Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2012 with funding from

University of Toronto


President's Report








Report of the President 1


Faculty of Arts and Science 33

University College 36

Faculty of Medicine 40

Banting and Best Department of Medical Research 44

Faculty of Law 46

Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering 48

Institute of Aerophysics 49

Faculty of Household Science 5 1

Ontario College of Education 51

Library School 53

Faculty of Forestry 54

Royal Conservatory of Music 56

School of Graduate Studies 59

Faculty of Dentistry 65

Faculty of Pharmacy 67

School of Architecture 68

School of Physical and Health Education 71

School of Social Work 71

School of Nursing 78

School of Hygiene 78

Institute of Child Study 82

School of Business 83

Great Lakes Institute 84

Institute of Earth Sciences 85

University Extension 85

The Library 89

Registrar's Office 97

David Dunlap Observatory 100

Computation Centre 101

Connaught Medical Research Laboratories 102

Royal Ontario Museum 104

University of Toronto Press 132

Hart House 135

Hart House Theatre 138

University Health Service 139

Placement Service 141

Athletics and Physical Education for Men 142

Athletic Association 143

Physical Education for Women 144


Women's xAthletic Association 145

University Naval Training Division 147 University of Toronto Contingent, Canadian Officers

Training Corps 148

University of Toronto Squadron, R.C.A.F. 148

Students' Administrative Council 149

Publications 152

Benefactions 197

Report of the Registrar 231


To the Governors and the Senate of tke University of Toronto

Ever since the end of the Second World War, one of the themes recurrently emphasized in this Report has been the growth of graduate studies. What might be described as a new era in the School of Graduate Studies began with the statute passed in 1947 (which inaugurated the present structure of the School, with its grouping of graduate departments into two Divisions) and the appointment of the late Harold Innis as Dean of the School. A revision of this statute to make the administrative machinery more workable was passed under the chairmanship of Dean Andrew Gordon, who since his appointment in 1953 has given the School vigorous and authoritative leadership. In the projection of our maximum enrol- ment, the School of Graduate Studies becomes the third largest division of the University, next in size only to the Faculty of Arts and Science and the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, with an enrolment making up about 15 per cent of the total enrolment of the University. On a simple quantitative basis, then, the School assumes a considerable importance. Even more, as the locus of our most advanced work, and as the one academic unit that embraces every discipline in the University, the School of Graduate Studies provides a commanding position from which to view some of the changes that are taking place in the world of higher education. I propose in this Report to examine some of the reasons for the growth in graduate studies, and then to look at the relationship between graduate studies and the other principal areas of the commonwealth of learning.

It would be well first to establish the general nature of graduate studies. I would define such studies as specialized work of an intensive and advanced nature pursued beyond a first degree. The core disciplines in any graduate school are those of the Faculty of Arts and Science. These are the basic disciplines in all areas of knowledge, upon which the professional schools must rely. The profes- sional schools have their own interest in graduate studies, although advanced work in most professional areas is a continuation of the typical emphasis upon specific problems, now explored in depth, or buttressed by an introduction to related subjects. Inevitably certain differences in attitude and method develop between the professional and the non-professional areas, which may be increas- ingly difficult to reconcile in one administrative structure. At the present time they are brought together in the School of Graduate Studies under the aegis of research.

Research, or the systematic attempt to add to human knowledge, is always closely related to graduate studies, although it is not the exclusive concern of universities with graduate schools. The concept of research is particularly relevant to work in the sciences. A doctoral dissertation in the sciences is in fact an addi- tion to knowledge usually only a minute link in a vast chain. The concept of research is less immediately relevant in the humanities and social sciences, where the dissertation may be a reinterpretation or a synthesis which is more important to the intellectual development of the student than to the advancement of the


subject. Most dissertations in the humanities and the social sciences do not enter the literature of the subject; they are either mercifully swallowed up, or they appear years later, transmogrified in book form.

