As to a University Grants Committee, the Government rejected the plan of a committee with some high-ranking officers appointed by the Government and some persons appointed by Senate, the committee reporting direct to Cabinet. In January 1948, therefore, the Senate appointed a committee comprising the chancellor, the vice-chancellor, and five other members, two of them representing the business world, whose first report was presented to Senate in January 1950. As well as visiting all the colleges, the committee had discussed with representatives of the colleges and of the Education Department the two questions of outstanding importance at the time — the need for (a) periodic “block grants” to meet the recurring annual expenses of the colleges, and (b) an improved salary scale to attract men of good quality to the understaffed colleges. A formula for a “block grant” for arts, science, and general for the quinquennium 1950–54 was negotiated taking into account (a) a “student number” and (b) a staff-student ratio of 1 to 14. Cost of staff was calculated on the basis of ratios of 3, 4, 5, and 6 for professors, senior lecturers, lecturers, and assistant lecturers. The best the committee could get in the way of salary increases was a special grant, to be administered by the committee in consultation with college councils, to supplement the salaries of a proportion of staff in senior or key positions or to attract specially qualified recruits. (Some colleges refused to cooperate in this plan and it was abandoned.)

Thus the foundations were laid; and the committee reporting next year (1951) was able to say it had secured “a notable advance in university salaries … professorial salaries rising to £1,700 and those of senior lecturers to £1,200 … approval was secured for the building of a new dental school at Otago; for a new chemistry and general purposes building at Victoria; for the general development of the new Riccarton site at Canterbury; and for the move of Auckland University College to its site at Tamaki”. The report ended on a note of confidence, looking forward “to further provision for university education … Government grants are now on an established basis and colleges may plan ahead with assurance”.

In subsequent years quinquennial grants for all the special schools were negotiated on the basis of assessed progressive needs, and the methods of computing grants for arts, science, and general were defined. Thus the grants secured in 1960 for the on-coming quinquennium contained several elements: a basic sum common to all colleges; a varying amount computed on student numbers and a staff-student ratio (the ratio professors … to assistant lecturers had meanwhile been altered to three, five, five, three); a sum for technical assistants, in the ratio of one for each four full-time staff members; a sum for a proportion of junior administrative officers to aid staff; and sums for a study-leave fund, for equipment and for libraries. Nevertheless, the grant came into the hands of the college as a block grant, for disposal at its discretion, but subject to certain conditions imposed by Government, the more important being an agreement by colleges not to vary salaries from the approved scale, and not to increase fees (which form a part of the calculated grant); and, further, that the block grant having been accepted for the quinquennium, no increase be asked for except under changing conditions affecting all institutions alike.

Changes took place from time to time in the constitution of the Grants Committee. For a short time the academic heads of the constituent colleges were included, without vote, and the principals of the agricultural colleges were co-opted without vote on matters affecting their finances. In 1954, however, the statute was again altered, the academic heads being excluded as well as persons connected with the administration of any institution. A representative of the Treasury, as well as one from the Department of Education, was invited to attend as observer. The committee appointed in 1954, comprising the vice-chancellor (Dr Currie), G. E. Archey, E. C. Fussell, H. L. Longbottom, Sir Arthur Nevill, and L. J. Wild, remained in office until it was reconstituted as a Government-appointed committee under the Act of 1960.

After the war a second wave of reform began to sweep through the University. In 1946 the Hon. Sir David Smith, succeeding the Hon. J. A. Hanan as chancellor, made a searching inquiry into the impoverished state of research in the colleges, and pointed to the need for long-term planning in regard to buildings and finance. On the credit side the executive committee of Senate functioned efficiently under the able part-time vice-chancellor, Professor Hunter; the Senate was becoming accustomed to accepting the recommendations of the Academic Board almost uncritically; internal examining was generally accepted in principle and largely adopted in practice; prescriptions in subjects in the calendar were broadly phrased and the day was at hand when each professor would draw up his own. What need, then, was there for further reform, and in what direction was it desired?

The first move came from the Academic Board in 1947 when it requested Senate to set up a joint committee of Senate and Board to report on the establishment of four separate universities.

