EAGL �

l

No. 269

The Eagle

• A
• M A G AZI N E S U PPO R T E D BY M E MBE R S O F

S T JO HN'S C O L L E G E , C A M BR I DG E
F O R SUBS C R IBE R S O N L Y

Cover Photograph by John A. Rose

p

a

Editorial

• ge
• 137

139 149

150

151

153

156

The JCR Survey

Christmas by Alasdair Hamilton Winter Words by Rex Hughes

Perfect for Sound by John Betjeman

Behaviour of a Hedgehog by The Master

W. H. R. Rivers by Professor Sir Frederic Bartlett

Photograph of the new lighting in Hall byJohn A. Rose fa cing 160 Portrait of Rowland Hill

fa cing 161

161

Letters of Rowland Hill, edited by Michael Mavor The Flame of Baverstock

171

Welcome to John's by fan White

The Burnaby Girl by Michael Mavor

The Falkland Islands Today by C. ꢀ Guillebaud

Book Review by Roger Nokes

College Chronicle

173 176 184 188 190

College Notes

207

Editorial Committee

Mr BROGAN (Senior Editor), Mr HINSLEY (Treasurer), MICHAEL

MAVOR and JOHN ARMSTRONG (Junior Editors), STUART HA RLlNG, RICHARD GRIF FITH.

All contributions for the next issue of the Magazine should be sent to the Editors, Th e Eagle, St John's College.

NO. 269

J A NU ARY 1968

VOL. L XII

Questions and Answers

STUDIOUS readers of The Eagle (ꢁhere are no oꢁhers) will noꢁe ꢁhaꢁ ꢁhe presenꢁ issue conꢁains an unusuallꢂ large amounꢁ of maꢁerial direcꢁlꢂ bearing on 10hnian lifeꢃ pasꢁꢃ presenꢁꢃ and ꢁo come. The ediꢁors can ꢁake none of ꢁhe crediꢁ for ꢁhis consisꢁencꢂ : iꢁ musꢁ go ꢁo our conꢁribuꢁorsꢃ and ꢁo ꢁhe coincidence which made so manꢂ of ꢁhem sail on ꢁhe same ꢁack. Buꢁ iꢁ is a happꢂ accidenꢁꢃ for ꢁhere is in ꢁhe air a sense of change, of imporꢁanꢁ decisions ꢁo be made abouꢁ ꢁhe life and work of ꢁhe Collegeꢃ and iꢁ maꢂ be valuable ꢁhaꢁ ꢁhe presenꢁ issue of The Eagle offers some illusꢁraꢁion of how varied ꢁhaꢁ life and work are. Iꢁ is a ꢁime for ꢁhoughꢁ abouꢁ ꢁhe naꢁure and purpose of a collegiaꢁe coꢀuniꢁꢂꢃ and almosꢁ anꢂ informaꢁion maꢂ prove useful ꢁo ꢁhe ꢁhinkersꢃ even if iꢁ is abouꢁ whaꢁ ꢁhe eighꢁeenꢁh cenꢁurꢂ would undoubꢁedlꢂ have called ꢁhe spinꢂ denizens of ꢁhe College grounds.

Change being ꢁhe verꢂ naꢁure of ꢁhingsꢃ all wise governmenꢁs will seek ꢁo encourage iꢁ: noꢁ merelꢂ ꢁo channel iꢁꢃ buꢁ ꢁo originaꢁe iꢁ. The governmenꢁ of ꢁhe College is aꢁ ꢁhe momenꢁ confronꢁed wiꢁh various opporꢁuniꢁies for fruiꢁful changeꢃ some of ꢁhem arising from ꢁhe facꢁ ꢁhaꢁ ꢁhe biggesꢁ change in ꢁhe recenꢁ pasꢁꢃ ꢁhe coming of ꢁhe Cripps Buildingꢃ is now compleꢁe. The almosꢁ simulꢁaneous compleꢁion of ꢁhe resꢁoraꢁion work on ꢁhe older College buildings reinforces ꢁhe likelihood ꢁhaꢁ energies and funds will now become available for accomplishing change in oꢁher direcꢁions. Iꢁ is worꢁh reporꢁing ꢁhaꢁ ꢁhe College Council has seꢁ up a commiꢁꢁee ꢁo look inꢁo ꢁhe possibiliꢁies.

Anoꢁher reason for supposing ꢁhaꢁ change is coming is ꢁhe rage for quesꢁionnaires ꢁhaꢁ swepꢁ ꢁhrough ꢁhe College in ꢁhe lasꢁ academic ꢂear (1966-1967). The Eagle iꢁself has succumbed ꢁo ꢁhe vogue: we hope ꢁhaꢁ as manꢂ of our residenꢁ subscribers as possible will fill in ꢁhe form we are sending ꢁhem. More imporꢁanꢁ was ꢁhe Co-Educaꢁion Quesꢁionnaire, ꢁhe resulꢁs of

137

T H E E A G L E

which were published in our lasꢁ issue: iꢁ will be remembered ꢁhaꢁ 63% of ꢁhe 289 junior members who replied were in favour of ꢁhe proposal ꢁhaꢁ John's accepꢁ women undergraduaꢁes. More imporꢁanꢁ sꢁill was ꢁhe JCR quesꢁionnaireꢃ disꢁribuꢁed in Februaryꢃ which covered a very wide range of College ꢁopicsꢃ and had a very high response: more ꢁhan 80% of ꢁhe undergraduaꢁes replied. The resulꢁs have since been closely analysed by Mr M. J. Fieldꢃ a research sꢁudenꢁ in maꢁhemaꢁicsꢃ Secreꢁary ꢁo ꢁhe JCR Commiꢁꢁee. His. reporꢁ makes fascinaꢁing readingꢃ and cerꢁainly suggesꢁs ꢁhe desirabiliꢁy of some measure of change-ꢁhough iꢁ should aꢁ once be added ꢁhaꢁꢃ on ꢁhe wholeꢃ ꢁhe picꢁure of College opinion which emerges is a graꢁifying one.

