THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY AND THE COMMISSIONERS' DRAFT FINANCIAL ORDINANCES
1
674 it is also proposed to give a certain amount of clinical teaching and practical work to students at the Cardiff Infirmary, and to provide systematic courses of lectures in -such advanced subjects as obstetric medicine and in medical jurisprudence, thus aiming at a complete medical - education, both theoretical and clinical, and on a prac- tical as well as on a merely scientific basis. The training. is to be a thorough one, and the idea of the founders of the medical school is obviously to keep the student mainly, if not exclusively, in Cardiff. Early scientific educa- tion can be effectively and advantageously carried out in the provincial colleges, but a complete medical training in the practical branches of our art can only be obtained in the very largest centres of population. Clinical material of suffi- -cient variety and clinical teachers of the first eminence can seldom be found together in provincial cities or towns ; and ’even if the latter exist there they will always be under a - temptation to move to larger areas. Medical science and art cannot be provincial without having the tendency to become - unduly narrowed. THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE EDIN- BURGH UNIVERSITY AND THE COM- MISSIONERS’ DRAFT FINANCIAL ORDINANCES. A SPECIAL MEETING of the General Council of the University of Edinburgh was held last week and was summoned mainly to receive and consider the report of the Committee on Ordinances, more especially on the draft financial ordinances issued by the Commission. The report deals, in the first place, with the proposed scheme, pointing out that it is intended that the class fees, instead of being paid to the professors directly, are to be paid to an official of the University Court and are to go to a fee fund. Each professor is to receive, firstly, the endowment on the Parlia- mentary grants attached to his chair and, secondly, a sum from the fee fund sufficient to bring up his salary to the "normal salary," which is fixed by the Commis- sioners in each case. The normal salaries are to vary from £500 to £1400 a year. This so-called " normal salary," the report points out, is really the maximum salary, as no provision is made for an increase beyond this. There is, on the other hand, provision that the emoluments from a - chair shall not fall below what is called the "minimum salary." In so far as the salary may exceed the minimum rate, the only guarantee is the fee fund, and the normal salary" can only be attained if the fee fund is able to meet all the calls made upon it. The report takes up, firstly, the fee fund, and cordially approves of the general principle underlying it; but the committee have had to consider whether the fees of students should be collected into a separate fee fund for each faculty or go into a common fund, and on this important point the committee does not come to a decision, considering it could hardly do so without more knowledge as to the pro- vision the Commission proposes to make for the payment of lecturers &c. Taking up, then, the question of minimum salaries, the committee approves of the principle that a minimum salary be guaranteed, but it highly disapproves of a separate minimum for each chair. The reason for opposing this is that a professor’s status is not affected by the subject he teaches or by the number of classes he teaches, neither ought his guaranteed minimum salary to vary with these conditions. A varying or graduated minimum seems wrong in principle. The minimum ought to be as high as the University can afford, but it ought to be the same for all. The committee considers that the irreducible minimum ought to be .f500 a year. The proposal to which the committee object most emphatically in principle is that of a fixed maximum salary, called by the Ordinance a "normal salary." - Quoting from the report by the University Commission of 1878, as follows : "It is desirable, if possible, to give every professor the incentive to exertion which the dependence of a portion of his income on the success of his teaching and the number of his students gives, " the committee adhere to the principle expressed therein. The Commission, instead of modifying or regulating the stimulus of material success as was desirable, has proposed to abolish it altogether, and the committee regard this as a serious and fatal mistake. The report says : "As long as human nature is what it is, men, even learned men, will be incited to exertion by a regard for their own interests as well as by other legitimate motives. Scottish professors have not shown themselves to be more insensible to that influence in the past than other men." If this plan be adopted, "every professor will be invited to realise the fact that his most assiduous exertions and moat brilliant efforts, though they may double the number of his students, will add nothing directly to his own income; and, on the other hand, that his income will suffer no appre- ciable diminution even after he has emptied his class- room by the laziest reading of the dullest lectures." It is pointed out by the committee that the Senatus have