Discussion of this and other reports on related subjects over the next few years sorted out several distinct issues: such as the granting of more autonomy to the colleges in determining prescriptions; the setting up of autonomous universities (on which Senate opinion continued to be strongly divided); the establishment of a university Grants Committee; and the appointment of a full-time vice-chancellor. Autonomy in prescribing syllabuses proceeded apace. Up to 1948 the university calendar contained a uniform set of detailed prescriptions for all subjects of the B.A. degree; in 1949 detailed prescriptions began to disappear, and by 1952 the calendar merely stated that, in the case of nearly every subject, “prescriptions are listed from year to year in the calendars of the constituent colleges”. By this time, however, both Senate and Academic Board had gone too far, if not too fast; professorial boards, under the supposed authority of clause 13, had taken freedom, not only with prescriptions, but also, in some instances, had introduced local restrictions in the choice of units and in the structure of courses in ways not authorised by university statute. These matters had to be resolved by an amendment Act 1954, setting up a Curriculum Committee, and by regulations passed by Senate under authority of that Act in 1955.

The case for autonomous universities as advocated by the Academic Board received a severe setback in 1950 when the executive of the Association of Universities of the British Commonwealth met in New Zealand, and two of its members in a written statement declared that the circumstances “demand the acceptance of a single university institution centralised and powerful enough to deal with university problems as a whole, and liberal enough to devolve educational responsibilities on the colleges”. A broad pattern for degrees should be laid down by the University but at the same time it should allow the utmost flexibility, with the safeguard of some kind of external assessorship to guarantee adequacy and quality of standards; which was what was ultimately obtained by the Curriculum Committee. Further, concerning the vice-chancellorship, it was recommended that the post be held in rotation by the academic heads of the four constituent institutions, an issue that was effectively resolved by the refusal of all but one college to release their academic heads for such a purpose. It should at this point be noted that, following Hunter's resignation from the post of part-time vice-chancellor in 1947, I. A. Gordon, Professor of English in Victoria University College, was appointed in his stead. In 1950 he accepted a temporary full-time appointment which was continued through 1951, when he returned to his chair and Dr G. A. (later Sir George) Currie, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Australia, was appointed to the position, which he retained till the dissolution of the University at the end of 1961.

A long period of legislative holiday was interrupted only by an amendment in 1944 to permit the Senate to relax its statutes to give concessions to students whose studies were interrupted by service overseas in the Second World War. But the war had other effects — direct and indirect. Many departments were able to make contributions to the total war effort in research and technology, and many graduates and others were thus employed. Then, in the very thorough work of rehabilitation undertaken by the Government, lecture rooms and laboratories were filled with adult full-time students, and temporary and makeshift buildings were strewn round every college. Some institutions were fortunate enough to get some additions of a permanent nature; but, while the climate of opinion was favourable to expansion to meet needs that were recognised as not just a passing phase, the commitment of building materials and labour to meet all manner of urgent public needs was so great that the universities had to wait.

At this time, too, the financial position of the University began to improve steadily, thanks mainly to the increased numbers paying examination fees with benefit to the Scholarship Capital Account.

The Academic Board, set up under the 1926 Amendment Act, and the Senate worked together pretty well under the prescribed conditions which, on the one hand, gave the Board the right to make recommendations on any matters affecting the University and special rights in respect of academic affairs, and, on the other hand, obliged the Senate to refer purely academic questions for prior consideration to the Board. None the less there was occasional friction, as when in 1928 the Senate referred back to the Board, without giving reasons, new prescriptions agreed on by the professors concerned, and again, in 1936, when the Senate overrode a unanimous decision of the professors of English.

The “unit” and the “stages” system adopted for arts in 1926 was in the next year extended to science subjects and courses, and reform of the examination system went on steadily.

In 1930 a Council of Legal Education, comprising representatives of the profession and of the law faculties, was established to which the Senate was obliged to refer matters concerning degrees in law. An amendment Act in 1928 had given representation to the two agricultural colleges on the Academic Board, and under the stimulus of the new professors of the Massey College, the course for the degree of B.Ag. was completely reconstructed in a way that made the scientific content overshadow farm work, not that practical experience was overlooked.

Much discussion took place in the early thirties about the standard of entry — the matriculation examination; and while there was general agreement in the University about the need to raise the pass level, there was less agreement about how to achieve the desired result. The introduction of scaling of the examiners' marks had some effect in later years if only that of making the examination, indirectly, a competitive one. In 1944 an accrediting system was introduced, and, as a corollary, the appointment of liaison officers between schools and the colleges.

The extramural student always had been a subject for argument, extreme academic opinion being that he should be got rid of as soon as possible. The statute (calendar 1961) prescribes that as from 1961 exemption shall not be granted in any subject for B.A. or B.Sc. degrees at Stage III unless the student has completed, as an internal student, at least three units including a Stage II unit.

