It is becoming clear that the revolutionary student movement in this country is growing both in terms of quantity and quality. Up to the present time this movement has not encompassed students of engineering or science, whether at university or college, to any substantial extent.
It worth noting that the movement is paralled by the very substantial growth of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs Conned from the 'left-wing' Association of Scientific Workers. It is also important to note that the science and engineering student has more in common with most workers than other groups of students.
In many ways the student of engineering or science is subject to an academic oppression far greater than that inflicted on his fellow students. Among other factors, he suffers extremely long hours (at UMIST a full 4½ days of lectures, practicals), sexual and social deficiencies (at UMIST, example, not more than 5% of the undergraduate population is female!), a savage exam system destroying creativity, and in many technical colleges bad conditions.
There are signs that the attack from the science student (from now on both scientists and engineers will be referred to as scientists, unless mentioned to the contrary) is just beginning. On the Vietnam demonstration on October proportion of scientist's according to a number of sources, was higher than many people expected.
In the science universities students are just beginning to take. direct action as the following table shows:
UNIVERSITY/COLLEGE ACTION Aston University Sarious and withdrawal from NUS Salford University gemonstratone cabu students on Prince Philip's visit.
Kingston College Tech Sit-in in support of LSE Strathclyde University Sit-in in support of Lob UMIST Disruption of lectures by Principal and BBC Northern Correspondent It seems likely that this pattern will continue - in that actions taken will be increasingly less introspective and, in addition, will be greatly intensified. On the other hand, it is not unlikely that scientists will react as they did at Bristol and Birmingham.
The strongest offensive may probably be launched on the extremely high level of failure (in their terminology) in the technological universities illustrated by the following table. (1) It refers to students who should have received a degree in 1965-1966.
UNIVERSITY % LEAVING
WITHOUT A DEGREE Aston 29.1 GROUP I Bradford 30.8 Brunel 29.2 Virtually 29.2 only science Loughborough 34.0 Salford 31.7 Surrey 32.1 GROUP II Birmingham 9.6 Leeds 11.7 Mixture Sheffield 14.2 ma glimmering of a student students from Group 1 that leave without a degree and even more surprising how constant is the percentage at almost every university in Group I, i.e. approx. 31%. The normal explanation for this would be that students in Group I have lower 'A' level grades than Groups Il academically. This is not necessarily the main reason because a large number leave in their first year - implying that they left of distinction between a student leaving for "academic' reasons when he wants to, and when he is forced to. It might be -tutorials and though the U.G.C. would never look leaving for academic reasons were leaving because they could for not tolerate the removal of the social content of the subject that they were doing. It is relevant, here, to quote from the U.C.C.A. report of last year which showed that 3% more students were doing arts "A' levels - 3% less were doing science 'A levels.
above table down into broad subject areas.
SUBJECT 27th, the Arts 8,988 Engineering 6,001 Other technologies Physical Sciences 5,336 YEAR (other than Maths) 1967 In the above figures disciplinary 1900 negligible except at UMIST where 6% of the students leaving without a degree did so, because of disciplinary action! 1969 1969 against this ruthless rat-race demanding an immediate reduction in Ene failure-rate' and calling technological universities, even if not a "liberation'.
precipitate the (and in science departments of others):
A glut of pure scientists, especially Chemistry science. 3. The increased use of science for warfare.
THE POLITICAL LEVEL %. LEAVING IN research or evidence on the political level of students of science 1st YEAR or engineering.
definitely describe the engineering or science student politically, we can say that he is generally politically inactive and usually 7.7 has a completely non-critical outlook. 2.4 8.1 13.3 that of a student studying 19.7 unexpected. The student Undergraduate' (2): 17.1 12.6 4.8 5.4 6.0 breadth of professors... also Conservative and Bradford.
FACULTY LEFT Arts Science All figures are percentages.
criteria for the number of these engineers leorwar Average The first point one notes is the extremely high percentage of Shils (7):
government on and Ill and thus cannot manage their own accord. The U.G.C. report does not draw a that many students The figures are confirmed on failure rate if one breaks the % LEAVING like President Johnson. (8)
TOTAL NUMBER WITHOUT NO.
DEGREE LEAVING
9.4 21.9 1,313 20.0 14.6 he has to be able to criticise.
reasons for leaving were teach our fellow students. ways:
It seems likely that intense student agitation will take place for a "liberalisation" of There are a number of other points which should help to must have critical impending crisis in technological universities and criticise 2. A reduction of university expenditure, hitting particularly The first point worth making here is that there is very little bomb.