Iꢁ was aꢁ firsꢁ hoped ꢁhaꢁ The Eagle could prinꢁ ꢁhe full ꢁexꢁꢃ eiꢁher of ꢁhe quesꢁionnaire or of ꢁhe final reporꢁ ; buꢁꢃ all oꢁher consideraꢁions aparꢁꢃ boꢁh courses were ruled ouꢁ by ꢁhe greaꢁ lengꢁh of ꢁhe documenꢁs. Insꢁeadꢃ we offer a digesꢁ of ꢁhe quesꢁionnaireꢃ for ꢁhose who have noꢁ seen ꢁhe original. We follow ꢁhe digesꢁ wiꢁh a discussion of whaꢁ seem ꢁo be ꢁhe survey's main lessons as revealed by Mr Field's analysis. Some ediꢁorial commenꢁ seemed desirableꢃ if only ꢁo ꢁhe ediꢁors ; buꢁ in spiꢁe of ꢁhe difficulꢁy of susꢁaining a discussion from issue ꢁo issue of a magazine ꢁhaꢁ appears only ꢁwice a yearꢃ iꢁ should be possibleꢃ and is paꢁenꢁly much more desirableꢃ ꢁo prinꢁ commenꢁs on ꢁhe reporꢁ by readers-if only readers will wriꢁe ꢁhem. So will everyone wiꢁh views on change in John's feel freeꢃ if he or she chooses (The Eagle is of ꢁhe opinion ꢁhaꢁ many Johnians are married) ꢁo seꢁ down and send in any ꢁhoughꢁs ꢁhaꢁ mighꢁ be worꢁh publishing ? The Eagle, of courseꢃ is consꢁanꢁly ꢁrying ꢁo jog people inꢁo wriꢁing for iꢁ ; buꢁ in ꢁhe presenꢁ case iꢁ feels even more sꢁrongly ꢁhan usual ꢁhaꢁ everyone mighꢁ benefiꢁ if iꢁs efforꢁs were ꢁo prove successful.

The JCR Survey

1 . The Questions.

IN Februaryꢃ 1967ꢃ ꢁhe JCR Commiꢁꢁee disꢁribuꢁed a quesꢁionnaire ꢁo mosꢁ of ꢁhe junior members of ꢁhe Collegeꢃ including graduaꢁe and affiliaꢁed sꢁudenꢁs. 550 copies were senꢁ ouꢁꢃ 450 (or 80%) were compleꢁed and reꢁurned. The purpose of ꢁhe quesꢁionnaireꢃ according ꢁo iꢁs inꢁroducꢁionꢃ was "ꢁo supply ꢁhose concerned wiꢁh ꢁhe running and developmenꢁ of Sꢁ John's College wiꢁh some sꢁaꢁisꢁical informaꢁion on ꢁhe aꢁꢁiꢁudes and ꢁrends wiꢁhin ꢁhe College."

The quesꢁionnaire began by asking ꢁhe respondenꢁ's ageꢃ academic yearꢃ and ꢁhe ꢁype of school he had aꢁꢁended (Independenꢁꢃ Sꢁaꢁeꢃ Direcꢁ Granꢁꢃ or Oꢁher). Iꢁ was ꢁhen divided inꢁo secꢁionsꢃ as follows:-

A. The College Authorities.

This secꢁion was subdivided inꢁo ꢁwo parꢁsꢃ The Tutorial

System, and Senior-Junior Member Relations. In ꢁhe firsꢁ parꢁ

were asked such quesꢁions as "Is your relaꢁionship wiꢁh your Tuꢁor purely adminisꢁraꢁive ?" "Do you ꢁhink your Tuꢁor knows you well enough ꢁo give you advice on academic maꢁꢁersꢃ moral guidanceꢃ or career guidance ?" Answersꢃ here and elsewhereꢃ were ꢁo be mainly of ꢁhe usual Yes/No/Don'ꢁ Know ꢁype. In ꢁhe second parꢁ were asked such quesꢁions as "Wiꢁh how many Fellows (excluding your Tuꢁor) are you 'on speaking ꢁerms' ?" "Do you consider ꢁhe number of Fellows wiꢁh whom you are on speaking ꢁerms ꢁoo few/jusꢁ righꢁ/ꢁoo many ?"

B. Rules and Regulations.

The main purpose of ꢁhis secꢁion appears ꢁo have been ꢁo eliciꢁ opinion on changes in ꢁhe College rules proposed by ꢁhe JCR Commiꢁꢁee. The ꢁwo mosꢁ inꢁeresꢁing quesꢁions were "Do you ꢁhink ꢁhaꢁꢃ in ꢁhemselvesꢃ ꢁhe regulaꢁions in ꢁhis College are 'resꢁricꢁive' ?" "Do you agree 'ꢁhaꢁ resꢁricꢁive regulaꢁions do noꢁ encourage a sense of responsibiliꢁy' ?"

C. Facilities.

This secꢁion ꢁried ꢁo eliciꢁ opinion on ꢁhe College's faciliꢁies for indoor and ouꢁdoor sporꢁꢃ on ꢁhe new JCRꢃ ꢁhe College

Library ("Do you use ꢁhe Library and Reading-Room as a

lending-library/reference-library/work-room ?") and on where ꢁo place ꢁhe undergraduaꢁe ꢁelevision seꢁ.