The demand for a Royal Commission had now become more clamant, but the objective was not general reform but a specific issue — the reorganisation of the University into four independent universities. Certainly the demand for this was not unanimous — Otago wanted reform but not disestablishment; but on the other hand Auckland had become so exasperated over the thwarting of its ambitions in regard to special schools that by 1924 it had reached the point of demanding autonomy for itself. The upshot was that in September of that year the Minister of Education announced that the Government would appoint a Royal Commission consisting of Sir Harry Reichel, Principal of the University College of North Wales, and Frank Tate, Director of Education in Victoria. In a lengthy report they criticised the undue emphasis on examinations, the external examination system, and its corollary, the detailed syllabus, and they were also scathing concerning the standard of university education implicit in the methods of obtaining degrees. Other specific aspects of the system calling for wholesale condemnation were understaffing in the colleges with consequent large classes and lack of specialisation, the low standard of matriculation, the cult of the exempt and the part-time student and the evening class, and the substitution of mere technical training for true university education. The six-subject degree, so long a matter of dispute between Senate and Board of Studies, was utterly condemned, and the nine-unit course was advocated. As to the reorganisation of the University itself, the Commission agreed that dissolution and the establishment of four independent universities was desirable and ultimately inevitable, but was persuaded by the opposition from Otago and from some of the special schools that the time was not yet. (It was still 36 years away.) A federal university was, therefore, the basis of the Commission's recommendations, with emphasis, however, on a central feature — namely, the appointment of an academic head or principal. Other recommendations included the setting up of an Academic Board charged with the duty of approving all curricula and all standards and methods of examination, of a Secondary Schools Board to look after entrance qualifications, and of a Council of Legal Education. Better financial provision for the universities generally, and in particular for libraries, was also recommended.

In outline, at least, most of these matters were covered in the New Zealand University Amendment Act, 1926, but no provision was made for better financial support of University or colleges, and the Canterbury Agricultural College and the newly established Agricultural College at Palmerston North were left out of the scheme of things. The Council, or reconstituted Senate, was to comprise a chancellor and a vice-chancellor, four members appointed by the Governor-General, two by each college council, five by Convocation, three professors by the Academic Board (which was also established and its powers defined by the Act), the Director of Education ex officio, and a co-opted member. A principal, who by virtue of his office should be vice-chancellor, was to be appointed by the Council, but there was no authority or other provision for payment of his salary. A University Entrance Board, whose members were derived in a variety of ways, was established. One short clause, 13, was included, the potential of which does not seem to have been realised for many years to come: that “It shall not be necessary that the courses of study or methods of examinations prescribed for any degree or diploma shall be the same for each of the constituent institutions.” Proxy voting was abolished. In 1927 the reconstituted University Council met, elected John Macmillan Brown chancellor, and, proceeding to consider the appointment of a principal, found it had no power to pay a salary to such a person. The Government, asked for amending legislation, came back with sundry proposals that if put into effect would bind the University in the chains of Government control. The Council recoiled, but on the advice of its chancellor decided that after all a principal was unnecessary, and probably a dangerous innovation, and that the chancellor, the vice-chancellor (at the time Professor Rankine Brown) and the Standing Committee could manage very well. Amending legislation, however, having been passed in 1928, a part-time position with a small honorarium was accepted by Professor Thomas Hunter (later Sir Thomas) who in 1929 began his long and efficient reign as chief executive; and if he was not able to exercise the influence over the University as a whole that the Reichel-Tate Commission had hoped for from a principal, it was because such duties as he undertook were superimposed on those of principal of his own college in Wellington.

The Government's next step in its plan of centralising control and of exercising economies was to direct two of its officers to report on university finances. The inquisitors discovered, among other things, that Government and local body contributions to universities in Britain amounted to £54 per student, in New South Wales to £32, in South Australia to £34, in Wales to £84, and in New Zealand only to £19 per student. Accordingly, they recommended more rather than less expenditure. It was obviously necessary to increase the grants to the colleges both for arts and science teaching and for certain special schools. But the amending Act which followed in 1928, though increasing the grants to the colleges, reduced that to the University and included a number of irritating restrictive clauses. The Council again became the Senate. At last in 1935 came the turn of the tide of financial recession, and with it the first Labour Government with firmly grounded views on the importance of education and with Peter Fraser as Minister. But from this point in time, with a period of legislative calm ahead, it is useful to look at domestic matters as they were unfolding.

