Not up to mark The Star Online > Education

Sunday June 7, 2009 The Star Online

Not up to mark

By SARAH CHEW

With about 100,000 graduates being churned out every year, a university degree can’t be all that hard to get.

IT’S in the media, it’s in the coffee shops and everyone seems to have an opinion about the quality of education in the country.

With the increasing number of higher education institutions and graduates, increasingly one of the measuring rods held up is student assessment.

Nor’s* nightmare began when she only passed two of her students in a Syariah law exam.

“The dean told me that we don’t have to follow the marking scheme strictly as it is ‘just a guideline’ and he told me to be lax about the English language because they (students) come from Agama (religious) schools,” says the ex-lecturer of law from Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (Usim).

“The dean told me it would affect our university ranking if too many students fail.”

She claimed she was told to give her students who failed a ‘B’ grade if they regularly attended class.

Recently, Kosmo! highlighted her case and Usim has adamantly refuted her claims, stating that the university did not give out ‘mercy marks’.

In a letter to Nor, the university management stated it was not wrong in asking for a review of student assessment, and did not ask her to add marks.

Nor says she has tried her best to give marks to her students – but they do not warrant it.

“Their answers did not answer the basic questions, and I didn’t even ask them analytical questions, I asked them ‘route’ questions like giving definitions, examples, instances and so forth,” she says.

Shocking discovery

Reading through the students’ answer papers, question paper and marking scheme, this reporter discovered a shockingly high number of questions that required straightforward memorisation and even more shocking unrelated answers.

“What would the world think of me if I pass these students? It would be unethical of me,” she adds.

Nor claims she has been subjected to verbal abuse, accused of being mentally unstable, with people even poking fun at her personal life.

It is not just Nor, however, as a few lecturers would share similar experiences when probed.

Shanta Perumal* taught in a variety of well-known public universities and a private college before she quit lecturing out of sheer frustration.

She recalls her lecturing days at a private college, where although the passing rate for their exams were high, only five out of a hundred students would pass the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) required for them to continue their twinning degree in a partner New Zealand university.

For some lecturers, the hassle of writing a report to explain every student failure, arguing with the management, dealing with student appeals and having to possibly re-mark the paper, causes them to resort to unethical practices.

“Instead of going through all that, might as well just add five marks and let the student pass,” says Shanta.

The same sometimes happens in the public universities she has taught English in, she says.

Hard to fail

She thinks that for some courses, “it is impossible to fail” because the breakdown of the marks allocated would easily allow an average student to pass; such as awarding 5% for attendance, 10% for participation and marks for appearance.

She recalls the time she refused to pass a matriculation student who handed in a torn fullscap paper scrawled with some sentences for his essay assignment for her compulsory module. The university passed him on her behalf.

There was also another hilarious occasion where the students were required to answer an exam question “give reasons to your cousin why he should join this course”, in order to test their critical thinking skills.

“We expected them to write things like ‘it opens your mind’, ‘you will gain new experiences’ and so forth.

“But instead, they wrote ‘you will get money from the government and you can buy yourself a motorcycle, it’s a guaranteed pass here, so don’t worry, and later you can work for the government or if you can’t get a job, you can come back here and lecture at this university’”.

The Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) says that in its accreditation processes, they look into student assessment systems, even reading samples of student papers to ensure the marking is fair and follows the scheme.

“It’s quite common around the world to use the bell curve as a guide,” says MQA chief executive officer Prof Datuk Dr Syed Ahmad Hussein. “Usually a small group of people would do well, most would be average and some will fail.”

He says in situations where every student gets an ‘F’ or and ‘A’, the “alarm bells” should ring and this would usually call for an investigation by the university senate on why this is so.

“The university senate has the authority to do this because there are many possibilities — maybe the exam was too easy or hard, maybe the question papers were leaked, or the lecturer was not fair,” he explains

Varsity can rectify

Should such situations occur, the university is allowed to make rectifications like asking students to re-sit exams, scale the grade brackets upward or downward, or making changes to the student assessment system.

If the senate decides to, say, add 10 marks across the board, it is allowed for and it is legal,” he says. Prof Syed Ahmad doesn’t deny cases where people have complained about standards or non-consistent marking schemes, but he thinks these are isolated cases and not a trend.

He is sceptical of claims that the standards have deteriorated as opposed to “back then”.

There are 100,000 graduates a year these days compared to the 70s, he says, which means that the number of both half-baked graduates and competent graduates would rise as well.

So far, Dr Syed Ahmad reveals that MQA has not received any complaints of conspiracies to pass students.

At the end of the day, he feels that consumers are the best judges of quality.

