Romans) deprived the natives of their warlike and self-relying spirit so that they became a prey to the Saxons."

There was also a tendency-though perhaps less in evidence than last year to relate infantile anecdotes to the exclusion of more important information. Thus the culinary arrangements in Warwick the Kingmaker's household usurped the place which would have been better allotted to some account of his life and actions, and the only fact in connexion with Lord Burghley that was known to most of the candidates who wrote about him was that he once read a passage of the Bible to a personage identified by a few as Essex, but generally not named.

The improvement which, as stated above, the Examiner has noticed in the better class of papers would soon be more general if teachers, in addition to exercising some judgment in the choice of textbooks (some of which appear to be deplorably bad), would make a point of teaching their pupils (1) to distinguish between what is and what is not important; (2) to avoid the use of textbook forms of expression, and give the substance of the facts and comments which the questions appear to require in their own language; (3) to take some pains to understand the scope and bearing of a question and consequently to confine their answers to the point or points which the question involves.

With regard to the last of these recommendations the Examiner would remark that the percentage of passes might have been increased materially if more of the candidates who attempted to answer Questions 1 and 8 (b) had realized the difference between the information for which these questions respectively did and did not ask. Had they done so, they might either have obtained more marks on those questions or substituted other questions for them more profitably.


The 1912 answers were better than those of 1911. The more important and higher-marked questions were attacked with greater success, and throughout the paper there was a diminished crop of gross mistakes. The "English" and the spelling, however, left much to be desired.

Question 1-the compulsory Question-gave a choice of two maps, Newfoundland or Africa. Most chose the former, and did it well.

Africa was not, as a rule, well done. Defects that, for the most part common to both maps, require emphasizing were :-(a) Carelessness in the drawing of rivers: scores of candidates had no compunction in making a river cross and recross a mountain range; many regarded a straight line, which never reached the sea, as sufficient, as long as it was labelled with the name of the river asked for; (b) Railways in the same careless way were drawn over mountains, through lakes, or across any obstacle, which a moment's thought should have been able to circumvent; (c) Towns were constantly shown without dots of location, it seemed to make no difference whether Carbonear was at the "C," or the "b," or the "r"; (d) the two lines of Latitude and Longitude were seldom located with even reasonable accuracy-indeed, it was obvious that numbers did not know the difference between Latitude and Longitude.

Question 2, asking for certain geographical causes and effects, was satisfactory.

Question 3, requiring a short account of certain industries and productions, was marred by a too literal insistence on the meaning of "short." Many considered that an account of three lines in length was sufficient for the timber and iron industries of Newfoundland.

Question 4 (definitions) was, as a rule, good. The commonest and worst mistakes lay in the definition of a volcano as a "burning mountain," and of a tributary as a stream "flowing from a river."

Question 5 (location of, and notes on, certain world-famous places) was very fair.

Question 6 (shape and size of the earth) was spoilt by (i) attempts to write out from memory very imperfectly learnt passages from the textbooks (an old failing with the candidates for this Preliminary Grade. examination), and (ii) constant confusion between the "diameter" and the "equator" of the earth.

Question 7 (the geography of four commodities), though meagrely answered, was fairly satisfactory. That Ceylon still appears as one of the world's great coffee producers seems to argue out-of-date textbooks in several instances.


number of candidates doing all the questions correctly. A common form of error in the weaker papers was that of misplacing the decimal point.


This exercise was generally well done, several candidates doing all the sums with complete accuracy.


The work this year was not quite as good as that of last year. Only one candidate did all the questions correctly, though several nearly reached the same standard. Factorizing was done well. The simplification of Fractions was very weak. The two questions that were the least successfully attempted were No. 2 and No. 7.


There is much in the work of this year which invites serious criticism. Little attention appears to have been given to the recommendations embodied in the Report for 1911, the same faults, both of omission and commission, being repeated in divers instances. In many cases the writing was slovenly, the lettering of the figures blotted and defective, the wrong proposition written out, the answer either unnumbered or numbered in the order of trial rather than in that of the question. Here and there parts of both sections were attempted.