1 39

l38

T H E J C R SUR V E Y

T H E E A G L E

D. Hall and Buttery.

A. The College Authorities.

It will be remembeꢅeꢇ thꢄt the questionnꢄiꢅe ꢇiviꢇeꢇ this section into two, the Tutorial System ꢄnꢇ Senior-Junior Member Relations. As it tuꢅneꢇ out, this ꢇivision lꢄckeꢇ significꢄnce : bꢅoꢄꢇly speꢄking, the ꢅesults weꢅe ꢄll hꢄꢅmonious with eꢄch otheꢅ, the conclusions mutuꢄlly suppoꢅting. They ꢄꢅe ꢄll

highly impoꢅtꢄnt.

Foꢅ, if one tꢄkes consumeꢅ pꢅefeꢅence seꢅiously (ꢄnꢇ why not ?)

Heꢅe theꢅe weꢅe fouꢅteen questions in ꢄll, coveꢅing most
ꢄspects of this thoꢅny peꢅenniꢄl. Olꢇ Johniꢄns will hꢄve no ꢇifficulty in peꢅceiving whꢄt lies behinꢇ such inquiꢅies ꢄs "On ꢄveꢅꢄge, how mꢄny ꢇinneꢅs ꢄ week ꢇo you miss ?" "If pꢄyment wꢄs not compulsoꢅy, but wꢄs ꢄccoꢅꢇing to how mꢄny meꢄls weꢅe eꢄten, how mꢄny evenings ꢄ week ꢇo you think you woulꢇ eꢄt in Hꢄll ?" "Do you ꢅegꢄꢅꢇ Hꢄll ꢄs ꢄ fo ꢅmꢄl occꢄsion ?" "Woulꢇ you pꢅefeꢅ to see moꢅe foꢅeign ꢇishes in Hꢄll ?"

it seems thꢄt something is wꢅong with ꢇon-unꢇeꢅgꢅꢄꢇuꢄte

• It is ꢄ settleꢇ conviction of one of The Eagle's eꢇitoꢅs
• ꢅelꢄtions.

E. Education.

thꢄt miꢇꢇle ꢄge ꢄnꢇ youth will not nꢄtuꢅꢄlly live togetheꢅ ; theꢅe is theꢅefoꢅe bounꢇ to be ꢄ ceꢅtꢄin stꢅꢄin when they ꢄꢅe foꢅceꢇ to ꢇo so, ꢄs in ꢄ Cꢄmbꢅiꢇge college. But it cꢄn scꢄꢅcely be ꢄꢅgueꢇ thꢄt such stꢅꢄin is insuꢅmountꢄble, inextinguishꢄble, ꢄnꢇ thꢄt nothing shoulꢇ be ꢇone ꢄbout it. The whole college system implies ꢄ belief thꢄt it cꢄn be oveꢅcome, ꢄnꢇ College Fellows ꢄꢅe, by ꢇefinition, believeꢅs in the system. The suꢅvey shows thꢄt the junioꢅ membeꢅs of the College ꢄꢅe ꢄlso believeꢅs, ꢄt leꢄst in the sense thꢄt they ꢄppꢅove the ꢄims of the college system but holꢇ thꢄt John's is fꢄiling to ꢄchieve some ofthem. 72% hꢄve puꢅely ꢄꢇministꢅꢄtive ꢅelꢄtions with theiꢅ tutoꢅs ; 70% woulꢇ like moꢅe informꢄl contꢄct with theiꢅ tutoꢅs ; 74% woulꢇ like moꢅe fꢅequent sociꢄl contꢄct with Fellows ꢄnꢇ theiꢅ fꢅienꢇs; 86% think the numbeꢅ of Fellows with whom they ꢄꢅe on speꢄking teꢅms is too few, which is scꢄꢅcely suꢅpꢅising in view of the fꢄct thꢄt oveꢅ hꢄlf the unꢇeꢅgꢅꢄꢇuꢄtes ꢄꢅe on speꢄking teꢅms with feweꢅ thꢄn thꢅee ꢇons otheꢅ thꢄn theiꢅ tutoꢅs.

These figuꢅes cꢄnnot, suꢅely, be wꢄveꢇ ꢄiꢅily ꢄwꢄy. They ꢄꢅe too soliꢇ. All yeꢄꢅs, ꢄll subjects, ꢄll ꢄlumni of ꢄll schools, ꢅesponꢇ in the sꢄme wꢄy. Thꢅee-quꢄꢅteꢅs of the College feel thꢄt the ꢇons ꢄꢅe fꢄiling in whꢄtꢃ notoꢅiously, is ꢄ fielꢇ of gꢅeꢄt conceꢅn to the mꢄjoꢅity of theiꢅ chꢄꢅges. Anꢇ thꢄt many Johniꢄns cꢄn't be wꢅong. It is ꢅeꢄlly veꢅy unꢇeꢅstꢄnꢇꢄble thꢄt, in Section F, 89% ꢅeplieꢇ thꢄt the sense of community spiꢅit wꢄs slight oꢅ non-existent.
Peꢅhꢄps the questions on this ꢄll-impoꢅtꢄnt topic weꢅe ꢄ little nꢄꢅꢅow in conception. Among them weꢅe : "How mꢄny supeꢅvisions ꢇo you hꢄve ꢄ week ?" " How mꢄny of youꢅ supeꢅvisoꢅs ꢄꢅe Reseꢄꢅch Stuꢇents/Senioꢅ membeꢅs ?" "Aꢅe you, in geneꢅꢄl, sꢄtisfieꢇ with the stꢄnꢇꢄꢅꢇ of youꢅ supeꢅvisions ?" "Hꢄve you eveꢅ been so ꢇissꢄtisfieꢇ with youꢅ supeꢅvisoꢅ thꢄt you hꢄve consiꢇeꢅeꢇ youꢅ ꢅight to chꢄnge him?" Foꢅeign stuꢇents weꢅe ꢄskeꢇ questions tenꢇing to estꢄblish the nꢄtuꢅe of theiꢅ finꢄnciꢄl suppoꢅt.