If the product of graduate activity is research, the method is that of close tutorial relationship between senior and junior scholar. With the scientist, indeed, this may amount to a form of professional collaboration, the graduate student working on one aspect of a problem in which the senior scholar is also deeply involved. In the humanities and social sciences the relationship is rarely so close, though the dissertation will in many cases closely reflect the particular philo- sophical or critical attitude of the scholar who is responsible for its direction. A strong reminder of this aspect of graduate work is that it is often said of a par- ticular student, not that he did his doctoral dissertation at such and such a univer- sity, but that he did it with such and such a professor.

With these principal characteristics of graduate studies in mind, it is easier for us to understand some of the reasons for the remarkable growth that has taken place in this area. In the first place, graduate schools have reflected, perhaps more directly and intensely than any other area, the new and high estate given to knowledge, especially to knowledge that results from systematic, sustained and specialized investigation. The graduate schools have thus become a major social resource. This is best illustrated in the sciences, where the Ph.D. is no longer merely the passport to an academic life, but a highly negotiable asset in industry and business. To a limited extent the same is true of the advanced graduate degree in the social sciences. The Ph.D. may soon cease to be a sort of antique key to the ivory tower, and become a master key to economic status.

Another reason for the rapid growth in graduate studies has been the shift from the university as processer to the university as innovator. For, in the sciences particularly, knowledge changes so rapidly that it is no longer possible for the university to play the role of the official purveyor of accepted doctrines and procedures, since the official explanation of yesterday becomes the outmoded theory of today. Thus the university must constantly engage in revision and reassessment; otherwise it may easily find itself jarringly out of tune with the world around it. In the humanities and social sciences, the concern is not so much with change as with purpose, since the subject for examination human nature stubbornly resists the operation of laws that are transforming our physical environ- ment. "Perhaps the most slowly changing thing on earth," writes Professor Sirluck of the University of Chicago, "by comparison with which the rate of carbon decay is like the racing hand of a stop-watch, is the nature of man. To discern the permanent in the flux is always the university's duty. At the present time it is a desperate need of the community, since the flux is greater than usual ; it threatens to subvert the institutions on which the community normally relies for its correct guidance, and thus to undermine their authority. By discerning much more clearlv and adequately, and making manifest much more relevantly and convincingly, the permanent within the flux, the university can help the community's institu- tions to recover their stability, integrity and authority. Whether the scholar is engaged in measuring and assessing the flux, or in trying to see it against the permanence of human nature, he will find a particularly congenial environment in the graduate school."


The fermentation of new ideas, and the awareness by scholars of the imme- diate relevance of their pursuits, have internationalized the university campus. The international conference of scholars is the external badge of this new expan- sion. Such conferences are the special preserve of those who are known to be working at the frontiers of their subjects. Hence the universities with strong graduate schools provide the principal membership of such conferences, and give reality to the concept of the international community of scholars.

So far I have talked about movements and ideas. I come now to a precise administrative reason for the growth of graduate schools. The graduate school has been traditionally the preparatory ground for university teachers, and today the need for more university teachers is acute. There has been a good deal of criticism, often acidulous in tone, of this role of the graduate schools, and frequent suggestions that their obsession with research makes them inappropriate for the training of teachers. Periodically it will be suggested that there should be a graduate degree other than the Ph.D., where emphasis would be on a wide general preparation and on a system of organized apprenticeship in teaching. In the meantime, however, the graduate school still performs this preparatory function. One may venture to suggest that it is much to be preferred to some super- college of education devoted to the mumbo-jumbo of pedagogical method, en- raptured by portentous theorizing about the goals of education.

In their capacity as producers of university teachers, graduate schools face enormous demands. At the present time there are about 9,000 full-time members of teaching staffs in the Canadian universities. In 1965-66 we shall need 14,000, and by 1970-71, 25,000. To the difference between 9,000 and 25,000 we should add a substantial figure to take care of replacements. All told, there will be a need of approximately 23,000 new members of staff during the next ten years. We have in the past relied heavily upon graduate schools in the United States, and upon importations from Europe. These sources will become less and less available, since all countries in the Western world will experience the same kind of crisis in staffing their universities. This means that our own graduate schools must bear the major share of the burden. Upon no university in Canada will the responsibility fall more heavily than on the University of Toronto. The develop- ment of our graduate school here is not merely a question of our natural evolution as a university, but of our national responsibility.

