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.