But the seeds of reform sown by David Starr Jordan fell on fertile ground about “the old clay patch” of Victoria University College where were a number of young professors, all dissatisfied with the conditions in New Zealand. Among these were von Zedlitz, Laby, Picken, Easterfield, Kirk, and Thomas Hunter, the last-named to become in the course of time first principal of Victoria College and the first professional vice-chancellor of the University of New Zealand. These men were the leaders who formed the University Reform Association in 1910 and in the following year issued the pamphlet University Reform in New Zealand. In this were gathered the opinions of 65 leading university men of Britain, America, and Australia concerning the two fundamental questions — the external examination, and the powers that professors ought to have in the organisation of the university. The replies were almost unanimous in condemning the system as it was, and the Reform Association set about petitioning Parliament for a Royal Commission. The reformers insisted that the defects in the system went back to the very origins of the University in 1874 as a purely examining body. The Senate prescribed examinations and appointed examiners, and so indirectly controlled the academic life of the colleges. Teachers had no direct voice in deciding what should be taught, how students should study, or how they should proceed to graduation. The external examination, in which the chancellor and the Senate took such pride as giving prestige to our graduates overseas, was condemned as wrong in principle and misleading in practice. Other grounds for criticism there were indeed — lack of finance and, as a corollary, inadequate salaries, haphazard appointments, inadequate libraries, and lack of provision for research.

The petition for a Royal Commission, referred to the Education Committee of the House, was bitterly opposed by the Chancellor. The Committee reported against the Commission — the Senate could itself effect the necessary reforms — but it agreed the professors should have more part in framing curricula and in examinations, and recommended that the Director of Education, George Hogben, should report to the Government on college finances and on libraries.

Senate met in January 1912; and, on the motion of James Allen of Otago, decided to institute an annual Professorial Conference. The reformers rested their hopes for a while on that, as well as on electioneering to secure better representation on college councils. In November the Professorial Conference was held; it made some recommendations which the Senate, in 1913, rejected; it also decided that the conference was useless, and abolished it. This was a blow to the reformers, and so, a new Government having taken office, they concentrated on evidence before the Education Committee, then sitting. But the Royal Commission was again denied, though the Committee did recommend reconstitution of Senate to make it consist mainly of members elected from college councils. In the end the New Zealand University Amendment Act, 1914, was passed with little debate — war in a wider field had begun. The Senate remained unchanged; a Board of Studies was set up; but the financial provisions were unsatisfactory.

The Reform Association dissolved, but the Board of Studies took up its policy though it too inherited the hostility of the Senate. At last, in 1921, Senate gave way: pass examinations from 1922 were to be conducted by the teachers, and an assessor with the right of final decision. But reform of the structure of the course for a bachelor's degree — the nine-unit course — was still to be won.

During the war years the load of administration had become too complex for any chancellor not entirely a university officer to superintend adequately. Defalcations by the then Registrar in 1915 caused some office reorganisation, and Hunter's plan for committee control between Senate meetings was adopted, though it was soon found that the bulk of the work fell on the Wellington committee. Stout Suggested the appointment of a principal — his retort to the declaration of the Board of Studies that the time had come to establish four separate universities.

A stir was caused by David Starr Jordan, President of the Leland Stanford in California, who visited New Zealand in 1907. At the request of the chancellor, he brought forward some suggestions for improvement. He criticised the courses of study, the administration of the colleges, the status of teachers, and the examining system. As to courses, he recommended the American majoring system—at this time the requirements for the B.A. degree were nine terms of study and passes in six subjects. As to other matters: the chairman of the professorial board ought to have greater powers in all academic concerns; the professor should have initiative in his own department and his examination should be final; further, each professor should certify the work of each of his students and the Professorial Board should then finally certify to the University of New Zealand those recommended for degrees. Jordan also had something positive to say on a subject that, to this day, remains under constant discussion: “degrees should not be granted for extramural study”. The Chancellor was impressed, at least for the time being. Senate was not, or not to effect, and was very willing to accept the advice of its vice-chancellor, Sir Charles Bowen, “to walk warily”, and of its chancellor — to avoid disposing of issues in an impulsive manner.

H. J. Tancred who, as chancellor, had dominated the Senate so long, died in 1884. His successor, Sir James Hector, who remained in office till 1903, though a signatory to the 1879 commission's report, lost whatever zeal for reform he may once have had. After him came Stout, now Sir Robert, and Chief Justice. So far as the University was concerned, he remained the astute politician he had ever been, but with this difference: once he had been a liberal reformer, now he became a defender of an institution.