The peculiar responsibility of the School of Graduate Studies at the Univer- sity of Toronto arises from the fact that we have reasonable strength across the entire academic board, and that we can offer advanced degrees in most of the major divisions with assurance of maintaining standards. In the sciences, both pure and applied, there is a wide diffusion of graduate strength throughout Canada, thanks largely to the conscientious policy of the National Research Council of supporting and helping to build up graduate work in science in all the provinces. But in the humanities and social sciences Toronto plays a dominating role. This is attested by the distribution of fellowships awarded by the Canada Council, fellowships which are restricted to graduate work in the humanities and social sciences, and which make up by far the largest subvention for graduate work in these areas. Of the 115 graduate fellowships that were held in Canadian universities during 1960-61, 50 were held at the University of Toronto; the


remainder were divided in small groups among thirteen other universities. No doubt this situation will change, and we shall see a healthy development in the direction of wider diffusion. But this cannot be so easily achieved in the humani- ties and social sciences, because a good graduate school in these areas is not pro- duced overnight by the installation of equipment and laboratories, or even by the hiring of two or three senior members of staff. Research here demands an accu- mulation of books that have been carefully assembled over a number of years, and a tradition of scholarly commitment that cannot be called into existence by the most elaborate administrative flourish. Even Toronto has a long way to go before its facilities match its responsibilities. The library is still inadequate for major research work, the staff does not yet receive enough allowance for graduate instruction, and residential facilities for graduate students to which Massey College will make a first and distinctive contribution must be a continuing concern.

I have described the growth of graduate studies as the inevitable response to major social forces, and I have suggested that the response is not only inevitable but desirable a source of strength to the university. Any sudden expansion of one area of the university, however, immediately raises questions. The growth of graduate studies and research has raised a good many. In educational literature and discussions you will find increasing reference to "airport professors," more interested in preparing for a seminar in Tokyo than for the class down the hall; to "professors of distinction," generally incomprehensible to their colleagues and invisible to their students; to departments carefully organized to seek out and secure research grants, but careless of undergraduate curricula. These are real developments that one cannot dismiss as a piece of academic fantasia. But they are not endemic in graduate schools. The normal healthy ethos of a graduate school is thus described by Sir Hugh Taylor, former Dean of Graduate Studies at Princeton, and now President of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation: "It is a commonplace that the satisfactions of the academic life to members of the faculty are enhanced by that master-disciple relationship which comes with a vigorous, healthy program of scholarship and research at the graduate level. Good faculty rightly demand the opportunities that come with good graduate students."

I think Sir Hugh's remarks are applicable here at Toronto, chiefly because we have a curricular system that demands the same maturity of treatment at both the undergraduate and the graduate level. There is never any thought of making appointments to the staff either from a strictly undergraduate or a strictly graduate point of view. The approach to the subject differs between the two areas only in terms of intensity and depth. The key here is the Toronto honour course system, traditionally a source of pride, and now, even more *han ever before, our distinctive mark. The honour course was designed to be an end in itself, to provide a liberal education by the process of judicious specialization. In this it has been successful. But it has also provided a matchless preparation for advanced work, whether in the same field or in some professional area; and the recent dramatic increase in post-baccalaureate studies finds the honour course graduates in the vanguard. Statistics about the graduating class of 1959 in the various honour courses illustrate this. The total number who obtained the B.A. in honour courses


in that year was 323, of whom 274 have been traced. One hundred and thirty entered graduate schools here or elsewhere; 128 went on to professional schools, the majority in education. Allowing for a certain number of duplications of those who did both postgraduate and professional studies, there were at least 228 of the class of 323 over 70 per cent who went on into some form of post-bacca- laureate education. The presence of the honour course graduate is especially apparent in the Faculty of Law, even though that profession vies with Laban in exacting long qualifying service from its devotees. Of the 26 students who entered the Faculty of Law in the fall of 1959 and who had taken their pre-legal educa- tion at the University of Toronto, 15 were graduates of four-year courses.

