II. Madras. APPENDIX (D.) Sir, From the Professor of History to the Acting Principal of the Presidency College. HAVING now looked over the answers of the students in History, Moral Philosophy, and Political Economy, I am enabled to offer a few remarks on the reports of the examiners. 2. In Guizot's History of European Civilization, it appears to me that the young men have done exceedingly well, especially when I take into consideration the number and difficulty of the questions set, and the short space of the three hours allowed for answering. It was a race against time, and they have done themselves credit in the contest. 3. With regard to the general paper in history, I beg to observe, that they have, with one exception, got fully a third of the marks assigned for the subject, and when it is borne in mind, that many of the questions referred to portions of history which they had not studied, I cannot look upon the result as unsatisfactory. Mr. Thompson, indeed, expresses his surprise at finding that not a single student of the third class could explain the term, pragmatic sanction, and remarks that surely the term was explained when the portion of history relating to the accession of Maria Theresa was read. I can assure Mr. Thompson that this portion was not read by the students of the third class, and moreover, that even though it had been read, it is quite possible that not a lad could have answered it. Experience has impressed upon my mind the fact that many things taught by the professor in the course of the year are not always forthcoming on the day of examination. 4. The answers of the students in the second and first class, call for no particular remark. The young men appear to have done fairly, and I believe that nothing more can be said in their behalf. Mr. Thompson observes, and I quite agree with him, that the students of the second class are not much in advance of those of the first. The reason of this is, that during the last year, their attendance was most irregular; they appeared to take no interest in their studies, and were alike indifferent to praise and censure. The portions of history selected for their perusal were suggested by Principal Powell, and for reasons which seemed to me worthy of attention. 5. In concluding my remarks on this portion of the examination, I beg to observe that while I do not accuse Mr. Thompson of injustice in estimating the respective merits of the students of history, I cannot refrain from remarking that he does not appear to me to have duly appreciated the answers in Guizot. I am persuaded that had he perused, with even a slight attention, the late Bombay Report on Education, which was sent to him and the other examiners as you announced, by the Director of Public Instruction, he would have learned how injudicious it was to set such a number of questions to be answered, in three hours, by Hindu youths, some of whom are but imperfectly acquainted with English, and, in consequence, require time to clothe their ideas in suitable language. 6. I have perused the answers in Moral Philosophy of the third class with great care, and have come to the conclusion that they do the young men credit, especially Rajahgopaul, Coopoosawmy, and Samiah. There is a slight falling off on the part of Canakiah, and a still greater on the part of Soobramanien and Vurdarajooloo. One half of the lads are deserving of nearly two-thirds of the marks. 7. In the political economy of the second class, I find that the young men have a very fair knowledge of the science, and had time been allowed them they would have done themselves greater justice. There is only one answer which is not to the purpose, and that arises from the fact, that the second question was so copied out in the paper of questions, given to the student as to make nonsense of it. Their notions of values are quite correct, and their power of grappling with subjects which are not discussed in their text-books, must be apparent to every one acquainted with the subject. 8. Among the answers of the young men of the first class, there are some of considerable merit, and all exhibit a familiar acquaintance with the principles of political economy. Indeed the only errors which I could perceive in their papers were as frequently to be found in the notes of the examiner, as in the answers of the students. 9. In concluding this letter, I have no hesitation in saying, that Mr. Holloway has done the lads injustice. He assigns marks for answers which were not attempted, and he omits to award marks for answers which are in themselves good, and very much to the point. His report is utterly worthless, for it is not based upon facts, and it deals in groundless conjecture. It was only the other day that, in conjunction with Messrs. Powell and Richards, he publicly declared that in the higher subjects of study, the answers of the lads of the Presidency College, showed that they were well grounded and thoroughly taught. I would fain hope that he has seen no falling off in the teaching since the period of that announcement, and I think I may confidently assert there has not been any, in so far at least as I am concerned. I have printed a sufficient number of the answers to enable any one to form an opinion upon the subject, and I may state, that I was led to do so for my own satisfaction, and with a view to show to the constituted authorities that a report which II. Madras. is not based upon facts, cannot further but must retard the interests of education. It is my