Abstract
NO well-wisher of the University can feel otherwise than grateful to you for affording a portion of your valuable space for the letters of Mr. Thiselton Dyer and Mr. Dickins on this subject. No two men could be found to speak with greater authority from first-hand knowledge of the facts. The arguments on the subject have been too much of an ex parte character hitherto, not seldom based on insufficient information or erroneous impressions. Nothing, for example, could be further from the truth than the statement in the Times of May 13, by the writer of what was upon the whole a fair and comprehensive leading article, that “ there is no reason why the highest honours of the University of London should not be obtained by a person who never set foot in London or even in England.” Many, who like myself voted for the projected scheme of the Senate, must have felt, as I did, as a result of a wide and varied educational experience, that it was potential with great good in the future, and could be accepted as the working basis of the future development of the University, although we felt that the one serious blot in it was the abandonment of uniformity in the examinations for the pass degrees. I verily believe that this was the one thing fatal to its success in Convocation; that it was so far in excess of the recommendations of the Royal Commission as to be unwarrantable; and that it put a lever into the hands of the opposition, of which—as the event proved—a practised disputant like Mr. Bompas did not fail to make most effective and disastrous use.
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
IRVING, A. The University of London. Nature 44, 79 (1891). https://doi.org/10.1038/044079a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/044079a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.