Professor Odling, in his long correspondence in the Times with
Canon Liddon on the new B.N.S. (Bachelor of Natural Science) Degree at Oxford, made good, we think, one of his points, though he did not succeed in proving that there should be no substantial distinction between a degree in Science and a degree in Arts. His successful point was, that it is not fair to natural science to give the degree of B.N.S. to men who know no more of natural science than others who, for the same acquirements in that branch of knowledge, obtain the degree of B.A., the only differ- ence between them being that the latter have brought up a modicum of Greek, while the former have taken up only German, or whatever is substituted for Greek. Professor Odling argues that either a degree in natural science ought to imply a substantially larger knowledge of natural science than the same degree in Arts,—or if not, then the candidate who can qualify himself for it should have the right to the name of a degree in Arts,—so long as the only difference between him and the student who gains the latter degree is, not a superior know- ledge of natural science, but his supposed inferiority in sub- stituting something else for Greek. Clearly, it cannot be wise to make a B.N.S. degree stand simply for a B.A. with less literary culture, when it should also imply decidedly more scientific culture. To our mind, the University of London is in the right. That University makes B.Sc. imply a real discipline in Science, and BA. a real discipline in language and litera- ture ; instead of making B.Sc. a degenerated form of RA.
Previous page