intention to send you a copy of these printed answers within a day or two. 10. With this, I return you the different sets of answers, together with the question papers, Messrs. Thompson and Holloway's reports and tabular statements of the results. Adam A. Gordon, M. A., Nungumbaukum, 27 April 1857. Sir, (signed) Professor, Presidency College. To Henry Fortey, Esq., Acting Principal of the Presidency College. I HAVE the honour to acknowlege the receipt of your letter of the 9th instant, forwarding the answers of the students to the examination papers set in my subjects last Christmas, with the reports of the examiners, and calling upon me to offer such remarks as appear necessary. In reply, I beg to state that if I thought the question papers and answers were likely to meet with an attentive perusal as well as the reports, I should abstain from making a single observation; but as this is not likely to happen, as in many cases it cannot happen, and as the interests of the six senior students who are leaving the college are in some danger of being prejudiced if these unfavourable reports are allowed to be taken for granted, some notice of them becomes a duty. When, in October last, the head masters of the Calicut and Normal Schools were named as examiners in English literature of the Presidency College, I felt that the arrangement was not one calculated to inspire confidence; both these gentlemen had a very few months previously landed in India, were quite without experience in native education, and were far from having attained such a position in the educational service as would give their judgments, whether favourable or otherwise, that weight which ought to attach to the judgments of men appointed to report on the highest Government educational establishment of this Presidency. My anticipations have been fulfilled in the result; the reports, if taken by themselves, are calculated to mislead. in This opinion I shall now proceed to establish, beginning with Mr. Thompson's papers general literature, Milton, and Trench; he complains of" serious short comings" in the two former subjects, but as the nature of these short comings is not specified, it is to be supposed that he refers to the disproportion between the number of marks obtained and the full number assigned. This supposition is confirmed by a perusal of the answers themselves, in which, with, of course, blunders of carelessness and of hurry, and of ignorance, the faults are mainly those of omission, and not of positive error. A great deal has been left unattempted, but not an unusual amount badly executed. This short coming admits of easy explanation; it is to be found in the unreasonable character of the question papers. The object of the general papers was to test, by means of passages that had not been studied, the familiarity of the students with ordinary English, a very useful exercise, if judiciously conducted; but the prose of Milton and Bacon, and the poetry of Shakespeare and Tennyson are as unsuitable tests for this purpose as could well be selected. The extract from Milton merits scarcely the name of English; to an Englishman who had not received a classical education, it would be all but unintelligible. The unconscionable length of the question will at once be evident, if it be considered that it could not be read over (given out as it was in manuscript) by a Hindu youth, so as to be understood, much under 20 minutes; the four long extracts set for paraphrase would require for their decent execution at least an hour and a half; and for the remaining hour and 10 minutes there would remain no less than 60 distinct points to be cleared up, leaving all revision out of the question. Some of these answers need not, I admit, be long, but many, if at all complete, must be so; such, for instance, as an account of the life, character, and writings of Lord Bacon; a life of Shakspeare; an analysis of one of his plays; the tracing of the history and character of the English people from their language; and others similar. I therefore maintain that, these circumstances duly considered, the results obtained in this paper, so far from being unsatisfactory, are just the reverse; the answers of Rajahgopaul, Samiah, and Soobramanien are as good as could reasonably be expected; besides, I consider that the marks which have been given have certainly not been awarded with any liberality, and I would specify Rajahgopaul's answers numbered 3, 4, 11, and Samiah, 2, 3, as having received, in my estimation, a very scanty allowance indeed. The Milton paper is not, like the general paper, unfairly difficult, but it is unfairly long; four hours, not deducting any portion for the work of deciphering the manuscript, would have been barely sufficient for it. Besides two long passages to be paraphrased, there are upwards of 60 questions grouped, as in the other paper, under 11 heads. I would direct attention to the third question alone, and would venture to affirm, that an English youth who could fully dispose of that one question in half an hour would be thought entitled to some credit. Referring to the examiner's tabular statement, it will be seen that Rajahgopaul attempted six questions, the full value of which is 61, of which he has attained more than two-thirds. Had the others confined their attention to a few questions, instead of trying to answer a bit of each, the result, I think, would have been numerically more imposing; but, so far as they go, the majority of the answers deserve to be pronounced