“After a while, people will start to say that graduates from this college or university don’t get employed, then word will go round and the college will die.”

Public universities such as Universiti Malaya (UM), use the bell curve as a guide, although UM’s examination section (academic division) senior principal assistant registrar Yeoh Siew Wan says it’s not necessary for all courses.

Depending on programmes, UM (like most universities) awards marks to students in a continuous assessment framework which includes not only written examinations but also presentations, quizzes, assignments, fieldwork and projects.

The university’s quality management and enhancement centre’s director Prof Dr Fauza Abdul Ghaffar says UM has in place certain quality management procedures such as internal and external audits, submitting papers to external examiners for input, and vetting the examination papers and marking schemes before students sit for them.

Lecturer’s discretion

Yeoh reveals that the way a lecturer awards marks, however, is left to the discretion of the lecturer.

“The lecturer knows best how to give marks to the students because he or she taught them,” she says, adding that there are strict guidelines and the decision to give extra marks to a student is the committee’s decision, not the lecturer’s.

The same system is practised in Multimedia University, where IT lecturer John See says though the university has the auditing or vetting processes in place, the department heads would not have time to look through or sample the answer sheets, so the lecturers would have to be “responsible”.

“It’s up to the lecturers to set a hard or easy paper, and no one would say much,” he says, adding that there used to be a stricter guideline of what was deemed a “normal” rate of passing and perhaps lecturers were fearful of failing students to adhere to the bell curve, but MMU does not practise that anymore.

“We felt we had to maintain our standards, regardless whether students are lousy or not.”

In UM, there are chances for students to appeal for their paper to be re-marked and also to “redeem” themselves upon failing a subject, if their past performance has been good.

“The lecturer can set him a test, an assignment or interview him — but he can only redeem one subject if he has failed a few,” says Yeoh.

International Medical University (IMU) and Monash University Sunway Campus (Monash) do not use the bell-curve guide but rather, criteria referencing — which assesses a student based on criteria, rather than on the performance of the overall student body.

IMU Faculty of Medicine and Health executive dean Prof Victor K E Lim simply describes it as “if everybody meets the outcome, everybody must pass, but if nobody meets the outcome, everybody must fail!”

He believes the bell-curve guide is not suitable for professional courses like medicine which needs to judge expertise, but is more appropriate for entrance exams where many types of students are taken into account.

To maintain the exam standards across the years, IMU question papers undergo double vetting by lecturers and deans, before being sent to an external examiner for corrections.

After the students sit for the exams, the answers also undergo double marking before sample answer sheets with high, low and average marks are sent to the external examiner to check for marking consistency.

“We don’t really find ways to pass a student,” Prof Lim says. “If they want, they can re-sit the exam.”

And to ensure a student is rightly assessed in other areas such as practicals and interaction with patients, they are assessed by multiple lecturers and staff, rather than just one person.

Monash has rigorous vetting and sampling processes, as director of education quality and innovation Dr Glenda Crosling believes that the event of having to scale the grades up or down according to a paper’s level of difficulty shouldn’t happen after students sit for the exams.

“I think the paper should be set at the right level beforehand to prevent that from occurring,” she says. “And marks shouldn’t be adjusted just because there are many who fail.”

But if there are unusual trends, the chief examiner would have to explain to the board of examiners why this occurs.

Student assessment obviously does not depend solely on examinations, as assignments and projects play a big role.

A time for learning

From his experience in MMU, See finds that students who fail in his course don’t have the fundamental grasp of the basic concepts in programming.

“I think usually the problem stems from secondary school. If the quality of students is low, we can’t help it,” he opines.

The complaint of low standards in the schooling assessment to begin with is not an uncommon one.

“We know of students who got straight As for PMR coming into our centre and they literally can’t string together sentences properly,” says Tan Poay Lim, principal of Creative Horizons Language Centre.

“Numbers of distinctions now are so high but the performance is still so low. Put the two and two together and you know that our standards have dropped.”

With 20 years of teaching experience behind him, Creative Education Consultancy managing director Alagesan Arumugam has seen certain trends in the public school examinations.

“I have assessed some of my students and find it hard to comprehend that they are distinction students,” he says. “On my tests, they would get 55% but end up getting 1A in SPM. It does look like it’s relatively easy to score an A these days.”

Alagesan points out that this could be due to a few factors – perhaps the students “bucked up” before the exam, perhaps his own standard was too high or perhaps the marking scheme was lenient.

His suggestion for fairer awarding of grades would be to give A’s to the top 10% of the nation’s scorers according to subjects, to decrease the likelihood of many students getting a string of As.