recommended that after receiving the minimum each professor should receive all his fees until a second fixed point is reached, after which he should receive one-third of his fees, the remaining two-thirds going to the common fund. Another scheme that has been proposed is that after the minimum salary is paid the surplus should be divided into three parts-one to go to the professor, one to his faculty, and one to the University. The committee does not commit itself to either of these, but it appears to think either of them better than that proposed by the Commission. As for the question as to whether or not there ought to be a superior limit and a maximum salary, the committee think that the maximum is determinable by consideration of the number of students a professor is competent to teach and to examine in each class, and that the University Court should be called upon to fix it in each case upon this principle. On the matter of vested interests the committee point out various faults in the Ordinance, and they hold that in all future appoint- ments to chairs in medicine the University Court should have liberty to revise the conditions of each chair. The objections to the Ordinance are summarised as follows :-1. The pro- posal of separate minimum salaries for each chair cannot be justified in principle, whilst it would prove invidious in practice. 2. The withdrawal from the professors of all direct interest in the success of their classes is an unnecessary interference with the natural incentives to energy and enter- prise. 3. The limitation of salaries to a rigid normal or maximum, differing for each chair, is an artificial arrange- ment, calling for a constant readjustment in the future to changing conditions, a readjustment which is not pro- vided for. 4. The proposed relations of the different faculties in regard to the fee fund would interfere with harmonious working in the Senatus and might lead to serious injustice. The main amendments proposed are :-1. There should be a uniform minimum salary of £500 a year guaranteed to each chair. 2. Each professor should retain a certain interest in the fees paid for his class. 3. The upward limit ot salary should be determined by decisions of the University Court fixing the extreme number of students to be taught in a single class. The adoption of this report was moved by Mr. TAYLOR INNES, Advocate, and seconded by Mr. SCOTT DALGLEISH, LL.D., and unanimously agreed to. The report of the Finance Committee was then submitted. It criticises very severely the proposed financial arrange- ments by the Commission. It states that the committee doubt the wisdom of the Commissioners’ plan of attempting to find salaries for the non-medical chairs out of fees earned in the medical faculty. These fees, it is stated, are liable to violent fluctuations, and it is suggested that the Commissioners have been induced too readily to draw for general purposes upon the medical fees in consequence of the attitude of the medical professors who represented to the Commissioners that additional chairs were not wanted in the medical faculty. How far this view is correct the report does not inquire, but it says that it is certain that a laige body of non-professorial medical opinion is satisfied that greatly increased teaching power and appliances are absolutely necessary if the Medical School is to hold its own in competition with newer institu- tions. The report further states that the committee was favoured with a memorial which contains the fees for 1891-92, that the shrinkage there shown greatly exceeds the com- mittee’s estimate, and that the figures given by the Medical Faculty prove that without any further shrinkage in the current or future years the Commissioners’ surplus of £8225 from the medical chairs has fallen below 2500. This report was also unanimously agreed to.
Transcript of THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY AND THE COMMISSIONERS' DRAFT FINANCIAL ORDINANCES
674
it is also proposed to give a certain amount of clinical teaching and practical work to students at the CardiffInfirmary, and to provide systematic courses of lectures in -such advanced subjects as obstetric medicine and inmedical jurisprudence, thus aiming at a complete medical- education, both theoretical and clinical, and on a prac-tical as well as on a merely scientific basis. The training.is to be a thorough one, and the idea of the foundersof the medical school is obviously to keep the studentmainly, if not exclusively, in Cardiff. Early scientific educa-tion can be effectively and advantageously carried out in theprovincial colleges, but a complete medical training in the
practical branches of our art can only be obtained in the verylargest centres of population. Clinical material of suffi--cient variety and clinical teachers of the first eminence canseldom be found together in provincial cities or towns ; and’even if the latter exist there they will always be under a- temptation to move to larger areas. Medical science and artcannot be provincial without having the tendency to become- unduly narrowed.
THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE EDIN-BURGH UNIVERSITY AND THE COM-
MISSIONERS’ DRAFT FINANCIALORDINANCES.