It is alleged that Paper B was found to be somewhat hard, and full allowance has been made for that fact. Hence, in this Report, the Examiner is careful to deal not so much with that which was left undone as with that which was actually set out, and, in respect alike of Paper A and Paper B, he finds the result disappointing. Several papers were absolutely valueless-nay, worse: they indicated a state of mental vacuity and confusion quite disconcerting, especially when one considers that the study of Geometry is intended to subserve logical clearness and precision of definition, statement, and progressive argument, even in the elementary stages. These remarks apply equally to Paper A as well as to Paper B. In regard to the latter paper, it would appear

retical Geometry. It is a mistake to suppose that problems in Practical Geometry may safely be grappled with by the light of Nature.


The papers were very fair on the whole, comparatively few candidates failing to secure the minimum Pass marks. The Journal was generally well done, the most frequent errors being (a) the omission to take any notice of "to settle a/c " in the entry of 19th Dec., although the total amount was given purposely as an aid; (b) the "credit note" entry of 14th, in which connexion it may be remarked that many candidates treated it as a "Bill Receivable or Bill Payable"; and (c) the entry of 20th ("Weller purchased wine"), which was, as last year in a similar transaction, treated by many as "bought wine of Weller."


Practically all the candidates deliberately ignored the instruction that "all cash transactions pass through the bank," and they opened two accounts in the Ledger, or even three in some cases-Cash, Bank, and Check." Thus, many made the same mistake of a credit balance in the Cash A/c as last year. It is important that candidates should, in a subject like Book-keeping, strictly adhere to the directions. The Ledger was not well done, but many did the Trial Balance. The answers to the questions were weak, e.g. the arithmetical meaning was generally given to "Dividend."


Some 53 per cent. of the candidates took Paper A, and 47 per cent. took Paper B. Candidates who took Paper A seemed somewhat weaker than those who took Paper B, but in both sets the elementary accidence and its practical applications were generally weak, and in many cases very weak. There were, however, some very good papers; and all the candidates seem to have done their best, the great majority attempting the whole of the paper. Great care had undoubtedly been taken with the translation into English, which, as on previous occasions, was responsible for many passes. But the candidates were apparently unable to apply their knowledge when translating into French. The writing was excellent throughout, but the spelling was in many cases faulty.

Papers A and B. Others sometimes misunderstood the meaning of the questions. Others, again, wasted much time by copying the questions, or conjugating verbs in full instead of writing what was asked for.


The paper was again very well done by most of the candidates. I can only repeat my remark of last year-viz., that, if any considerable number of the candidates have been learning Latin more than a year or, perhaps, fifteen months, they should be doing more advanced work.


The average of work was good, and candidates who received Distinction sent in excellent papers. The arrangement of answers was, in general, satisfactory. Some candidates were too prolix, while others. did not read the questions with sufficient care. The papers were, on the whole, neatly written, though spelling was frequently a weak point.


A few of the papers showed that there had been adequate preparation, but the majority indicated unsatisfactory training.


The answers to Question 1 were the least satisfactory in the whole paper. There was little indication of power to arrange matter for suitable presentation to a class. The subject-matter was often very inaccurately stated. In quite a large number of cases accent and ascent were treated as if they should be pronounced alike. Very many candidates did not know what blank verse is, several of them confounding it with elliptical exercises as found in certain reading books. Numeration was hardly ever treated in tabular form, and the previous knowledge of pupils was not made use of in dealing with the numbers above a thousand.

The answers to Question 2 were generally unsatisfactory, but here there were several cases of excellent answers. A great number of candidates confined themselves to saying that they would see that the pupil knew the tables, and then would give him exercises in the new rule. The

« VorigeDoorgaan »