fair. The The papers on Trench's lectures I desire to call especial attention to, as fully bearing out my view that a lack of judgment has been displayed in the conduct of this part of the examination. Let this set of questions be compared with the Milton and general papers, and the fact weighed that it was drawn up to be answered in precisely the same time as each of the other two. It contains just over 30 questions, formed with 11 groups, they upwards of 60, exclusive of the long paraphrases. If three hours were not too much for the former paper, then six would not be over the mark for the two latter. I find as much difficulty also in discovering the principle on which the separate questions have been valued, as in finding out what has determined the length of the paper themselves. Referring to the three first questions in Trench, it will be seen that they rise in difficulty, yet their values are 10, 9, 10, while the 10th question, which is valued at 9, is so short and simple that in comparison with the 11th it would be highly rated at four; and though the examiner commends the answers in Trench, he has not even here been at all liberal in the awarding of marks. Some of the answers I think have been positively depreciated; and as instances I would refer to Samiah's 1, 5, 6; to Vurdarajulu's 1, 4, 9; Soobramanien's 4, 11; and to 10 of Rajahgopaul's and Coopoosawmy's. In confirmation of the objection I have taken to the inordinate length of two of Mr. Thompson's papers, I beg that they may be compared with the papers in English literature, set at the examinations of the Bombay and Calcutta colleges, or even with those set at examinations in England. I come now to the logic papers. Before noticing the examiner's report it is necessary to state that at the request of the principal in the beginning of last year, I consented to read Whateley's "Easy Lessons on Reasoning" with the senior students, by way of an introduction to the study of logic, the subject not falling exactly within my own branch. The books did not reach Madras till the middle of the year. These circumstances being kept in mind, it will appear to most, I think, when the question paper and answers are compared with the re port, that the examiner's remarks are unwarrantable, that they display a singular unacquaintance with the kind of attainments he was appointed to test, and that they are at direct variance with his own results. "no" The first complaint is of the conciseness and technicality of the answers; a fault very rarely found within the productions of Hindoo students. The complaint hitherto has been that their answers are too diffuse and wordy; and for many years before Mr. Fowler's arrival in India, I have been endeavouring to apply a remedy; it would now appear but too successfully. With this view I have always inculcated a maxim directly opposed to that laid down by him, that an examiner requires more to satisfy him than " "yes" or by enjoining students to answer the question, and do no more. If " yes or 66 no" be an answer, it is a sign that the question has been clumsily framed; but it is too much to expect youths under examination to correct an examiner's unskilfulness by finding out what more may be meant by a question than what meets the eye, and supplying the omission. However, with regard to the answers now under review, the report omits to state that, to encourage this style of answering, the following promise headed the question paper "technical and concise language will add to the value of all answers." In aiming at the standard thus set up, some have a little overshot the mark, perhaps. The examiner admits that "most of the students have studied the subject successfully so far as parts of the book are concerned." Admitting that their knowledge extended no further; perhaps not; but whether it did or not, the examiner was not in a position to indulge in that insinuation, for the solitary exception of question seven the entire examination paper was framed on the book, and was fitted to elicit no other knowledge than what the book was well able to supply. The report closes with stigmatizing the answers as "dreadfully rotten," and expressing an unfavourable opinion of "the mental training which the students leaving the college have acquired through reading logic." Passing over the intemperate vulgarity of this language, I refer for its refutation to the examiner's own results. If the words "dreadfully rotten,' mean anything at all, they must mean totally worthless; and if so, how have the answers attained the proportion of marks that has been assigned to them? Out of seven of Canakiah's answers, one receives half the full value, the remaining six more than half. Of Rajahgopaul's one gets nine-tenths of the full value, and others five two-thirds, or more than onehalf. Of Samiah's two answers receive full marks, four others two-thirds or upwards, and only two less than half; the average on the whole equals 463, which would be regarded in any examination of a class of six students, as at least good, if not very good, and yet in the face of these, his own numerical results, the examiner denounces the answers as dreadfully rotten. Either then he has made serious mistakes in assigning the values, or the more serious mistake of passing a disparaging sentence without proper foundation for it. But the examiner expected to find traces of mental training in students leaving college from having read logic. Now it seems to me equally indicative of a want of logical