The high incidence of postgraduate studies among graduates of the honour courses is accompanied by a high degree of success. The judges who selected the Woodrow Wilson Fellows young men and women in their final year, desirous of going on to a graduate school in preparation for a career in university teaching were obviously impressed by the fitness of Toronto undergraduates for graduate work. During the year under review, Toronto won 25 of the Woodrow Wilson Fellowships; we were surpassed in Canada and the United States only by Harvard, Yale and Princeton.

What, then, are some of the qualities of the honour course at Toronto that put it in a class by itself? In the first place, the honour course is based upon a conscious decision taken by the student when he enters the University to commit himself to the study of a major area. This is not a question of narrow subject specialization, for all honour courses in varying degrees provide for work in related areas, and for occasional forays into areas not clearly related to the major interest. But all honour courses move, with varying degrees of intensity, toward a point where a thorough mastery of one subject is the ultimate concern. The assumption here is that only by thorough penetration into the complex problems of a subject does the student achieve the firm base from which he can move outward into other areas. With the disappearance of the firm edges of subject-matter, a thorough knowledge of one basic area can never lead to rigid specialization; for the questions raised force one to explore an ever widening terrain.

The second principle of the honour course is that it is based upon a progres- sive and systematic study of the subject through the use of primary material. Honour courses eschew the magisterial survey, which substitutes abstractions for precise observation and historical padding for detailed knowledge of the texts. The honour student rapidly realizes that he, in his humble way, is a serious worker in the field, allied with thousands of others who have gone before and with the thousands who are working simultaneously.

Although the honour course is systematically arranged so as to move through the major areas of the subject, it does not demand of the student an encyclopaedic mastery of facts, and it does not employ the typical American system of assign- ments. The student is encouraged to develop his own individual interests, and to explore these interests with single-minded devotion. The examination system encourages this exploratory technique, since it is designed to test not what the student knows superficially, but what he knows intensively.

Finally, the honour course becomes in the University the intellectual, and, to some degree, the social home of the student. Throughout the four years he lives


and works closely with a relatively small group of fellow-students who share his intellectual interests and passions. He is not collecting credits or points, he is not passing a series of discrete examinations; he is engaged, with others, in a con- tinuous intellectual adventure which should give a vivid centre to all of his under- graduate activities. As he becomes more senior and his own interests develop, he meets his professors on an increasing basis of intellectual camaraderie.

A system such as this rests upon certain assumptions about the entering student. It must assume that the student entering the University has achieved a reasonable degree of maturity, and is in a position to make a serious and a valid choice of his own interests. The honour course system, then, depends more than any other upon the achievement of high standards in secondary school education, particularly in the work of the final school year. Here we have the main reason why the University of Toronto takes a keen interest in secondary school problems ; an interest that becomes all the keener in the light of a tendency for more and more students at this University to elect honour courses. For many years the dis- tribution in numbers between the honour and general courses has been almost equal, but the latest figures for this year indicate a major shift toward the honour course, from roughly a 50-50 alignment to a 40-60 alignment. This may be an indication that the University of Toronto is becoming predominantly an honour course university. Now that more universities are being established, a greater diversity in educational philosophy is appearing. As long as we had the respon- sibility for educating about one half of the students of Ontario, we could not justify an undue emphasis on honour work. But now that the proportion for whom we are responsible is decreasing, and will continue to decrease, we have become free to concentrate on what we can do best. Other institutions will assume the task of general education, and will attack its problems in a single-minded and explora- tory way that this University could not match. That task will be particularly congenial to new institutions; there the academic tabula rasa invites unorthodox inscriptions. Among such new institutions York University, now firmly established at Glendon Hall, promises to be the boldest and most experimental. We see here the operation of a process of natural selection, whereby we achieve an increasing degree of differentiation among institutions of higher learning, so that in the future Toronto could increasingly emphasize its honour and postgraduate role in the full knowledge that other institutions would discharge other and related respon- sibilities.