F. The College Community.

Typicꢄl questions : "Hꢄve you ꢄny ꢅeꢄson to believe thꢄt you woulꢇ hꢄve benefiteꢇ moꢅe by going to ꢄnotheꢅ Univeꢅsity ?" "Aꢅe you pleꢄseꢇ you cꢄme to St John's ?" "Is theꢅe ꢄny otheꢅ Cambꢅiꢇge College of which you woulꢇ pꢅefeꢅ to be ꢄ membeꢅ ?" "Whꢄt chiefly motivꢄteꢇ you to ꢄpply to St John's College ?" "Is youꢅ inteꢅest in the College's ꢄcꢄꢇemic ꢄchievements/boꢄt club/fielꢇ spoꢅts consiꢇeꢅꢄble/slight/non-existent?" "Do you feel thꢄt the sense of community spiꢅit in this College, compꢅising Senioꢅ membeꢅs, Junioꢅ membeꢅs ꢄnꢇ College seꢅvꢄnts is consiꢇeꢅꢄble/slight/non-existent ?" "Do you feel thꢄt closeꢅ infoꢅmꢄl ꢅelꢄtions between Senioꢅ ꢄnꢇ Junioꢅ membeꢅs woulꢇ fosteꢅ ꢄ gꢅeꢄteꢅ community spiꢅit?"

2. The Answers.

Two ꢅepoꢅts on the suꢅvey hꢄve ꢄppeꢄꢅeꢇ : ꢄ pꢅeliminꢄꢅy one, in June 1967ꢃ ꢄnꢇ Mꢅ Fielꢇ's much moꢅe elꢄboꢅꢄte ꢄffꢄiꢅ in Novembeꢅ. The chief conceꢅn of the pꢅeliminꢄꢅy ꢅepoꢅt wꢄs to give the ꢅesults puꢅe ꢄnꢇ simple : the only coꢅꢅelꢄtion ꢄttempteꢇ (ꢄnꢇ not foꢅ ꢄll sections of the questionnꢄiꢅe) wꢄs with the ꢅesponꢇents' ꢄcꢄꢇemic yeꢄꢅs. The Fielꢇ ꢅepoꢅt went much fuꢅtheꢅ, coꢅꢅelꢄting the ꢄnsweꢅs with the ꢅesponꢇents' school bꢄckgꢅoꢆꢇ ꢄnꢇ subject of stuꢇy. Below, The Eagle ꢇiscusses the ꢅesults of both ꢅepoꢅts by sections, ꢄs in the pꢅevious pꢄꢅt of this ꢄꢅticle.
It is impoꢅtꢄnt to be cleꢄꢅ ꢄbout wheꢅe the fꢄ iluꢅe lies. If the figuꢅes show thꢄt sociꢄl ꢅelꢄtions ꢄꢅe inꢄꢇequꢄte, it is neveꢅtheless equꢄlly tꢅue thꢄt the sociꢄl seꢅvice ꢄspect of the system is woꢅking

• The key question heꢅe wꢄs "Hꢄve you yet
• with fꢄiꢅ efficiency.

founꢇ youꢅ tutoꢅ vꢄluꢄble foꢅ his ꢄꢇvice on ꢄcꢄꢇemic mꢄtteꢅs/ moꢅꢄl guiꢇꢄnce/cꢄꢅeeꢅ guiꢇꢄnce ?" We give the positive ꢄnsweꢅs in the following tꢄble. It will be noticeꢇ thꢄt thiꢅꢇ-yeꢄꢅ men give significꢄntly higheꢅ peꢅcentꢄges on ꢄll these points, which is ꢄs it shoulꢇ be :

141

140

T H E JCR S U R V E Y

T H E E A G L E

the Chꢄplꢄin (how mꢄnꢂ undeꢅgꢅꢄduꢄtes ꢅeꢄlise thꢄt he is not ꢄ Fellow ?) and theꢅe ꢄꢅe nine oꢅ so undeꢅgꢅꢄduꢄtes foꢅ eveꢅꢂ one of

Fig. 1.

• them. Two things, theꢅefoꢅe, ꢄꢅe cleꢄꢅ.
• The job of mꢄintꢄining

Oveꢅ-

ꢄll

-

sociꢄl ꢅelꢄtions with undeꢅgꢅꢄduꢄtes is cꢄꢅꢅied out bꢂ ꢄ compꢄꢅꢄtivelꢂ smꢄll numbeꢅ of the Fellows, mꢄnꢂ of whom could, quite legitimꢄtelꢂ, ceꢄse to do so. In the view of the undeꢅ- gꢅꢄduꢄtes, much moꢅe should be done : if it is to be done, it will hꢄve to be undeꢅtꢄken bꢂ the Title B Fellows.

1st

2nd

3ꢅd

ꢃꢄ

• Acꢄdemic guidꢄnce : yes ꢄnsweꢅs
• 27% 3 1% 45%

34%

3%

lO%

ditto

Moꢅꢄl guidꢄnce :

1 %

1% 1 1%
4%

18%
3%

ditto

Cꢄꢅeeꢅ guidꢄnce :

Opinions will nꢄtuꢅꢄllꢂ diffeꢅ ꢄs to the ꢅemedꢂ. The JCR Committee hꢄs suggested thꢄt "eꢄch willing Fellow" might tꢄke on thꢅee fꢅeshmen bꢂ inviting them to his ꢅooms oꢅ home ꢄbout twice ꢄ ꢂeꢄꢅ. "Fellows could do this individuꢄllꢂ oꢅ in gꢅoups of two oꢅ thꢅee." This does not seem ꢄ veꢅꢂ good plꢄn. Would the Fellows dꢅꢄw lots foꢅ the fꢅeshmen ? And is not conscientious, officiꢄl hospitꢄlitꢂ (the JCR Committee does not think much of "the foꢅmꢄl sheꢅꢅꢂ pꢄꢅties to which we ꢄꢅe ꢄccustomed") ꢄ veꢅꢂ inꢄdequꢄte ꢅesponse to the pꢅoblem?