In the last 20 years of the century, a period for the University of growth in size but not in wisdom, only two other matters deserve mention. An amendment Act in 1883 and a supplementary charter authorised degrees in science; secondly, by 1899 fees paid by examinees more than covered the costs of examination, and a proportion of profits was thereafter wisely invested in a Scholarships Endowment Fund which in the course of years proved of inestimable value to hundreds of scholars. Up to 1902 members of Senate had held a life tenure of office. An amendment Act in that year reconstituted the Senate, membership being reduced to 24, on a three-year tenure. Four members were appointed by Government, and five came from each college — two elected by the council, two by graduates, and one by the professors, thus giving university teachers some direct representation.

The early part of this century was occupied, as the closing decade of the last had been, with arguments about extra-mural students, with the minutiae of prescriptions, and with the continuing controversy about the examination system.

Notwithstanding the economic depression the Auckland University College Act was passed in 1882, the college being opened in 1883 with a statutory grant of £4,000, and affiliated with the University of New Zealand.

Stout, a persistent, ardent reformer, now member of Senate, and also Premier and Minister of Education, returned to the fray in 1886. He complained that the University regarded examinations as its chief function, that research was neglected because the colleges were too poor, and that a peripatetic Senate meeting once or twice a year was out of touch with the colleges. He proposed to bring down a Bill incorporating the main recommendations of the commission of 1879, but, as the Senate was not enthusiastic, he turned his attention to advocacy of a college in Wellington. He had, in 1887, introduced a Wellington University College Bill, intending to provide for the needs of Wellington, Hawke's Bay, and Taranaki, and on a novel plan. Scientists employed in the Government service would serve as teachers during the sessions. The Bill met strong opposition and was withdrawn. It was R. J. Seddon who, returning from Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee celebrations, adorned with an honorary doctorate of Cambridge, and filled with admiration for “the advantages of higher education” brought the desired college to birth by passing the Victoria University College Act in 1897. The college was duly affiliated to the University in 1899.

In an endeavour to clarify certain ambiguities in the original Act, another Act was passed in 1874. The University of New Zealand was to be exclusively an examining body, administered by a Senate of 24 members comprising the existing council and four others appointed by Government A Court of Convocation, to be set up when the number of graduates reached 30, would have the right of electing a proportion of members. Provision was made for finance but most of the reserves set aside for university purposes were resumed. The nature of the University of New Zealand, thus clearly defined as an examining body, was to be the subject of controversy for many a year to come. The charter that followed in due course, in 1876, gave recognition to degrees in arts, law, medicine, and music: it was not till 1884 that degrees in science were recognised by a supplementary charter. Interminable argument continued inside the Senate and outside: about the requirements for degrees, about syllabuses, about the methods of examination, and about standards; until at last, in 1879, the Senate decided that all examinations for degrees and honours should be conducted by examiners in Britain. A general matriculation examination was also instituted.

But many problems remained unsolved. Hence, at the instance of Robert Stout, then Attorney-General, a commission was appointed in 1879, by which time there were over 100 undergraduates, and in Otago an incipient medical school and a mining school. The commission comprised 13 members, among whom were four members of Parliament, four from the Senate, and five professors of Otago or Canterbury. It recommended the disaffiliation of the secondary schools that had been recognised in various places and the establishment at Auckland and Wellington of university colleges. All four colleges would be colleges of the University of New Zealand, governed by a Senate largely composed of representatives of the colleges, which alone should have power to confer degrees, and to make general regulations about qualifying conditions. In other respects the colleges would have sufficient independence to develop “marked individuality” and “sufficient influence over the examinations to prevent their being of such a kind as to require or foster a rigid uniformity in the course of instruction”. Professors were to be appointed by college councils, to be regarded as professors of the University, who ordinarily would act as its examiners. For this reason and also to prevent “the undue multiplication of technical and professional schools and of giving a special character to each college by attaching different schools of that class to the different colleges”, it was recommended that the sanction of the Senate be obtained before any college established a new chair or lectureship.

On most of the recommendations there was near unanimity; and the adoption of the report by the Government and the University would have put the University on a footing that was not reached for many years to come but the depression, which followed the Vogel boom, was a time of financial strigency. The Senate itself could do little, and in that little was guided by conservatism.