FEATURE /
NUS EXAM CANCELLED DUE TO INSUFFICIENT PAPERS JESSICA LAI |
8.10.2011
|
An unusually empty exam hall. Credit: NUS Studentry
A National University of Singapore economics exam last Saturday was cancelled when supply did not meet demand: the number of printed papers fell short, causing the exam to be cancelled last minute to the angst and dismay of students.
Over 700 students were to take the mid-term exam for the module Managerial Economics, originally scheduled at 2 p.m. on Oct. 1, 2011.
According to first-year business student Oh Wen Jia, 20, the first hint that something was awry was when the door of the exam venue, Multi-Purpose Sports Hall one, remained firmly closed despite nearing 2p.m.
Minutes ticked by and restless students went off to take a breather elsewhere when informed by the module coordinators that the exam was postponed to 3 p.m. However, those that stuck around finally got wind that it was cancelled instead.
An official email was sent by the coordinator of the module apologising for the fiasco on behalf of the team. It confirmed that they were cancelling the exam due to the impracticality of trying to cater to the schedules of over 700 students.
This announcement was met with consternation from students, who felt that they had wasted their time studying for the exam. One visibly angry 23-year-old student, Kuan Teck, said, “The time I spent on this could have been much better spent on studying for my morning exam instead. This is ridiculous.”
Moreover, to make up for the mid-term test’s grade percentage of 30 percent, marks were shifted to other components: 50 percent final examinations as well as 25 percent each for a presentation and assignments. The mid-term test would be used for practice purposes instead. While some students expressed relief, this further annoyed other students who were worried that the shifting percentages would affect their grades.
A fellow business school professor, who declined to be named, spoke out against blaming the department, especially lecturer Alka Chadka, one of the staff who has come under fire. “All I feel is pity for her.”
He said that human error was inevitable due to the large amount of work lecturers had to do, such as planning the exams and administrative errands like printing papers. He attributed the key problem to the large number of students taking the exam, making it hard for the module coordinators to manage administrative stuff alongside other concerns such as discipline and cheating. He reproached the NUS administration for not establishing proper protocol in the first place, “It was a free-for-all affair. When she found the papers were insufficient, she could have taken some time to print. But students had already gone off.”
His solution: to impose a limit on the number of students taking the exam in one sitting or taking the module in the first place.
“It could have been anybody,” he said, pointing out that the system needed to be looked into thoroughly to ensure such a fiasco never repeat itself again.
Over 700 students were to take the mid-term exam for the module Managerial Economics, originally scheduled at 2 p.m. on Oct. 1, 2011.
According to first-year business student Oh Wen Jia, 20, the first hint that something was awry was when the door of the exam venue, Multi-Purpose Sports Hall one, remained firmly closed despite nearing 2p.m.
Minutes ticked by and restless students went off to take a breather elsewhere when informed by the module coordinators that the exam was postponed to 3 p.m. However, those that stuck around finally got wind that it was cancelled instead.
An official email was sent by the coordinator of the module apologising for the fiasco on behalf of the team. It confirmed that they were cancelling the exam due to the impracticality of trying to cater to the schedules of over 700 students.
This announcement was met with consternation from students, who felt that they had wasted their time studying for the exam. One visibly angry 23-year-old student, Kuan Teck, said, “The time I spent on this could have been much better spent on studying for my morning exam instead. This is ridiculous.”
Moreover, to make up for the mid-term test’s grade percentage of 30 percent, marks were shifted to other components: 50 percent final examinations as well as 25 percent each for a presentation and assignments. The mid-term test would be used for practice purposes instead. While some students expressed relief, this further annoyed other students who were worried that the shifting percentages would affect their grades.
A fellow business school professor, who declined to be named, spoke out against blaming the department, especially lecturer Alka Chadka, one of the staff who has come under fire. “All I feel is pity for her.”
He said that human error was inevitable due to the large amount of work lecturers had to do, such as planning the exams and administrative errands like printing papers. He attributed the key problem to the large number of students taking the exam, making it hard for the module coordinators to manage administrative stuff alongside other concerns such as discipline and cheating. He reproached the NUS administration for not establishing proper protocol in the first place, “It was a free-for-all affair. When she found the papers were insufficient, she could have taken some time to print. But students had already gone off.”
His solution: to impose a limit on the number of students taking the exam in one sitting or taking the module in the first place.
“It could have been anybody,” he said, pointing out that the system needed to be looked into thoroughly to ensure such a fiasco never repeat itself again.