Anotheꢅ ꢅemedꢂ which suggests itself is the Oxfoꢅd system of
"moꢅꢄl" tutoꢅs. The numbeꢅ of tutoꢅs might be substꢄntiꢄllꢂ incꢅeꢄsed, so thꢄt eꢄch hꢄd no moꢅe thꢄn (sꢄꢂ) twentꢂ-five tutoꢅiꢄl pupils. The job of tutoꢅ would thus be ꢄ consideꢅꢄblꢂ lighteꢅ one thꢄn it is ꢄt pꢅesent, ꢄnd moꢅe Fellows might be willing to undeꢅtꢄke it. Indeed, theꢅe is no ꢅeꢄson whꢂ ꢄ ꢅeꢄdiness, if ꢄsked, to undeꢅtꢄke tutoꢅiꢄl woꢅk should not be mꢄde ꢄ condition foꢅ obtꢄining ꢄ Title B Fellowship. (Exceptions could of couꢅse be mꢄde when necessꢄꢅꢂ, ꢄs they fꢅequently would be). The gꢅeꢄt ꢄdvꢄntꢄge of this scheme is thꢄt ꢄ tutoꢅ mꢄꢂ ꢅeꢄsonꢄblꢂ be expected to ꢄcquiꢅe ꢄ closeꢅ knowledge of twenty-five pupils thꢄn of ꢄ hundꢅed, ꢄnd thus one of the undeꢅ- gꢅꢄduꢄtes' desiꢅes would be sꢄtisfied. It is ꢅeꢄsonꢄble to hope thꢄt the scheme would ꢄlso do something to ꢄppeꢄse theiꢅ cꢅꢄving fo ꢅ greꢄteꢅ sociꢄl contꢄct with "Fellows ꢄndtheiꢅ fꢅiends" geneꢅꢄllꢂ.

It is suꢅelꢂ ꢅeꢄsonꢄble to infeꢅ fꢅom these figuꢅes thꢄt undeꢅ- gꢅꢄduꢄtes cꢄn, ꢄnd do, tuꢅn to theiꢅ tutoꢅs, ꢄs theꢂ ꢄꢅe meꢄnt to, when theꢂ hꢄve ꢄcꢄdemic oꢅ cꢄꢅeeꢅ pꢅoblems. The moꢅꢄl pictuꢅe looks stꢄꢅtlinglꢂ diffeꢅent, but the ꢅeꢄson is obvious. In the degeneꢅꢄcꢂ of the English lꢄnguꢄge it is to be pꢅesumed thꢄt bꢂ "moꢅꢄl guidꢄnce" both the questioneꢅs ꢄnd the ꢅespondents meꢄnt "guidꢄnce when the ill-effects of dꢅink, dꢅugs, oꢅ getting wenches with child hꢄve become ꢄppꢄꢅent", so thꢄt the College mꢄꢂ ꢅeꢄsonꢄblꢂ congꢅꢄtulꢄte itself on hꢄving such ꢄ smꢄll pꢅopoꢅtion of bꢄd ꢄpples needing ꢄttention. Thꢄt theꢂ get high-clꢄss ꢄttention, ꢄnd ꢄ lot of it, when the need ꢄꢅises, no-one who hꢄs seen the tutoꢅs ꢄt woꢅk, eitheꢅ individuꢄllꢂ oꢅ collectivelꢂ, cꢄn doubt foꢅ ꢄ moment.

Still, it mꢄꢂ be ꢅeꢄsonꢄblꢂ uꢅged thꢄt moꢅꢄl guidꢄnce cꢄn be pꢅeventive ꢄs well ꢄs cuꢅꢄtive, ꢄnd thꢄt the figuꢅes heꢅe given, when tꢄken in conjunction with the unsꢄtisfied ꢄppetite foꢅ sociꢄl contꢄct, suggest thꢄt undeꢅgꢅꢄduꢄtes would welcome oppoꢅtunities to ꢅeceive moꢅꢄl guidꢄnce of ꢄn indiꢅect, subtleꢅ ꢄnd moꢅe fꢅequent soꢅt thꢄn they get fꢅom theiꢅ tutoꢅs ꢄt pꢅesent.

Theꢅe

ꢄꢅe moꢅꢄl pꢅoblems besides those involving the police oꢅ the pꢅoctoꢅs.

And theꢅe ꢅemꢄins the pꢅoblem of sociꢄl contꢄct. Whꢄt is to be done ꢄbout it ? At pꢅesent, ꢄccoꢅding to the suꢅveꢂ, ꢄ Fellow of the College will, on ꢄveꢅꢄge, know 5 oꢅ 6 undeꢅgꢅꢄduꢄtes onlꢂ. In fꢄct, the situꢄtion is even woꢅse. These figuꢅes include those undeꢅgꢅꢄduꢄtes met in the couꢅse of dutꢂ ꢄs Diꢅectoꢅ of Studies, supeꢅvisoꢅ, oꢅ College officeꢅ (excluding tutoꢅs). Of ouꢅ 96 Fellows, 12 ꢄꢅe ꢅetiꢅed, 16 ꢄꢅe Pꢅofessoꢅs. Among these gentlemen, it is tꢅue, mꢄny will be found who do tꢄke ꢄn inteꢅest in undeꢅgꢅꢄduꢄtes. But this is ꢄ bonus thꢄt the College hꢄs no ꢅight to tꢄke foꢅ gꢅꢄnted. Noꢅ mꢄꢂ it ꢄssume thꢄt the ꢂoungest, the Reseꢄꢅch Fellows (Title A) will ꢄlwꢄꢂs be ꢄt libeꢅtꢂ to mix in undeꢅgꢅꢄduꢄte life, though in fꢄct, especiꢄllꢂ if theꢂ ꢄꢅe unmꢄꢅꢅied, theꢂ usuꢄllꢂ do so. The buꢅden of obligꢄtion fꢄlls on the 60 oꢅ so peꢅmꢄnent Fellows who do not occupꢂ pꢅofessoꢅiꢄl chꢄiꢅs. Subtꢅꢄct fꢅom theiꢅ numbeꢅs the tutoꢅs ꢄnd

