for one or two teachers, however learned and experienced, to traverse the whole field of their subject. The existing Post-Graduate organisation is therefore based on a system by which a student would be brought into contact with a number of teachers, each with his own point of view and his own special subject, and a teacher would not be expected to diffuse his energy but would confine his attention to making himself master of some portion of his work. Proposal for curtailment of the ranks of teachers without the abolition of some of the important existing teaching activities in the University can only proceed from the dilettanti without judgment and adequate academic experience.
The report of the Committee appointed by the Government of India in 1916 to consider the arrangements for Post-Graduate teaching in the University of Calcutta, expressly recognised “the necessity of providing a variety of treatment in the instruction offered to graduates, and of affording opportunities of specialisation on the part of the teachers”. “Students engaged in the higher courses,” they thought, “should draw inspiration and knowledge from a number of teachers and thus learn to study their subject from many points of view”. If this proposition laid down by the Post-Graduate Committee in 1916 be accepted as a sound educational principle so far as higher teaching is concerned, then we have yet to learn how far the opinion of Prof. Sarkar is tenable from an academic point of view. Again, it is essential to have some clear ideas of what is meant by the term Post-Graduate instruction and what are its objects. This is particularly essential as there has been some misunderstanding in the matter. It must be admitted, we hope, by critics, candid and impartial, that the M.A. and M.Sc. courses should not take the form merely of a more thorough undergraduate course conducted on very similar lines and methods. In his enthusiasm for “retrenchment” Prof. Sarkar has not made the slightest reference to the question of tutorial instruction. At present in the University classes, even with the existing “costly superfluous teaching staff,” it
