STATE EXPENDITURE ON HIGHER EDUCATION.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—It is generally agreed that it is good for the nation that the old Universities should be supplemented by the new ones. Unfortunately in this country at the present time the endow- ment of Universities by the wealthy is not so frequent as in North America. We cannot afford to wait for endowments, and the State has therefore to step in. Mr. Sibly (Spectator, November 80th) seems to regard a University as a tertiary school which should be able to pay its way. But it is a mis- take to group schools and Universities together in the matter of State support, for their functions are different. A Uni- versity which merely teaches and gives degrees is only fulfil- ling a part—possibly the smaller part—of its true function, which is not only to disseminate knowledge, but to make it. But this scientific and literary research work is generally expensive, and often takes much time, so it is necessary that a University should have sufficient funds at its disposal to support an ample staff to research as well as teach, and to provide the necessary accommodation and apparatus. Students' fees cannot be increased indefinitely ; as it is, the fees for many courses in the State-subsidised University of Leeds are higher than for corresponding University courses at Oxford. Research is so important that all Universities should be liberally endowed or subsidised. A truly thrifty and far- seeing Government would not limit the annual grant to the University Colleges and new Universities to a meagre 2100,000, but rather double it, and possibly help the old Universities as well.—I am, Sir, &a., S. G. SCOTT.
Previous page