“Because at the moment, a student may be in the top 1% in Physics but only the top 20% in Chemistry but he gets 1A for each subject.

“So you may get a situation where two students in a class – one who always scores 90% in school exams and another who scores 60% – both getting 1A in SPM. It’s not fair to the first student, isn’t it?”

For Shanta, the root of the problem lies in the low entry requirements for universities and colleges.

She thinks that the government should consider implementing minimum prerequisites to study at matriculation centres, colleges and universities.

“Let’s say most of the class at university got an F in the SPM English paper, the possibility of two thirds failing is very high,” she explains. “But if so many fail, the programme is questioned, the lecturer is questioned and the university has to blame somebody. At the end of the day, lecturers want to hold on to their jobs.”

See believes the general public’s attitude is partly to blame for the occasional lapse of standards.

“I don’t think the public values standards very much,” he says. “When I talk to parents sometimes, they are always asking for the fastest way possible to finish a course.”

He feels there is a tension between maintaining standards and pleasing students as they are “customers” and therefore the pressure is greater, with some students even forming petitions and setting up blogs to contest their results.

Some believe that it is really up to a student himself or herself to make the most of university education.

“The only difference between good students and under-achieving students is whether they put in the effort,” says Owen Yap, a subject matter expert for Basic Interpersonal Communications at Open University Malaysia (OUM).

“I’ve never been pressured by the university to pass students, but my students have begged me before! But I always tell them that they should have done their assignments in order to secure their marks,” he says.

It boils down to attitude, Prof Lim reckons. “Sometimes, it’s not really about knowledge or skills, a very important component is professionalism.

“But assessment of professionalism is difficult. You can’t assess students in an exam, they are bound to give all the right answers!’

And because it’s harder to detect or train attitude problems, Prof Lim claims “we have crooks in our medical system” who would resort to unethical means for money.

It’s not just attitudes of students, of course, it applies to anyone. But it might come at a price, as Nor found out.

“You know, I could have done what was wanted of me and I would still have my job today,” Nor admits ruefully, having resigned from her posts since last year.

“I’ve lost my pension, I’ve lost my chance to study abroad but a life with no conscience is not the way to live.”

■ names have been changed.

Unwed Muslim Undergrad with lovebite, :MMU under Ghauth Jasmon

There was a single polite student whom I taught. One day I saw her with a love bite. I know she was close with another student of mine. So I prayed to Allah Subhana Wa Taala that she would stop doing “Xrated things” WITH HER BOYFRIEND. Not long after that,  Allah Subhana Wa Taala answered my prayer, she married her boyfriend. Alhamdulillah,

My dear students, I hope both of you are happy together as man & wife, You are a nice lady, cherish the bliss you experience now, God bless.

For the record, I reported to the Dean  Dr Goh Pek Chen that some undergrads were cohabiting but her reply to me was “Report to the religious authority”.

Comment to OmegaMan in TMP by SJS & Team (Now deleted)

Thanks OmegaMan for every kind words. OmegaMan, in another blog “Normal is Overrated” under “A Complaint to USIM” somebody wrote to me, the following:

 

“an2blur Says:

 

April 21, 2009 at 3:12 am

dear my beloved Nor,

 

may i ask u something?

 

what happened at MMU before u come to USIM?

 

So I replied to him OmegaMan the following,

 

April 21, 2009 at 4:32 am

“Well go and check with the MQA lah, U think U can use it against me, ha!ha! Go ahead, I am waiting for your cheap shots, I am not afraid of U & Ghauth Jasmon!!!!!! Ha!HA! HA! You are fighting with the wrong person!Kah! Kah! Kah! You are digging Gauth Jasmon’s Grave & MMU. Kah ! Kah! Kah!”

 

OmegaMan,

This is not the first time I was victimized for sticking to my principles. Prof Dato Dr Ghauth Jasmon (former MMU president & the current VC of University Malaya) suspended me because I refused to follow MMU’s regulations that “only 20% can fail & a majority of the undergraduates must get B”. I really suffered because MMU did not pay my salary until I had to borrow RM50 from a friend and it was during the fasting month. You know I had to celebrate hari raya being jobless & penniless with my children. I can suffer alone but my children also HAD TO SUFFER WITH ME because I stuck to my principles!!!!! I even felt sorry that MY CHILDREN HAD ME AS THEIR PENNILESS DOWNTRODDEN MOTHER!!! For the Record, MMU later paid me the salary.

 

Despite being victimized at MMU, in USIM, the same thing happened, THE SUPERIORS DEMANDED HIGH PASSING RATE REGARDLESS OF THE POOR QUALITY but OmegaMan, I was still the same principled person just like when I was at MMU. Nobody can buy my soul, it is not for sale. I won’t sell my soul at any price, as every soul belongs to ALLAH the Almighty.