The second point is that although we cannot chemists.
It is interesting to compare a description of a professor to 1. Automation science the similarity is 2. Arms Expenditure is described in "The Science 3. World poverty "The overall picture is not entirely satisfactory. As a group science undergraduates are serious and hard-working, with REFERENCES little time for "cultural' activities. Most use what little spare time they have to take part in some form of extra-curricular The Science Graduate activity and to enter into university life in general. However, they tend to be rather conventional and conformist, with 3. C. Wright Mills in enrolment and the consequent mass Prestige, especial in the larger centres, nsiderably higher than that of the public school teacher does not usually attract sons of upper-class families. The type imagination often limited. Men can achieve position in this field although they are recruited from the lower-middle class, a mileu not remarkable for grace of mind, flexibility or culture or scope of imagination. The include people of broadly plebeian cultural interests outside the field of specialization and a generally philistine way of life'." (3):
Ore of the few studies involving the politics of science students was done by Sanford (4) who examined the Bristo College of Technology and found that, unlike the university, its class structure was similar to that of British society in general He also found that there was a complete lack of political clubs and that more students attended industry-run sports clubs than college ones. He showed that the students were predominantly voters, with lower middle-class backgrounds. However, it would not be correct to assume that Bristol is representative of science and engineering students for there are substantial socialist societies at Aston, UMIST, Imperial College, According to a recent survey in Indepedent (Newspaper o Manchester University) (5), there seems to be little difference l the political sympathies of the Arts and Science students.
EXTREME LEFT CENTRE RIGHT EXTREME NONE RIGHT This was not a very reliable survey as there were no objective assessment of political sympathies. It is interesting to note that in the survey as a whole the Faculty of Medicine was the most reactionary department. This is rather odd as one would expect students working in a humanitarian course to have some elements of that humanity.
As mentioned earlier, there are no figures available for the political level of students, but in 1963 Eric Lubbock showed that there were a very small number of professional engineers in the Commons, decreasing, in spite of the overall increase in the 1945 1950 1957 1962 There are two main reasons that scientists have not gone into government in any substantial numbers:
They are expected only to act as a contributor. Edward "Scientists are not ordinarily brought inte the service of grounds of their deep philosophical powers Nor is it generally asserted that they should be brought in as counsellors to range freely over the whole field of policy assessing men and motives and the whole landscape alternative ends. The arguments for their indispensability in modern governments rooted not in any conviction as to the breadth of their wisdom but in their expertise in adefinite range of problems. They are prized not for their capacity to replace political judgement by scientific judgement, nor for their greater ease in comprehending a broad scene and to see the hidden interdependence of its parts. Their skill is generally thought to be a narrower one and their capacity for contributing to the process of decision more segmental anc specific to their scientific competence."
They are considered a part of the ideological war as Viscount Hailsham said in 1957 in Nature - sounding rather POLITICAL IMPROVEMENT IN SCIENCE STUDENTS The main problem is that most scientists do not possess a critical outlook. Probably this is deliberate - quite often the human being tries to ignore something, rather than have to face it. Before the science student can understand a Marxist Critique, We must, therefore supply this critical attack - we must This can be done in a number of 1. Pamphlets on individual subjects showing (a) the use and abuse of it (b) how badly the subject is taught (c) how the subject could be taught and used 2. The uncritical scientist is virtually unable to speak - we science seminars weekly with left-wing lecturers speaking on a topic that they know about, but speaking about it critically, so that he can learn to communicate 3. We must campaign inside the university and college for:
(a) An education - not a training. (b) An attack on the most obvious excesses of capitalism such as poverty, germ warfare, atomic 4. Create a social conscience, e.g. If a chemical plant explodes ask a worker along to speak to chemical engineers and If a critical student is eventally produced any discussion on Marxism should still lead off from the particular science. The following topics would soon lead to a discussion on Socialism:
4. Genetics and racialism 1. U.G.C. Report on Student Progress 1969 Donald Hutchins Univ Oxford Dept Edue. 1967 Pg 11 White Collar 1951 Oxford Univ Press Technologists in the making. The Technologist 1966
Cuban OSPAAL Posters 12%" x 21". Printed in full
----- pull-quotes -----
productions methods of instruction have made the position of the college professor less distinctive than it once was