The honour course system, as I have said, rests upon the basis of a high level of achievement in the secondary school. My awareness of this is the principal reason for making certain suggestions about the final year of the secondary school curriculum. It is natural for those of us who work at the university level to see the high school problem predominantly in university terms. But that does not mean that we are ignorant, or forgetful, of the other obligations that the high schools must undertake. All we say is that there should be a proper recognition of the university in the devising of high school curricula, and that the ideal of the secondary school as, first of all, an institution capable of giving a strong academic education should never be abandoned. After all, this kind of education does not need to be justified as preparation for the university; it is the best education for meeting the complex demands of present-day society, and should be available to


all who are capable of academic work, whether they go on to further studies or not. Moreover, we must not get into the habit of surrendering early educational positions in the expectation that we shall be able to take up a firm stand at a later point. No educational year from the earliest to the most senior can be sacrificed ; each must make its full contribution to the total process.

In my remarks last year about Grade XIII my main emphasis was placed on a departure from accepted practice in that year. In the light of our reluctance to follow the American pattern of the junior college, it is all the more important that the final year of the secondary school be a year of intellectual adventure, in which the writing of essays and the solution of problems are more important than the recitation of facts and the passing of "objective" examinations. It should be a year when the student is given some glimpse of the range and allure of a subject. It is good to receive assurance that these ideas are widely accepted. During the year, the Ontario Matriculation Board, which draws its representation from the senior members of all the major Ontario universities, discussed many of these problems and is now in the process of drawing up a series of firm recommendations. It is also gratifying to know that the Department of Education, despite the heavy administrative burdens that it carries and the attention it must give to complex social factors, has been receptive to the proposals that are coming from the universities.

Even the most adventurous and painstakingly elaborated curriculum declines into uselessness if it is not placed in the hands of first class teachers who understand the goals and have the scholarship in their field to achieve them. Certainly we have already many such teachers in our secondary schools, particularly in the human- ities. But for some time now it has been most difficult to attract first class students of science and mathematics to the high schools. In these areas, frank doubts are expressed as to whether we could find the teachers capable of implementing a new and experimental curriculum. The problem is no longer basically a financial one, as the financial returns, particularly at the beginning of a teaching career, are competitive with universities, and in some respects with industry. The problem is primarily one of finding a method of preparing for a teaching career that is attractive and intellectually stimulating in its own right. I doubt whether even the most enthusiastic defender of the present system of teacher training for secondary schools would say that these conditions obtained today. The present system suffers from its undue isolation from the university, and from a conspicuous absence of the usual academic procedures by which vigorous and salty democracy is main- tained within a university faculty. On the other hand, there is no disposition here to adopt as an alternative the pattern whereby the training of teachers becomes the concern of an ever expanding Faculty of Education, to which the more ancient divisions of the university become merely indigent satellites. The current expansion of teacher training facilities gives us an opportunity to improve our method of procedure in teacher education. This may well be the key to our whole educational enterprise. I express the hope that the opportunity will be seized with vigour arid imagination.

Many of the ideas that I have raised and discussed briefly in this Report were first examined in a special committee that I established two years ago known as the Committee on Policy and Planning, which during the year under review has


been given a more formal and precise structure by the appointment of a Director, Dr. Robin Harris of the Department of English in University College, and of a secretary, Mrs. Frances Ireland, a member of my own office. The Committee has thus become in effect an Institute of Higher Education, free of the paraphernalia of courses, examinations and theses, and staffed by scholars active in teaching and research in their own disciplines. The Committee not only provides a more varied and representative intellectual background for administrative decisions, but it also projects the University's deep concern with matters of education. Indeed, so important are educational problems these days that we dare not leave them to the professional educationists.