training to mistake Whateley's "Easy Lessons," for the science of logic, and to look for the disciplinary effects of the study of logic in students who had spent five or six weeks in mastering the mere elements of it. The object proposed in reading Whateley was to facilitate the study of logic subsequently by making intelligible the introductory technicalities. As well might an examiner complain of a class that had studied Euclid's Elements or read the Latin delectus that they did not exhibit marks of the disciplinary influence of mathematical or classical studies. II. Madras. II. Madras. This brings me to the end of my review of the reports of the examiners on the senior class in my subjects. I have gone into them thus at length not for the purpose of defending myself, but to show grounds for my belief that if certificates of proficiency are awarded to these young men strictly in accordance with the numerical results given in, injustice will be done to them. Into that part of Mr. Fowler's report which refers to the second and first class, I do not propose entering, for the interests of these young men are not at an equal extent involved; and there does not appear to be much in the report itself calling for special comment or explanation; except perhaps the superiority of the results obtained by the first class, to those obtained by the second. The comparative failure of the higher class has only confirmed my own previous impressions regarding them, expressed frequently last year to the class, as well as to yourself. The attendances of the second class was notoriously irregular, and though not destitute of abilities, the majority of the students composing that class seem to me very deficient in scholar-like earnestness. I shall be glad if their influence does not affect injuriously the junior class, that has this year been united with them. The reports, question papers, and answers are all herewith returned. (signed) Henry Bowers. Sir, To the Director of Public Instruction. I HAVE the honour to forward the accompanying brief reports upon the examination of the third class of the Presidency College in Analytical and Geometrical Conics, and the Differential Calculus. They all show that the students possess a very fair knowledge of the former, and a more perfect knowledge of the latter subject. When it is considered that their knowledge has been acquired in a foreign language, it will I think be seen that the students all possess considerable talent for mathematics. I am not aware what the ages of the students are, but I feel sure that the circumstance of their having to study the subject in a foreign language still proves a hindrance which every day's additional practice will diminish; so that if they had further leisure and inducement to proceed with the study, their progress would be more rapid than that of most English students who had just kept pace with them hitherto. I have the honour to return the three text-books forwarded to me. Of the class generally it may be said that they do great credit to themselves and to their instructors. The first five answers of Soobramanien would be quite correct on the assumption that the figures were constructed for him previously to his entering upon his work of proof, and that he was not called upon to construct the figures himself; as this cannot however be assumed, his work is open to the charge of incompleteness, for in one or two instances important steps in the construction of the figures have been omitted. The same fault is found in some of the answers of each member of the class. I have thought it as well to call attention to these points in order to show the result of a careful examination of the papers. I must repeat, however, that the attainments of the class are such as to show that all its members possess a natural aptitude for mathematics, and that they have exerted themselves very successfully in acquiring a knowledge of it in a foreign language. The following marks show the relative merits of the papers examined: 55 - 35 Paper by Coopoosawmy 35 29 20 Had every question been correctly answered, the total number of marks would have been 75; 10 for each of the first six questions, and 15 for the seventh. The II. The following table shows the number of questions answered by each student, and the qualities of the answers: Madras. Report on the Examination of the Third Class in the Differential Calculus. The first five members of this class are the same as those in the class examined in conic sections; and it is remarkable that their knowledge of the differential calculus, as treated in the text-book used at the Presidency College, is greater than their knowledge of conic sections; this is probably owing to their having studied the subject lately, and with the care which its well-known character for difficulty renders necessary. While the total number of marks obtainable for the papers in conic sections and the differential calculus were 75 and 120 respectively, the number of marks obtained were as follows: In Conic Sections: By the first in the class, 55 or 73 per cent. on the number obtainable. In the Differential Calculus: ditto. By the first in the class, 100 or 83 per cent. on the number obtainable. ditto. In both the calculus and conic sections, Soobramanien stands first, and Samiah second. The following marks show the relative merits of the papers on the calculus: The following table shows the number of questions answered by each student, and the qualities of the answers: |