Pages 68 & 69

68 U.C.D. and the Future

(a) Irrespective of numbers of students in the laboratory; i.e. a class of 5
or one of 25 both count equally as 'occupied.'

(b) Assuming a 23-week (classes begin a day or two late and end a day or
two early and only 22 weeks of the year are occupied); and a 44-hour
week less 5 hours for lunch from Monday to Friday.

(c) Number of student places X number of hours vacant in year.

The number of student-place hours of teaching space in this building (excluding
a seminar room which is used by honours students on and off all the time),
available in the year is about 80,640. The number of student-place hours actually
used is about 15,760, an overall 'efficiency of utilisation' of 19.5 per cent.

This is the first problem I want to put to the Conference. The present
pattern of university teaching and the present design of science teaching
laboratories is such that most of the accommodation is not in use most of the
time. I have assumed that if a 100-place laboratory is occupied even by 5
students laboratories are large enough for the numbers of students. The problem
I bring tot your attention is the large proportion of time over which the labora-
tories are altogether empty.

Perhaps this is an insoluable problem. Certainly universities find it impossible
to solve by adjusting time tables. It might appear simple to split up large
classes into small goups which do their practical work in relays, and so
economise laboratory space. This is in fact what is done in the United States.
A class of (say) 250 students is split into ten groups of 25, each under a
separate instructor. So the laboratory does not need to hold 250: a capacity
of 25 is enough, and the laboratory is occupied by one group or another for
most of the time throughout the week. Of course some of the saving in laboratory
space is offset by the fact that retiring rooms are needed for the ten instructors.
And I have calculated--through it is very dubious arithmetic and you might
not be prepared to accept some of the assumptions that the saving in capital
cost invested at 4 per cent would just about pay for the salaries of the extra
assistant lecturers (for that is the rank of academic teacher we would need in
Britain) necessary to deal with the smaller practical classes. But this doesn't
mean the solution lies that way: there are great difficulties in the way of adopting
such a solution as this in Britain. For if the class is split into relays for
chemistry, it has to be split into corresponding relays for physics and zoology
and botany and geology: in fact for all other subjects in the faculty; and for all
other subjects there would have to be corresponding increases in staff. And even
if the capital were to be invested for salaries instead of being monumentalised
in bricks and mortar and plumbing, there would not under present circumstances
be nearly enough candidates for the posts which would have to be filled.

Appendix H

LEADING ARTICLE FROM "THE IRISH INDEPENDENT," 4th JUNE, 1959

Last Things First

In our issue of yesterday we published a summary of the recommendations
of the Commission on the 'accommodation needs of the constituent colleges of
the National University." It would be unjust to criticise the Members of the

Appendices 69

Commission on their findings. Their terms of reference held them cribbed,
cabined and confined from the outset. They were permitted solely 'to inquire
into the accommodation needs of the Constituent Colleges.' No more. Thus did
the Minister for Education and his colleagues in the Government tie their
hands behind their backs.

Of course this was ignoring the main problem. Since this State was estab--
lished almost forty years ago we have never had a comprehensive inquiry
into university education in Ireland. The subject raised a multitude of problems
which the members of this Commission were not allowed to examine.

One may mention only some of these problems. What are to be the future
relations between the existing Irish Universities? It is desirable that the Irish
universities or university colleges should be residential? If there is to be a new
university building centred on Dublin should it be in the city (as is now in
effect proposed) or well removed from it? Is it desirable that there should
be some form of co-operation or relationship between the universities and
the several professional institutions for the education and training of solicitors,
barristers, veterinary surgeons, accountants, pharmacists, primary teachers and
secondary teachers? Should the aim be to disperse some of the faculties or to
give them autonomy rather than to attempt to retain four thousand students in
one institution?

These, as we have said, are but some questions to be answered and in our
view to be answered before the country embarks on an expenditure that may run
to over £10,000,000 before the job is finished. Not only were the members of
the Commission forbidden to consider any of these aspects of university education
but they were further handicapped by the fact that even in the limited approach
permitted to them they had to take cognisance of the fact that University College, Dublin, had forestalled their decision and presented them with a
fait accompli by the acquisition of some hundreds of acres of land in Stillorgan.

For years this paper has endeavoured to have some light shed on these
transactions at Stillorgan; but in vain. It is impossible to think that the
Governing Body of University College would have entered into these vast
purchases without the express sanction of the Government and with the sole
object of rehousing the college there. Yet no Minister of any Government has
admitted to such sanction.

We are well aware of the pressing needs of the Dublin college for more
room, one might almost say bare breathing space. The present plight of
University College, its staff and its students, is a discredit to the nation.
If there is now to be further delay in dealing with the matter the blame rests
on the present Government and on previous Governments for their failure
to put first things first. In our view any serious consideration of the Commission's
report should be postponed until the people decide what they want in the way
of a comprehensive system of education involving not only the universities but the
training of professional men whose courses are at present outside the ambit of
the universities. The people should decide not alone what types of institution
the country needs but where those institutions are to be located.