 

OmegaMan, SJS & readers of TMP,

 

You will read all those character assassinations against me. It is the Malay culture to look down at divorcees. When I refused to obey the unethical order by the dean at USIM, the VC of USIM Dato Prof Dr Abd Shukor Husin stoop so low to announce in a meeting with all USIM Deans, that I ada hubungan dengan seorang dekan yang sudah berkahwin!!! Dengan nama Allah, ini adalah fitnah! OmegaMan, in Islam, fitnah/slander is more sinful than killing. This Fitnah came from a VC whom the Malaysian Government ALSO appoints as “Chairman of Fatwa Committee”. O My God! Allah please save the Muslims from this charlatan & Munafiq!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Dato Prof Abd Shukor Husin treated me as if I am an immoral, cheap woman who have no parents & no breeding. My father told me to move on & not fight USIM, he promised to support me and my children, but OmegaMan, Dato Prof Abd Shukor Husin is too much as he slandered/fitnah me just because I refused to manipulate marks. I am not his first victim you know!

 

Don’t be fooled by charlatans out there who have Syariah/Islamic degrees/masters/phds to boot, but they are the ones who desecrate and defile Islam as well as trample on those who strive to be bertaqwa (like me). I don’t claim to be bertakwa but I try to please Allah My Creator & Savior!!!

 

Prof Dato Dr Ghauth Jasmon labeled me as “gila” in a board of directors meeting when a director tried to defend me. Prof Dato Dr Ghauth Jasmon said to the Director, “Why do you defend her, is she your girlfriend?”

 

These people, OmegaMan, ada good connections WITH THE POWERS THAT BE, KAKI AMPU & YES Men. I am a nobody. I challenge the Malaysian Government to investigate MMU & USIM & REVEAL TO THE PUBLIC!!!!! KOREK! KOREK! KOREK!

 

FYI, OmegaMan, I complained to MQA about MMU but the answer is very disappointing. As usual lah, you knowlah, partners in crime, brothers in arms, solidarity among the corrupt!!!

 

Why am I not afraid to say this? SJS, if they sue you FOR PUBLISHING THIS, ASK THEM TO SUE ME, I’ll take FULL RESPONSIBILITY AS THESE PEOPLE MADE ME & MY CHILDREN SUFFER BIG TIME YOU KNOW! I shall reveal my identity to you if they sue you. They forget I have strong faith in ALLAH ALMIGHTY (SUBHANA WA TAALA).

 

No problem lah OmegaMan, Allah is Fair, now, I have food on my table, I have roof over my head & my children are healthy. What more can I ask. I don’t die if I am jobless. No problem lah, OmegaMan, rezeki di tangan Allah.

 

Thanks OmegaMan, I am not trying to get your sympathy, but Dato Prof Dr Ghauth Jasmon & Dato Prof Dr Abd Shukor Husin used the fact that I am a divorcee against me.

 

Dato Ghauth Jasmon is better than a psychiatrist, you know. Although he is qualified as an engineer, he can tell a person is crazy just by looking at her. He said to me the first time he saw me, he concludes that I am crazy! He said I am crazy because I failed 80 percent of his students! He said, “All over the world people want to study in MMU”.

 

OmegaMan, I swear in ALLAh’s name that I speak the truth.

Jawapan Dr Tam kepada Prof Radin Umar whereby Dr Tam menyatakan “Kerjasama dipohon sesalinan jawapan dihantar kepada pengadu”

06 Mac 2009.
> Y.Bhg. Prof. Dato’.
>
> Terima kasih. Kerjasama dipohon sesalinan jawapan dihantar kepada pengadu
> juga.
>
> (Dr. Tam)
> 06 Mac 2009
>

From: radinumx@mohe.gov.my [mailto:radinumx@mohe.gov.my]
> Sent: Fri 06/03/2009 11:23
> To: Dr. Tam Weng Wah; Mohd Asri bin Mohamed; myk@mohe.gov.my
> Cc: sidek@pmo.gov.my; minister@mohe.gov.my; myk@mohe.gov.my;
> pendaftar@usim.edu.my; nc@usim.edu.my; dekanfsu@usim.edu.my;
> mnizam@usim.edu.my; tnc.hea@usim.edu.my; Md. Zin bin Musa; Aziz bin Ismail
> Subject: RE: Being shouted at & asked to quit Fw: Re: Dihukum tidak efficient kerana enggan manipulasi markah
>
Terima kasih. Datuk Yusuf TKP akan menyediakan kronologi sejarah dan tindakan-tindakan yang telah dilakukan oleh KPT.
>
>
Terima kasih.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________
>
> Professor Dato’ Radin Umar PhD, P.Eng,FASc
>
> Director General
>
> Department of Higher Education Malaysia
>
> Block E9, Parcel E, 62505 Putrajaya
>
> Malaysia

