CO129-543-9 Hong Kong University- technical education 28-2-1933 - 7-11-1933 — Page 11

- 3-

ground that had failed.

It seemed to the Committee, in

the circumstances, essential that the Report should contain a full statement of what the engineering Faculty was

attempting to do and to set out, with comments and in

detail, the criticisms which had been levelled at the

Faculty. Paragraph 42 of the heport, insists that a

University course whether it be in mechanical engineering or

in any other course "must connote not only a certain

standard of attainment but also a certain view-point and

range of vision and that nothing but harm and prejudice to

the University's status on the one hand and confusion of

functions and standards in the Colony's educational system

on the other, can result from any attempt to reduce the

University's teaching of engineering to the level of such a

course of training as could be properly handled in a

technical school."

7.

The Sub-Committee of the

The above statement is quoted because, while it

is of first importance to know what a University Faculty

should do, it is of alost equal importance to know what

it should not attempt to do.

Senate remark that vernacular industrial education lies

entirely outside the province of the University and express

surprise that the University as a whole and the Faculty of

Engineering in particular bulk so largely in the Committee's

Report. But apart from the general considerations put

forward in the previous paragraph of this letter the Sub-

Committee appear to have forgotten that in 1927 (see

paragraph 36 of the Report) the Senate actually accepted

the view that "instead of taking Chinese of the middle and

upper classes and trying to turn them into practical

mechanical

い