the increasing pressure
of duties in the field of general University administration.
"The faculty of applied science," he said,
"should be administered by a dean who can
devote his energies to incorporating into the
engineering curriculum new concepts to meet the
needs of students in a rapidly-changing world.
"At the same time, the University as a whole
is in a period of rapid transition and is facing A
major changes   in   administrative   policy  which"
will have to be implemented in the near future,"
Prof. Armstrong said.
He added that to attempt to do both jobs
would be to fail to do justice to either of them.
Prof. Armstrong will continue to teach a
course in the department of metallurgy.
Prof. Armstrong is noted tor his research in
the field of metallurgy and for his involvement
in national organizations on science policy.
Summer Housing
Rates Increased
An  increase in campus residence  rates for^
room and board during the Summer Session has
been approved by the University of B.C. Board
of Governors.
It is the first increase in residence rates at
the University since September, 1966, despite
higher maintenance and operating costs due to
wage increases and rising material costs.
Leslie Rohringer, UBC director of residences,
said the rate increase is necessary because of
an increased debt repayment obligation in connection with completion of new residence towers
at the Place Vanier and Totem Park residence
Present rates are $3.30 per day for a single
room and $3.10 per day for a double room.
The new Summer Session rates effective July
1, 1969, are $4.00 per day for a single room and
$3.80  per  day  for a  double  room.
Reasons for the Summer Session rate increase and the University's financial position in
relation to debt repayment on residences were
discussed in a series of meetings between Mr.
Rohringer and student residence representatives
prior to approval of the rate increase.
Mr. Rohringer said Winter Session residence
rates are also under review but no decision has
been made in this area.
The director of residences said Summer Session rates in the past have been on the same
level as regular daily rates for Winter students.
■ H^^ 0^ Volume 15, Number 8 — March
HH Wm 13, 1969. Authorized as second
11 WA\ I class mail by the Post Office
II ■■ I ■ Department, Ottawa, and for
\my jgAy %§} payment of postage in cash.
_ _ o r» n t c Postage paid at Vancouver, B.C.
H t K <J rt i _ pubijshed by the university of
British Columbia and distributed free. J. A. Ban-
ham, Editor; Barbara Claghom, Production Supervisor. Letters to the Editor should be addressed
to the Information Office, UBC, Vancouver 8, B.C.
4/UBC Reports/March 13, 1969


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