A venture that will have far-reaching long-term results was initiated during the year. Five members of the Committee on Policy and Planning and five members of the Toronto Board of Education were appointed to a Joint Committee of the Board and the University to explore problems of mutual concern and to report to the Chairman of the Toronto Board of Education and the President of the University of Toronto. There are two obvious reasons why such co-operation between the Board and the University is expedient: the first is that a very large number of students from the secondary schools of Toronto attend the University of Toronto ; and the second, that the physical propinquity of the two institutions makes it easy for each to take advantage of the facilities of the other. But the Joint Committee was conceived in terms that went far beyond the problems of local administration. It is designed to bring together those actively engaged in teaching at all levels of our educational system, and to take an over-view of fundamental problems ; its members are not committed to the protection of vested interests at any stage of the educational process; they are free to stress the con- tinuum of education from kindergarten to university. The greatest credit is due to the Toronto Board of Education for making the original proposal in such broad and imaginative terms. The Joint Committee's first action was to initiate studies of certain subjects of the curriculum by study groups, each of which included elementary and secondary school teachers and university professors, with the Director of Research of the Toronto Board of Education, the Librarian of the Education Centre, a member of the University's Department of Psychology, and others, available as consultants to the teams. As far as we know, this particular approach to curricular studies is unique on this continent. Obviously the curricu- lum must change and develop as knowledge increases and technology provides new tools for learning. Too often, however, changes in the curriculum are made in piecemeal fashion, without sufficient study, without reference to the theory of learning, and most serious of all without the direction of active teachers. This project of the Joint Committee may well be the beginning of an important development in educational research.

Review of the Year

I began last year's Report by referring to the events that brought to a con- clusion the highly successful National Fund. Work on the Fund has by no means ceased, and it is a continuing concern of the Development Office. During the year, however, the Development Office shifted its main emphasis to the development of


a programme of annual giving. A long, sustained period of activity culminated in the establishment of a Varsity Fund, of which most of the major divisions of the University are members, along with two of the federated colleges, Victoria and St. Michael's. Although it was clear that a programme of annual giving should not be pushed vigorously hard on the heels of the capital campaign, yet it was equally clear that the enthusiasm which had been engendered in that cam- paign should not be permitted to dissipate itself, or the organization so carefully devised be permitted to disintegrate. Previous all-University annual giving pro- grammes had not achieved any conspicuous success, and the memories of those enterprises were a psychological block to a new approach. Yet, after a period of intensive discussion and inquiry, there finally emerged a firm structure upon which we can now build, slowly at first, but with increasing speed and assurance. An annual giving programme rests upon the double assumption that local appeals must give way to the over-all University need, and that goals of a limited and peripheral nature must give way to those of a central and enduring character. At the same time there is no disposition to deny the constituent members the right to satisfy their particular interests, some of them sustained over a long period. It has been arranged that in no instance will a co-operating division lose control over those enterprises that it regards as peculiarly its own. With the federated colleges, complete control is retained by the constituent body. The colleges thereby retain their autonomy and, at the same time, gain strength and support from a University appeal.

The Varsity Fund is a complement to the big campaign for capital purposes. It may well, over a period of years, play a more important role in the University. Its importance becomes more apparent as the demands on the budget grow in number and diversity, with the consequent difficulty in finding money for those enterprises that seem at first blush to be expendable. But these are the very enterprises that make the difference between a great university and a mediocre one, between the university that wins the affection of its graduates and the one that elicits only a cold respect. A happy augury of the success of the Varsity Fund is the acceptance of the chairmanship by Mr. Robert Chisholm, a graduate of Victoria College in Commerce and Finance, who had been one of the key workers in the National Fund campaign.

A successful annual giving programme will not be developed in isolation, but must be worked out in close relationship with a programme whereby the alumni are given a sense of belonging to an important constituency. This is the job of the Director of Alumni Affairs, Mr. Evans, and it is a job that demands careful pre- paration, pertinacity, skill, and a philosophic resignation to many initial dis- appointments. Already, however, there are changes for the good, many of which were brought into sharp focus by the Alumni College held during Convocation Week. The alumni representatives were given a chance to discuss university problems and to hear addresses from prominent members of the staff. This is a kind of activity that admits of great development and elaboration, and that promises much.