A SPECIAL MEETING of the General Council of the Universityof Edinburgh was held last week and was summoned mainlyto receive and consider the report of the Committee on
Ordinances, more especially on the draft financial ordinancesissued by the Commission. The report deals, in the first
place, with the proposed scheme, pointing out that it is
intended that the class fees, instead of being paid to theprofessors directly, are to be paid to an official of the
University Court and are to go to a fee fund. Each
professor is to receive, firstly, the endowment on the Parlia-mentary grants attached to his chair and, secondly, a sumfrom the fee fund sufficient to bring up his salary tothe "normal salary," which is fixed by the Commis-sioners in each case. The normal salaries are to vary from£500 to £1400 a year. This so-called " normal salary,"the report points out, is really the maximum salary,as no provision is made for an increase beyond this. There
is, on the other hand, provision that the emoluments from a- chair shall not fall below what is called the "minimum salary."In so far as the salary may exceed the minimum rate, theonly guarantee is the fee fund, and the normal salary" canonly be attained if the fee fund is able to meet all the callsmade upon it. The report takes up, firstly, the fee fund, andcordially approves of the general principle underlying it;but the committee have had to consider whether the fees ofstudents should be collected into a separate fee fund for eachfaculty or go into a common fund, and on this importantpoint the committee does not come to a decision, consideringit could hardly do so without more knowledge as to the pro-vision the Commission proposes to make for the payment oflecturers &c. Taking up, then, the question of minimumsalaries, the committee approves of the principle that aminimum salary be guaranteed, but it highly disapproves of aseparate minimum for each chair. The reason for opposingthis is that a professor’s status is not affected by the subjecthe teaches or by the number of classes he teaches, neitherought his guaranteed minimum salary to vary with theseconditions. A varying or graduated minimum seems wrongin principle. The minimum ought to be as high as theUniversity can afford, but it ought to be the same for all.The committee considers that the irreducible minimum oughtto be .f500 a year. The proposal to which the committeeobject most emphatically in principle is that of a fixedmaximum salary, called by the Ordinance a "normal salary."- Quoting from the report by the University Commission of1878, as follows : "It is desirable, if possible, to give everyprofessor the incentive to exertion which the dependence of aportion of his income on the success of his teaching and thenumber of his students gives, " the committee adhere tothe principle expressed therein. The Commission, instead
of modifying or regulating the stimulus of material successas was desirable, has proposed to abolish it altogether, andthe committee regard this as a serious and fatal mistake. Thereport says : "As long as human nature is what it is, men,even learned men, will be incited to exertion by a regard fortheir own interests as well as by other legitimate motives.Scottish professors have not shown themselves to be moreinsensible to that influence in the past than other men." Ifthis plan be adopted, "every professor will be invited torealise the fact that his most assiduous exertions and moatbrilliant efforts, though they may double the number ofhis students, will add nothing directly to his own income;and, on the other hand, that his income will suffer no appre-ciable diminution even after he has emptied his class-room by the laziest reading of the dullest lectures." It is pointed out by the committee that the Senatushave recommended that after receiving the minimumeach professor should receive all his fees until a secondfixed point is reached, after which he should receive one-thirdof his fees, the remaining two-thirds going to the commonfund. Another scheme that has been proposed is that afterthe minimum salary is paid the surplus should be divided intothree parts-one to go to the professor, one to his faculty,and one to the University. The committee does not commititself to either of these, but it appears to think either of thembetter than that proposed by the Commission. As for thequestion as to whether or not there ought to be a superior limitand a maximum salary, the committee think that the maximumis determinable by consideration of the number of students aprofessor is competent to teach and to examine ineach class, and that the University Court should becalled upon to fix it in each case upon this principle. On thematter of vested interests the committee point out various faultsin the Ordinance, and they hold that in all future appoint-ments to chairs in medicine the University Court should haveliberty to revise the conditions of each chair. The objectionsto the Ordinance are summarised as follows :-1. The pro-posal of separate minimum salaries for each chair cannotbe justified in principle, whilst it would prove invidious inpractice. 2. The withdrawal from the professors of all directinterest in the success of their classes is an unnecessaryinterference with the natural incentives to energy and enter-prise. 3. The limitation of salaries to a rigid normal ormaximum, differing for each chair, is an artificial arrange-ment, calling for a constant readjustment in the future tochanging conditions, a readjustment which is not pro-vided for. 4. The proposed relations of the differentfaculties in regard to the fee fund would interfere withharmonious working in the Senatus and might lead to seriousinjustice.The main amendments proposed are :-1. There should be
a uniform minimum salary of £500 a year guaranteed to eachchair. 2. Each professor should retain a certain interest inthe fees paid for his class. 3. The upward limit ot salaryshould be determined by decisions of the University Courtfixing the extreme number of students to be taught in a
single class.The adoption of this report was moved by Mr. TAYLOR
INNES, Advocate, and seconded by Mr. SCOTT DALGLEISH,LL.D., and unanimously agreed to.The report of the Finance Committee was then submitted.
It criticises very severely the proposed financial arrange-ments by the Commission. It states that the committee doubtthe wisdom of the Commissioners’ plan of attempting to findsalaries for the non-medical chairs out of fees earned in themedical faculty. These fees, it is stated, are liable to violentfluctuations, and it is suggested that the Commissioners havebeen induced too readily to draw for general purposes uponthe medical fees in consequence of the attitude of themedical professors who represented to the Commissioners thatadditional chairs were not wanted in the medical faculty.How far this view is correct the report does not inquire, butit says that it is certain that a laige body of non-professorialmedical opinion is satisfied that greatly increased teachingpower and appliances are absolutely necessary if the MedicalSchool is to hold its own in competition with newer institu-tions. The report further states that the committee wasfavoured with a memorial which contains the fees for 1891-92,that the shrinkage there shown greatly exceeds the com-mittee’s estimate, and that the figures given by the MedicalFaculty prove that without any further shrinkage in thecurrent or future years the Commissioners’ surplus of £8225from the medical chairs has fallen below 2500. This reportwas also unanimously agreed to.