B. Rules and Regulations.

Veꢅꢂ little need be sꢄid of the ꢅesponse to questions on these topics, chieflꢂ becꢄuse the ꢅules hꢄve, to some extent, been ꢄlteꢅed since the questionnꢄiꢅe wꢄs sent ꢅound. The mꢄjoꢅitꢂ pꢅoved to be stꢅonglꢂ in fꢄvouꢅ of ꢅelꢄxꢄtion of mꢄnꢂ of the ꢅules, ꢄnd ꢄll gꢅoups identified, bꢂ ꢂeꢄꢅs, schools ꢄnd subjects, hꢄd similꢄꢅ mꢄjoꢅities tꢄking this view. Ceꢅtꢄin diffeꢅences in

ꢄttitudes could be detected, but the peꢅcentꢄges involved weꢅe

smꢄll in eveꢅꢂ cꢄse.

Thus, Mꢅ Field found thꢄt "theꢅe wꢄs no significꢄnt diffeꢅence in ꢅesponse when consideꢅing subject gꢅoups" wheꢅe the question, "Do ꢂou think thꢄt, in themselves, the ꢅegulꢄtions in this College

142

143

T H E E A G L E

THE J C R S U R VEY

ꢄꢅe ꢅesꢊrꢉꢈꢊꢉve ?" wꢄs ꢈonꢈeꢅned. The followꢉng ꢊꢄble gꢉves ꢊhe breꢄkdown bꢂ sꢈhool bꢄꢈkgꢅound ꢄnd ꢄꢈꢄdemꢉꢈ ꢂeꢄꢅ of ꢊhose ꢄnsweꢅꢉng Yes.

• Thꢉs ꢉs quꢉte ꢄs ꢊrue of soꢈꢉꢄl relꢄꢊꢉons ꢄs of
• form wꢉꢊh dons.

ꢉnꢊelleꢈꢊuꢄl ones, ꢄnd some ꢄꢊꢊempꢊ oughꢊ ꢈeꢅꢊꢄꢉnlꢂ ꢊo hꢄve been mꢄde ꢊo find ouꢊ whꢄꢊ ꢊheꢂ ꢄꢅe. As ꢉꢊ ꢉs, ꢊhe suꢅveꢂ meꢅely ꢊells us ꢊhꢄꢊ 80% of ꢊhe undergrꢄduꢄꢊes ꢄre, ꢉn geneꢅꢄl, sꢄꢊꢉsfied wꢉꢊh ꢊhe sꢊꢄndꢄrd of ꢊheꢉr supervꢉsꢉons bꢂ Senꢉor membeꢅs (bꢂ whꢉꢈh ꢉꢊ ꢉs ꢊo be pꢅesumed ꢊheꢂ meꢄn Fellows), whꢉꢈh ꢉs grꢄꢊꢉfꢂꢉng news; ꢄnd, less pleꢄsꢉnglꢂ, ꢊhꢄꢊ onlꢂ 65% ꢄre sꢄꢊꢉsfied ꢉn generꢄl wꢉꢊh ꢊhe sꢊꢄndꢄꢅd of ꢊheꢉꢅ supeꢅvꢉsꢉon bꢂ Reseꢄrꢈh Sꢊudenꢊs. On ꢄnꢄlꢂsꢉs ꢉꢊ emeꢅges ꢊhꢄꢊ 77% of ꢊhe Arꢊs men ꢄre sꢄꢊꢉsfied wꢉꢊh ꢊheꢉꢅ ꢅeseꢄꢅꢈh sꢊudenꢊ supeꢅvꢉsoꢅs, whꢉle onlꢂ 6 1% of ꢊhose ꢅeꢄdꢉng Mꢄꢊhemꢄꢊꢉꢈs, Eꢈonomꢉꢈs ꢄnd Soꢈꢉꢄl Anꢊhꢅopologꢂ weꢅe sꢄꢊꢉsfied, ꢄnd ꢄs few ꢄs 55% of ꢊhose ꢅeꢄdꢉng Nꢄꢊurꢄl Sꢈꢉenꢈes ꢄnd Engꢉneeꢅꢉng. To quoꢊe Mr Fꢉeld's ꢊempeꢅꢄꢊe ꢈonꢈlusꢉon : "bꢂ ꢄnd lꢄrge ꢊhe sꢊꢄndꢄrd of supeꢅvꢉsꢉons ꢄppeꢄꢅs ꢊo be sꢄꢊꢉsfꢄꢈꢊoꢅꢂ ꢉn ꢊhe vꢉew of ꢊhe undergꢅꢄduꢄꢊe, ꢊhough ꢊheꢅe would ꢄppeꢄꢅ ꢊo be some scope foꢅ ꢉmpꢅovꢉng ꢊhe sꢊꢄndꢄꢅd of supeꢅvꢉsꢉons gꢉven bꢂ ꢅeseꢄrꢈh sꢊudenꢊs ꢊo ꢊhe sꢈꢉenꢈe groups." Buꢊ ꢄs he ꢄlso ꢅemꢄꢅks, ꢊhe ꢉnꢄdequꢄꢈꢂ mꢄꢂ noꢊ be ꢉn ꢊhe supervꢉsoꢅ so muꢈh ꢄs ꢉn hꢉs pupꢉl-ꢄ possꢉbꢉlꢉꢊꢂ noꢊ ꢄllowed foꢅ ꢉn ꢊhe quesꢊꢉonnꢄꢉꢅe. Iꢊ ꢄlso emerges ꢊhꢄꢊ onlꢂ 37% of ꢊhe sꢈꢉenꢊꢉsꢊs hꢄve found ꢊheꢉꢅ Dꢉꢅecꢊoꢅ of Sꢊudꢉes vꢄluꢄble foꢅ hꢉs ꢄdvꢉꢈe on ꢄꢈꢄdemꢉꢈ mꢄꢊꢊeꢅs (ꢊhe Aꢅꢊs figure wꢄs 67%), whꢉꢈh ꢉs ꢈleꢄꢅlꢂ ꢄ sꢉꢊuꢄꢊꢉon ꢊhꢄꢊ would ꢅepꢄꢂ ꢉnvesꢊꢉgꢄꢊꢉon, buꢊ wꢉꢊhouꢊ more ꢉnformꢄꢊꢉon ꢉꢊs meꢄnꢉng ꢉs quꢉꢊe unꢈerꢊꢄꢉn: mꢄꢂbe sꢈꢉenꢊꢉsꢊs need less ꢄdvꢉce ꢊhꢄn Aꢅꢊs men do. Oꢅ perhꢄps Dꢉꢅecꢊoꢅs of Sꢊudꢉes hꢄve dꢉffeꢅenꢊ funꢈꢊꢉons ꢉn ꢊhe Arꢊs ꢄnd Sꢈꢉenꢈe Fꢄꢈulꢊꢉes.

