‘I do not think the plan for admitting girls to the same examination with boys in the University local examinations a wise one; the subjects seem to me in many respects unsuited for girls, and such an examination as the one proposed is likely to further a spirit of rivalry most undesirable. I should much regret that the desire of distinction should be made in any degree a prime motive, for we should ever remember that moral training is the end, education the means. The habits of obedience to duty, of self-restraint, which the process of acquiring knowledge induces, the humility which a thoughtful and comprehensive study of the great works in literature and science tends to produce, these we would specially cultivate in a woman, that she may wear the true woman’s ornament of a meek and quiet spirit. As for the pretentiousness and conceit which are associated with the name of “blue-stocking,” and which some people fancy to be the result of education, they are only an evidence of shallowness and vulgarity; we meet with the same thing in the dogmatic conceit of the so-called “self-educated man,” who has picked up learning, but has not had the benefit of a systematic training and a liberal education.’
The formal admission of girls to the Cambridge Local Examinations took place in 1865, though they had been informally accepted as candidates as early as 1863. Miss Beale did not accept the examination at Cheltenham, mainly because its arrangements did not fall in with those of the College year; but she closely observed its working, noted each set of questions and reports, recognising that with these examinations new impetus had been given to the progress of education. She wrote and spoke on the subject, holding it to be the duty of the teacher to seek to guide this movement, which must increasingly affect girls’ schools.
The following extract from one of her papers is chosen because of its bearing on the larger and still unanswered question of university degrees:—
‘Examiners must be prepared not to domineer but to learn that the art is yet in its infancy, and their knowledge of what girls can or ought to do is at present very slight. They must be ready to admit the possibility of a teacher knowing better than his judges. The latter are sometimes tempted to exclaim, Quis custodiat ipsos custodes? If the school curriculum and the examinations are so far out of harmony that a large amount of special preparation is required, either the curriculum is at fault or the examination an evil.... I know that some make a great point of having the actual University examinations opened, because a mere “women’s examination” is spoken of contemptuously. I believe that in trying to avoid this, we should encounter greater evils, and that the wish is connected with a misplaced reverence which many women entertain for the learning of a “pass man.”’
After some years of consideration a decision was practically forced upon Miss Beale. She must choose for her clever girls either to pass a public examination which she thought more suited for men, or to fall behind in a path which was surely leading in the right direction. She did not hesitate, but saw that on this, as on many occasions, it must be her part to labour to remove obstructions, to overcome obstacles.
In her interview with the Commissioners, on being asked if she would approve of the establishment of a special examination for ladies up to the standard of attainment of the London matriculation, she had replied, ‘Certainly,’ but advocated that it should be made possible for women to take German instead of Greek. This examination, she agreed, might be taken as a measure, though the measure might not be filled with the same subjects as for men. She was soon called upon to act in this matter, for in 1869 it was opened to women, and the University of Cambridge also instituted an examination for women over eighteen years of age.
Miss Beale accepted both for the College, but for some years there was no regular organisation of work for those who were taking the Cambridge examination. This was partly due to the higher limit of age. It was then thought extraordinary that girls should stay at school after they were eighteen. It was difficult to persuade many to do so. Some were ‘wanted at home,’ some wished to ‘come out’; those who were intending to be teachers thought they should be already earning. Then the absorbing work for the London examination made it difficult to arrange for much of a wholly different character. Consequently, at first, the older pupils and the young teachers who sought to pass the Cambridge examination had to look after themselves a good deal. Miss Beale would certainly not consider this a drawback. They had the additional advantage of lectures from herself on literature and history.
The ‘London’ must have seemed better worth while for many reasons. It might prove a first step to a definite degree. The degree examinations were not opened till ten years later, and might not have followed at all had zeal and courage not been shown by women over the matriculation. Again, the matriculation certificate enabled men to offer themselves as candidates for further examination with a view to certain careers, such as the medical profession. This would hold good for women. For it had the real advantage of being a recognised standard, while a certificate for an examination arranged specially for women would be like ‘foreign coin.’
One cannot too much admire the qualities which bore teacher and pupils up that steep initial step of the London examination; for steep it was. At that time it demanded a certain knowledge of subjects which were generally regarded as the prerogative of men. Hardly any of the girls who hoped to pass in them had, when they began their special preparation six terms before the examination, learned any Latin, chemistry, geometry, algebra, or natural philosophy—this last being a term which embraced some acquaintance with optics, statics, dynamics, and hydrostatics. Little more than the rudiments of these new subjects had to be mastered, for the examination at that time required ‘a collection of minima, a smattering of everything, enforced with Procrustean rigour on Philistine lines.’ Primarily designed for boys with a grammar-school education, the Latin paper included some knowledge of Horace. It is scarcely necessary to say that disappointment as well as hope was woven into the strand of these brave beginnings. Many failed. Some who were not really equal to the work were persuaded to enter. Some who passed, complained that they could not retain knowledge which had been acquired too rapidly and not assimilated. Not avowedly, not ever consciously to herself—her sense of responsibility for the individual was too great for that, and she reckoned the training of value even if there were no success at the end—but in actual fact, the failures were accepted by Dorothea Beale as a necessary complement of victory to be.
‘Let the victors when they come,