This year was, like the preceding one, a ceremonial year. It began with the laying of the corner-stone of the new building for Arts and Science by Mrs. Sidney Smith, a ceremony significant in itself and, in addition, a memorial tribute to


Varsity's seventh president. The other two major ceremonials were the opening of the Galbraith Building for Engineering, and the laying of the corner-stone of the Edward Johnson Building for the Faculty of Music. The former marked the official incorporation of the Galbraith Building into the Engineering complex. One of the most pleasant features of the building is the provision of a council chamber for the Faculty Council meetings, which I, as a connoisseur of such affairs, look upon as a model of dignity and efficiency. The ceremony at the Edward Johnson Building was a dramatic reminder of the high estate occupied by music in the thoughts and affections of the University and the city. Rarely has an event of this kind attracted a larger audience. The occasion was made particularly memorable by the presence of Mrs. George Drew, the daughter of Edward Johnson, who in a graceful speech brought back memories of the Canadian who was equally illus- trious as Edouardo Giovanni, the celebrated Italian tenor, or Edward Johnson, Director of the Metropolitan Opera and principal spokesman for the cause of music in Canada.

During the year we were especially fortunate in our Convocation speakers. At a special Convocation before the opening of the Galbraith Building we had as our speaker Paul Hoffman, Managing Director of the Special Fund of the United Nations, as stimulating and delightful on the public platform as he was in private conversation. Frederick Gardiner spoke to the graduating classes in Applied Science and Forestry with scholarly vigour, emphasizing the qualities that are needed for effective citizenship in the modern state. At the final convocation in June, the first speaker was John Kenneth Galbraith, formerly Professor of Econo- mics at Harvard, and recently appointed American Ambassador to India one of the eighteen graduates of this University who are now occupying ambassadorial posts. His speech was a demonstration that diplomacy had not robbed him of his powers of incisive expression, nor political success of his capacity to rouse and disturb. The second speaker was Sir Hugh Taylor, President of the Woodrow Wilson Fellowship Foundation, who delighted his audience by some uninhibited praise of the Toronto record in open competition for these fellowships, and then went on to place before us the strategic urgency of trained minds.

From time to time it becomes necessary to appoint a new man to a senior office in the University. The most important of these appointments during the year was that of Dean of Medicine, vacated by Dr. MacFarlane after fifteen memor- able years in that office. As his successor the Board of Governors appointed on my recommendation Dr. John Hamilton, Professor and Head of the Department of Pathology. The office of Dean of Medicine is always an important one, perhaps even more so at this time when so many of the traditional patterns are being called into question. I set out here a formal academic biography of Dr. Hamilton, in order that the range of his experiences and the variety of his achievements may be duly noted: M.D., University of Toronto; further studies, teaching and research in pathology at Cambridge University and Johns Hopkins University ; research in England and Italy during the Second World War as a member of the Roval Canadian Army Medical Corps ; Assistant Professor of Pathology, McGill Univer- sity ; Professor of Pathology and Head of the Department, Queen's University and University of Toronto; Pathologist-in-Chief, Toronto General Hospital; Chair- man of the Medical Committee of the Ontario Heart Foundation ; member of the

The late Dean H. A. Innis

The School of Graduate Studies has moved from 44 Hoskin Avenue (now demolished to make room for Massey College) to temporary quarters south of the Old Observatory


The laying of the corner-stone of the Edward Johnson Building by Dr. Johnson's daughter, Mrs. George Drew

Professor J. D. Ketchum, who retires from the Department of Psychology

Professor R. C. Pratt, Principal of the University College of Tanganyika, Dar es Salaam

Mr. Robertson Davies, Master-Designate of Massey College

The Galbraith Building, new headquarters of the Faculty

of Applied Science and Engineering, was officially

opened by the Honourable J. Keiller Mackay

Dr. Paul Hoffman, Managing Director of the United Nations Special Fund, addressed Convoca- tion prior to the opening of the Galbraith Building

The Dean and Council of the

Faculty of Applied Science

and Engineering


The Chancellor with His Excellency John Kenneth Galbraith, American Ambassador to India, and the Rev. George Peel Gilmour of McMaster University

Sir Hugh Taylor,

The Honourable

President of the

John Keiller Mackay,

Woodrow Wilson


wship Foundation

of Ontario

General Andrew McNaughton,

Commander, 1st Canadian Army

Overseas; Dr. Frederick Gardiner,

Chairman of the Council of

Metropolitan Toronto


Medical Advisory Committee of the National Research Council; joint representa- tive of the National Research Council to the National Cancer Institute ; author of many articles on arteriosclerosis, immunology, wound infection, experimental glomerulo-nephritis.