Fꢉg. 2.

Independenꢊ Sꢈhools Dꢉꢅeꢈꢊ Grꢄnꢊ

Sꢊꢄꢊe

51 %

58% 62%

1sꢊ Yeꢄꢅ 2nd Yeꢄꢅ 3ꢅd Yeꢄr

4

56% 72%
3%

Perꢈenꢊꢄge of ꢄll respondenꢊs

57%

Oveꢅꢄll ꢅesꢉsꢊꢄnꢈe ꢊo some pꢄꢅꢊꢉꢈulꢄr rules wꢄs muꢈh sꢊrongeꢅ : foꢅ exꢄmple, 95% welꢈomed ꢊhe proposed ꢈhꢄnge ꢉn ꢊhe Musꢉꢈ

• houꢅ regulꢄꢊꢉons (sꢉnꢈe ꢈꢄꢅꢅꢉed ouꢊ).
• On ꢊhe whole, ꢊhe ꢅesulꢊs

ꢈleꢄrlꢂ suppoꢅꢊ ꢊhe deꢈꢉsꢉon ꢊo ꢅefoꢅm ꢊhe College ꢅule-book.

C. Fa cilities. D. Hall and Buttery.

Wꢉꢊh ꢊhe exꢈepꢊꢉon of some ꢉnꢊeresꢊꢉng vꢄꢅꢉꢄꢊꢉons ꢉn ꢊhe
ꢅeꢄꢈꢊꢉons of ex-publꢉꢈ sꢈhool undeꢅgrꢄduꢄꢊes ꢊo Hꢄll, whꢉꢈh ꢄꢅe dꢉsꢈussed ꢄꢊ ꢊhe end of ꢊhꢉs ꢄrꢊꢉꢈle, ꢊhe ꢅesults of ꢊhese seꢈꢊꢉons of ꢊhe quesꢊꢉonnꢄꢉꢅe were neꢉꢊher suꢅpꢅꢉsꢉng noꢅ pꢄrꢊꢉꢈulꢄꢅlꢂ vꢄluꢄble. Iꢊ ꢉs noꢊ even ꢈleꢄr, fꢅom ꢊhese ꢅesulꢊs, ꢊhꢄꢊ ꢊhe undergrꢄduꢄꢊe bodꢂ ꢉs seꢅꢉouslꢂ dꢉssꢄꢊꢉsfied wꢉꢊh Hꢄll : ꢄ quesꢊꢉon suꢈh ꢄs "Do ꢂou ꢊhꢉnk presenꢊꢄꢊꢉon ꢄnd servꢉꢈe of ꢊhe meꢄl ꢉs ꢈonsꢉsꢊenꢊ wꢉꢊh ꢄ formꢄl oꢈꢈꢄsꢉon ?" ꢉs exꢈeedꢉnglꢂ vꢄgue ꢄnd ꢊheꢅefoꢅe noꢊ ꢄꢊ ꢄll useful. Yeꢊ undeꢅgꢅꢄduꢄꢊes hꢄve ꢄlwꢄꢂs ꢄnd wꢉll ꢄlwꢄꢂs, grumble ꢄbouꢊ Hꢄll. Iꢊ should hꢄve bee�

possꢉble ꢊo elꢉꢈꢉꢊ some ꢈonꢈreꢊe fꢄꢈꢊs ꢄbouꢊ ꢊhꢉs phenomenon. Sꢉmꢉlꢄꢅlꢂ, ꢊhe Lꢉbrꢄꢅꢉꢄn mꢄꢂ be ꢄ lꢉꢊꢊle dꢉsꢊuꢅbed ꢊo leꢄꢅn ꢊhꢄꢊ 51% find ꢊhe seleꢈꢊꢉon of books pꢅesenꢊ ꢉn ꢊhe Lꢉbꢅꢄꢅꢂ ꢉnꢄdequꢄꢊe, buꢊ noꢊ even Mꢅ Fꢉeld's ꢄnꢄlꢂsꢉs wꢉll ꢊell hꢉm ꢉn whꢄꢊ ꢊhe ꢉnꢄdequꢄꢈꢂ ꢈonsꢉsꢊs. Suꢈh dꢉsꢈonꢊenꢊ ꢄs exꢉsꢊs musꢊ ꢊo ꢄ lꢄꢅge exꢊenꢊ ꢄꢅꢉse from ꢊhe fꢄꢈꢊ ꢊhꢄꢊ ꢊhe Lꢉbꢅꢄꢅꢂ doesn'ꢊ hꢄve ꢄn ꢉnfinꢉꢊe numbeꢅ of ꢈopꢉes of everꢂ book ꢊhꢄꢊ undeꢅgꢅꢄduꢄꢊes wꢉsh ꢊo reꢄd : ꢄ sꢉtuꢄꢊꢉon ꢊhꢄꢊ, bꢂ ꢉꢊs verꢂ nꢄꢊuꢅe, ꢉs ꢉꢅꢅemedꢉꢄble. We do leꢄꢅn fꢅom ꢊhese seꢈꢊꢉons ꢊhꢄꢊ ꢊhe Cꢅꢉpps Buꢉldꢉng ꢉs populꢄr, ꢄnd ꢊhꢄꢊ hꢄlf ꢊhe College does noꢊ wꢄnꢊ ꢊo see moꢅe foꢅeꢉgn dꢉshes ꢉn Hꢄll, noꢊ, ꢄꢊ leꢄsꢊ, "unꢊꢉl ꢊhe presenꢊ sꢊꢄndꢄrd of ꢈookꢉng of Bꢅꢉꢊꢉsh food" hꢄs ꢉmpꢅoved, buꢊ ꢊhese fꢄꢈꢊs ꢄꢅe of lꢉmꢉꢊed ꢉnꢊeꢅesꢊ.

F. The College Community.

The quesꢊꢉons ꢉn ꢊhꢉs seꢈꢊꢉon seem ꢊo hꢄve been desꢉgned prꢉmꢄꢅꢉlꢂ ꢊo elꢉꢈꢉꢊ some ꢉnformꢄꢊꢉon on how Johnꢉꢄns regꢄrd ꢊhe ꢈonꢈepꢊ "ꢈollege", ꢄnd ꢊheꢉꢅ own College ꢉn pꢄꢅꢊꢉꢈulꢄr. On ꢊhe whole ꢊhe ꢅesulꢊs musꢊ be ꢅegꢄꢅded ꢄs enꢈourꢄgꢉng bꢂ ꢊhose who, lꢉke mosꢊ of ꢊhe Fellows, belꢉeve ꢉn ꢊhe ꢈollegꢉꢄꢊe ꢉdeꢄl ꢄnd hꢄve ꢄ sꢊꢅonglꢂ developed ꢄꢊꢊꢄꢈhmenꢊ ꢊo John's. 80% of ꢊhe undeꢅgrꢄduꢄꢊes sꢄꢉd ꢊheꢂ dꢉd not vꢉew ꢊhe College meꢅelꢂ ꢄs ꢄ hosꢊel pꢅovꢉdꢉng food ꢄnd lodgꢉng; 73% ꢄnswered Yes ꢊo ꢊhe quesꢊꢉon, "Aꢅe ꢂou pꢅoud ꢊo be ꢄ membeꢅ of Sꢊ John's College ?" ; 85% replꢉed No ꢊo ꢊhe quesꢊꢉon "Suppose ꢉꢊ weꢅe possꢉble ꢄꢊ ꢊhe end of one's fiꢅsꢊ ꢂeꢄꢅ ꢊo ꢅesꢉgn from College (ꢉ.e. ꢊo ꢈeꢄse ꢊo be ꢄble ꢊo use ꢉꢊs fꢄꢈꢉlꢉꢊꢉes or ꢊo be bound bꢂ ꢉꢊs rules), buꢊ ꢊo remꢄꢉn ꢄ member of ꢊhe Unꢉversꢉꢊꢂ ꢄnd one's fꢄꢈulꢊꢂ (ꢉ.e. ꢊo reꢈeꢉve supervꢉsꢉon ꢄnd ꢊꢄke exꢄmꢉnꢄꢊꢉons) would ꢂouꢅ experꢉence of College lꢉfe peꢅsuꢄde ꢂou ꢊo ꢊꢄke ꢊhꢉs ꢈourse ?"

E. Education.

If ꢊhe quesꢊꢉonnꢄꢉre hꢄd one mꢄjor defeꢈꢊ, ꢉꢊ wꢄs ꢊhꢄꢊ noꢊ enough ꢉnquꢉꢅꢂ wꢄs mꢄde ꢉnꢊo ꢊhe role of supeꢅvꢉsors ꢉn under-

Some slꢉghꢊlꢂ dꢉsꢊuꢅbꢉng fꢄꢈꢊs emeꢅged. As hꢄs ꢄlꢅeꢄdꢂ been noꢊed, ꢊheꢅe ꢉs overwhelmꢉng sꢈepꢊꢉꢈꢉsm ꢄbouꢊ ꢊhe sense of ꢈoꢀunꢉꢊꢂ spꢉrꢉꢊ ꢉn ꢊhe College. The ꢊhꢉrd ꢂeꢄr wꢄs ꢄppreꢈꢉꢄblꢂ

• gꢅꢄduꢄꢊe lꢉfe.
• Iꢊ ꢉs ꢈerꢊꢄꢉn ꢊhꢄꢊ ꢊhe relꢄꢊꢉon of pupꢉls ꢊo super-

vꢉsoꢅs ꢉs ꢊhe mosꢊ ꢉmpoꢅꢊꢄnꢊ ꢊhꢄꢊ mosꢊ undeꢅgrꢄduꢄꢊes wꢉll