are the preparatory studies he recommends. But the proposed statute would allow women to pass first examinations in French and German, instead of Greek and Latin Responsions (although they will have to write Latin prescriptions), and then the preliminary examinations in mechanics and physics, in chemistry, in animal morphology, and in botany, nothing more being required before the medical examinations. The wide preparatory studies recommended by the Regius Professor of Medicine bear but a distant resemblance to the narrow pass examinations allowed by the proposed statute. I cannot imagine, therefore, why the University is asked to pass a statute which would award some sort of medical certificate or 'testamur' to women whose previous education will have been a disgrace to Oxford and a degradation to the medical profession.

But the question before us is not the intellectual education of women. We are not called upon to decide whether women should study the same subjects as men, nor whether they should study medicine, nor whether they should be doctors, in England. The question is whether women should be admitted to medical examinations in the University of Oxford when the Regius Professor of Medicine has already a statutable right to admit them to his lectures, and has already avowed that he has no objection to admit them. This is a moral question. Is it right that young men and young women should study medicine together? Whether it is right or not must be left to each man's conscience. But let every Oxford graduate read for himself the regulations of the Faculty of Medicine, the papers of 1889 in human anatomy and human physiology, in the first examination for the medical degree-to say nothing of the paper in midwifery, and the papers in the second examination. Then I do not doubt that the majority will conclude that it is wrong to carry a statute to

admit women to medical examinations, when that statute, of itself and without further statute, directly encourages young women to study medicine with young men in a University of men. Oxford, Nov. 11.

THE PROPOSED DEGREES FOR WOMEN A resolution in favour of giving the degree of B.A. to women, on the same conditions as it was given to men, was rejected in Congregation on March 3, 1896. The voting was, placets 140, non-placets 215. Mr. Arthur Sidgwick was Fellow and Tutor of Corpus Christi College, and widely known as a brilliant classical scholar. He died in 1920.

FROM The Times, FEBRUARY 15, 1896.

Why should not women, going through the same examinations, have the same degree of B.A., like men? Because they do not begin with the same examinations in Latin and Greek, and do not want to; and because, if they did, they would not remain content with the B.A. degree.

Mr. Arthur Sidgwick's letter in The Times of to-day puts forward four arguments for the degree; but every one of them contains a candid admission proving that the University would be immediately involved in fresh difficulties with women.

[ocr errors]

1. In arguing that the course for the B.A. will be various enough, he adds that women have already a special school of modern languages. We may hope', he proceeds to admit, that before long the University will establish one for men.' That is, women's examinations would be immediately used as a lever to alter men's examinations for a degree. Oxford would become little better than a training school for governesses.

2. After asserting that Latin is now a part of the curriculum in all the best high schools', from which he passes by a fallacious generalization to its


[ocr errors]

recognition in 'girls' schools', which are not all high schools, he admits that with regard to Greek the position is not quite so strong, since in many of the high schools it is not taught at all'. It follows that, as there were hitherto not any, in future there would not be many, candidates in all the examinations for the degree of B.A. The agitation against Greek would therefore revive with redoubled strength, in order to let off gentle women and poor men. Latin would soon follow. May I remind Mr. Arthur Sidgwick that in December 1887, when the question of women's degrees was rife at Cambridge, Mrs. Henry Sidgwick presented a memorial to the Vice-Chancellor, signed by 304 ladies concerned in education, 37 connected with colleges of women? It contained the following:

'We hope that, if the University should admit women to degrees, it will at the same time adhere to the system adopted 'by it in opening the tripos examinations by allowing them 'to take as an alternative for the ordinary previous examina'tion-a preliminary examination which does not necessarily 'involve a knowledge of Latin and Greek.'

3. While contending that the B.A. need not now necessarily involve the M.A., or full privileges, or a share in the University, he proceeds to the following admission: To some of us, indeed, there would be nothing terrible if it so came to pass-that is, if women graduates took the same position at Oxford as at other Universities.' That is, as examinations logically lead to B.A., so B.A. to M.A., M.A. to full privileges. Nor would this agitation stop short of a share in University prizes and the redistribution of the endowments, intended (but never mind that) for men by pious founders.

4. On the subject of co-education', though very hard on the alarms which discredit the pleadings of our extreme opponents' (poor fellows), he nevertheless admits that, in certain subjects, or certain

parts of them, it may be well that some lecturers would prefer separate classes'. Every plain honest man will welcome this tardy admission. But it is, at the same time, a proof that a mixed University is not only socially difficult, but also financially impracticable. Is a conscientious professor, who is required to give 42 lectures a year, to give 21 to men and 21 to women? That would be unfair to men, to teach whom he is paid. Is he to give 42 to each sex? That would sacrifice his leisure for learning. Is he for 84 lectures to be paid double? That is financially impossible. The difficulty is still greater in scientific laboratories. If, then, in certain subjects' some professors prefer separate laboratories, is the University to build another museum?

Mr. Sidgwick concludes with what he calls the largest consideration' for admitting women to a degree at Oxford. It is', he says, the immense lift which University recognition of the women students would give to girls' education all over the country.' Rather, it is an unfair elevation of a minority over a majority of women. Oxford has undertaken one responsibility, and one only, to women-the Oxford University examination for women. She has thus encouraged women's education everywhere, whether at Oxford, or at Cardiff, or at Reading, or at Holloway College, Egham, all of which have sent candidates into the University examinations. While all the Oxford women have been getting nine first classes out of 69, Holloway College alone has achieved four first classes out of 18 candidates. Will it be believed that the promoters of the scheme which Mr. Sidgwick is advocating are positively proposing that Oxford women students, without statutable residence intra Academiam, are to receive rewards which are to be denied to their sisters at Holloway College? If, on March 3, any one of the resolutions requiring a residence at

Oxford', unknown to Oxford statutes, happens to be carried Oxford will frequently find herself doing the injustice of giving some advantage—a B.A., or a diploma, or a certificate-to an Oxford woman, who gets a fourth, or perhaps a pass, while refusing it to a Holloway woman, who gets a first in the very

same examinations.

Fortunately, there is another resolution for giving a general diploma, which alone is consistent with and springs directly from the Oxford University examination of women; which will give the desired recognition and qualification for appointments, which will mete out distributive justice to all women in the same examinations, which will avoid all the difficult questions affecting the fundamental institutions of the University, about Greek and Latin, about modifying men's to suit women's examinations, about matriculation and residence, about University discipline, about the M.A. and the government of the University, about University prizes, and the redistribution of endowments, about the whole constitution of the University-questions all inevitable if Oxford once plunges into the degree of B.A. for women. February 11.


FROM The Times, MARCH 20, 1896.

It has been stated in the daily Press that we won by means of voters who do not usually interest themselves in University matters. It has been said that the usual number of voters in Congregation is about 200, while at the recent decisive vote there were 355, 140 being for the degree and 215 against it. It is insinuated that the odd 155 voted in the main in this majority. This insinuation is refuted by the statistics, which show that the majority

« VorigeDoorgaan »