Fortunately it is not necessary to chant the Nunc Dimittis for Dr. MacFarlane; he has been appointed to a new post in the University, that of Chairman of the Medical Sciences Advisory Council, a Council made up of the heads of the Faculties of Medicine, Pharmacy and Dentistry, the Schools of Nursing and Hygiene, and the Connaught Medical Research Laboratories. The Council was established to encourage a greater degree of co-operation among these various divisions concerned with many common problems, and to provide a means for attracting research funds to these areas. The appointment of Dr. MacFarlane took on a particular timeliness with the announcement by the federal Government of the setting up of a Royal Commission on Health Services. It immediately became apparent that one of Dr. MacFarlane's major duties for the first months of his occupancy of his new job would be to arrange for the co-ordination of briefs to be presented to the Commission.

Another major appointment during the year was that of Robertson Davies as Master-Designate of Massey College. The appointment of one who had become Canada's most versatile and accomplished man of letters was an indication of what the College would mean in the expanding Toronto commonwealth. It would be a college where good writing and good speech would flourish, where serious purpose would never be divorced from wit and humour, where scholarship would be served without pomposity.

At a dinner held in honour of Dr. W. E. Blatz, tributes, diverse in nature but alike in their enthusiastic warmth, were paid to Dr. Blatz, who was retiring from the directorship of the Institute of Child Study, although happily retaining some of his academic responsibilities. His successor is Professor K. S. Bernhardt, wise in the ways of the Institute, admired by his colleagues for his scholarly integrity and for the humane leadership he has given in the University and in his own discipline.

Professor R. C. Pratt of the Department of Political Economy has become Principal of the University College of Tanganyika, Dar es Salaam, and Professor A. B. Weston of the Faculty of Law has gone to the same institution as Dean of Law. It is a satisfaction to record these initial steps in what we hope will be a continuing association between this University and the University College of Tanganyika. It is evident that for some time to come African universities will have to rely on expatriate teachers to fill their needs, but their attempts to recruit such teachers have often been unsuccessful the teachers, understandably, fearing that they might have trouble in finding posts at home when their assignments in Africa came to an end. We made a flexible arrangement with Professor Pratt which provides that if at any time during the next five years he decides to return to the University of Toronto, he can do so without losing his status and seniority in his Department. Thus we have met and solved a problem in the staffing of African universities, and our solution has aroused wide interest. Professor Pratt's task of getting the College off to a good start will be difficult and exciting; it will also be self-liquidating, because the crowning success will come when he is able to relinquish the Principalship to a native educator.


There have been other changes closer to home. Professor O. H. Warwick of the Department of Medicine has been appointed Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Western Ontario. Dr. A. J. Elliot has accepted the Chair of Ophthalmology at the University of British Columbia. Professor R. L. Mcintosh has become Head of the Department of Chemistry at Queen's University. From the University Library, Mr. David Foley has left to become Chief Librarian of the University of Manitoba, and Miss Lorna Fraser and Mr. D. Reicher have taken responsible posts in the libraries of York University and the University of Alberta, respectively. Thus the University continues to be a source of supply of senior academic personnel throughout Canada.

Several of the members of staff who have reached retirement age are con- tinuing to assist their departments as Special or Graduate Lecturers ; these include Professor D. J. McDougall in History, Professors D. S. Ainslie and K. M. Crossley in Physics, Drs. W. G. Carscadden and C. H. Watson in Surgery, and Professor E. W. Park in Household Science. Professor J. D. Ketchum, who retired last June, has been granted a Senior Fellowship for study in England by the Royal Society of Canada. Professor Ketchum is one of a family whose name is identified in Ontario with a consuming interest in young people and their education. His early career in music received a set-back when he was interned in Germany for the entire period of the First World War, but he emerged to become music master at Trinity College School and later organist and choirmaster at St. Simon's Church ; simultaneously he completed his academic work here and at the University of Chicago, and joined the staff of the Department of Psychology, which he has served for more than thirty years, interrupted only by a term of duty in the War- time Information Board at