Oration on the building of the University / by Ernest H. Starling.

  • Starling, Ernest Henry, 1866-1927.
Date:
1902
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Oration on the building of the University / by Ernest H. Starling. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    11/18 (page 9)
    building up of the University, waste their time and opportunities in thwarting any scheme which appears to give a temporary ad- vantage to one or other body. If only these institutions could agree on a common policy, the making of a University in London would be a comparatively simple problem. For any new University must utilise and build up into itself all the facilities for higher teaching already existent in London, and any plan to be successful must involve the develop- ment and not the disintegration of these institutions. . Even if the field were perfectly open and a University had to be made de novo in London, a single Institute or group of Institutes would not be an adequate solution of the problem. The University must be equally accessible to dwellers in the North, South, East or West of London—a condition which could only be fulfilled in the case of a single Institute by placing the University in the heart of the City. A better and more feasible way is to adopt a process of division, so that a complete University Centre should be provi- ded in the close neighbourhood of the railroads which serve these four quarters of the London area. Such a division of the Univer- sity could be accomplished without in any way destroying the unity of the whole. In our ideal University there would be a centre in each of the four quarters of London. Each of these centres would be in so far a complete University, in that it would be a place for study and research in all branches of knowledge, and would be a community of teachers and scholars. The local busi- ness affairs of each centre would be under the control of a Committee or Council, appointed by the Senate of the University, but containing representatives of the local body of Professors. In each of these centres we might expect an active local spirit to arise out of the common interest of its members, and a healthy spirit of rivalry with the other centres, not for students or fees, but in the matter of efficiency and productive work. On the other hand, all these centres would be but parts of one University, with common aims, with similar curricula and the same standard of examination.