Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-06-25
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA.
What the Examining Committee Had to
Say About the Examinations.

The Board of Visitors, consisting of Samuel
Barnett, Washington; Rev. L. q. Pond, Al
bany; g. r. Glenn, Columbus; Rev. T. p.
Cleveland, Gainesville; S. A. Reid, Esq.
Eatonton; Rev. w. b. Bennett, Quitmsn; L.
W. Avery, Esq, Atlanta; William II. Baker
Of Savannah, and Rev. G.. A. Nunnally, of
reported to the Governor relative to the an
nual examinations as follows:
The examination papers consisted Of several
| thousand manuscript pages, the reading and
| criticism of which involved an amount Of
labor perhaps little appreciated by the gem
! eral public.
our first comment on the examination is,
| that 1t was entirely fair and complete. The
papers submitted to us were not selected
| papers, but the whole series was laid before
us. This is a very important fact in its bear
ing on the character of the examination.
There were no special exhibitions Of good
work and no concealments of bad.
In the second place, they were the unaided
work Of the students. This was attested by
| the pledges attached, and by unmistakable
ear marks in the various papers OF the same
/ student.
the matter and the manner Of the papers sub
mitted. In regard to the matter, there were
| many degrees OF excellence or deficiency, from
a very high down to an inferior standard Of
| scholarship. Upon this (substance of the
| papers,, which is the most important point of
! all, they exhibited on the part of the class as
| a whole fair general knowledge of the sub
| jects discussed. 1t is true that some were
/ quite defective in substance, while other
papers were of high grade of excellence.
F0urthiy. AS regards manner, or the form
in which the papers were prepared and pre-
scented to MS, the results Of our criticism are
not SO favorable. The deficiency was greater
in the less than in the more important fea-
lures of the style of presentation. The order
Of explanation in the papers was, on the
whole, fairly good. often excellent, though in
some papers defective.
The order OF presentation we regard as the
most important feature of manner. Next fol-
low fxlp ora ehi N and
neatness.
But the impression upon the general reader
does not follow this order; indeed, the order is
reversed. Hence even the minor features of
style and manner, both to the student and to
the University Judged by Its graduates) are of
high practical value They often color the
whole after life of the student.
1t is proper to say, however, that the def
ciencies we have noted are attributable
chiefly to defective preparation before the
students enter college. This difficulty seem
to be appreciated by the faculty, and we can
not too earnestly recommend the enforcement
of the law in regard to the admission and adj
vancement of the students. The catalogue
shows that applicants are not examined in
photography and English composition at the
time of entering. 1t provides, however, that
sin order to guard against ignorance of these
important branches of school education. there
will lie in April of every session an examina-
ton in the above named subjects, OF all the
students in The University"
1t is also provided that after 1888 no student
Will Dt IOOOlhtuOAtuCt AuA it1uuetAuu MAlO mas
failed to secure a certificate in the above ex-
animation.
we would respectfully recommend such
modification of the rule as to make prof.
cheney in these studies a condition of admis-
sion into the University, and also that the
April examination be continued so as to make
this proficiency a condition of rising from one
class to another; and, further, that the exam
inatiOn to secure such certificate be searching
and thorough. The Interests both of the stu
dent aud University absolutely require that
this reform should be effectually introduced.
Firmly. The number OF departments in
which papers were submitted, seemed to us
out of proportion to the number of professors
engaged in the work of instruction. While
our criticisms OF the examination papers have
been honest and close, we must express a high
appreciation of the faithful and laboriOus
work OF the Chancellor and faculty. When
we consider that in several instances a single
professor has three or four departments OF
study in which to give instruction, prepare
questions and examine papers, we cannot too
heartily commend their diligence in the dis
charge Of their duties and the patience in
which they undergo such heavy labor. That
there should be, therefore, defects of manner
in the papers was to be expected as unavoid-
fessOrs being wisely devoted to the matter
instruction.
II the number Of departments remains un-
diminished, the working force needs to be
materially increased. Such an increase
would benefit the University by raising the
standard of scholarship and making it conform
to the wishes rather than to the opportunities
Of the facultV