 

From: Dr. Tam Weng Wah [mailto:tam@bpa.jpm.my]
> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 9:08 AM
> To: Mohd Asri bin Mohamed
> Cc: myself; sidek@pmo.gov.my; minister@mohe.gov.my;
> radinumx@mohe.gov.my; myk@mohe.gov.my; pendaftar@usim.edu.my;
> nc@usim.edu.my; dekanfsu@usim.edu.my; mnizam@usim.edu.my;
> tnc.hea@usim.edu.my; Md. Zin bin Musa; Aziz bin Ismail
> Subject: RE: Being shouted at & asked to quit Fw: Re: Dihukum tidak
> efficient kerana enggan manipulasi markah
>
>
>
> KPP (A4),
>
>
>
> Harap dapat kerjasama KPT untuk memberi maklum balas terus kepada pengadu
> terhadap perkara ini.
>
 Sekian, terima kasih.
>
KP
>
From: myself

> Sent: Fri 06/03/2009 7:59
> To: Dr. Tam Weng Wah
> Cc: sidek@pmo.gov.my; minister@mohe.gov.my; radinumx@mohe.gov.my;
> myk@mohe.gov.my; pendaftar@usim.edu.my; nc@usim.edu.my;
> dekanfsu@usim.edu.my; mnizam@usim.edu.my; tnc.hea@usim.edu.myMailing List
> Subject: Fw: Being shouted at & asked to quit Fw: Re: Dihukum tidak
> efficient kerana enggan manipulasi markah
>
> Dr Tam Weng Wah
>
> KETUA PENGARAH
>
> BIRO PENGADUAN AWAM,
>
>
>
> Dilampirkan di sini email saya yang dihantar pada 9 September 2008 kepada
> KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENGAJIAN TINGGI, Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi
> Y.BHG. PROF. DATO’ IR. DR. RADIN UMAR BIN RADIN SOHADI dimana saya telah
> mencapai ketepuan sabar (sudah tidak tahan lagi menanggung kesabaran
> tetapi belum  letak jawatan) kerana ketiga-tiga ketua saya iaitu En
> Muhammad Nizam Awang @ Ali, Prof Dr Haji Abdul Samat Musa dan Prof Dato’ Dr Muhamad Muda telah memperlakukan saya dengan biadap dan tidak adil. Saya telah menghantar bersama email tersebut, 3 pucuk surat berikut yang mengandungi maklumat terperinci apa yang diperlakukan oleh ketiga-tiga ketua saya.
>
>
>
> Surat kepada En Muhammad Nizam Awang @ Ali, Ketua Program SMSU>
> Tarikh 28th August 2008
>Tajuk Surat Meeting on 25th August 2008 and other meetings..>
> >
Surat kepada Prof Dr Haji Abdul Samat Musa > Dekan FSU>
Tarikh 28th August 2008
Tajuk Surat Refusal to mark exam paper of one student >
>
Surat kepada Prof Dato’ Dr Muhamad Muda Timbalan Naib Canselor USIM>
Tarikh 28th August 2008
Tajuk Surat Request for official letter to leave USIM
>
Untuk makluman Tuan pihak KPT (melalui Timbalan Pengarah Datuk Prof. Mohd Yusof Bin Kasim) dalam surat bertarikh 3 Februari 2009 yang bertajuk “KETIDAKADILAN TERHADAP PENSYARAH DI UNIVERSITI SAINS ISLAM MALAYSIA” tidak MENYENTUH LANGSUNG ISI KANDUNGAN EMAIL SAYA YANG SAYA HANTAR KEPADA etua Pengarah KPT Prof Dato Radin Umar pada 9 September 2008 tersebut (yang saya hantar kepada Tuan hari ini).

Pada perenggan 4 surat tersebut, pihak KPT menulis: ”Setelah mengambil kira kesemua aspek perbincangan antara saya, Puan dan juga Pengurusan USIM, saya mendapati bahawa tidak timbul sebarang salah laku dari aspek perundangan berhubung kes Puan.”
>
>
>
> Tuan Dr Tam,
>
>
>
> Diharap dapat membantu saya mendapat keadilan sewajarnya kerana
> berdasarkan surat daripada pihak KPT bertarikh 3 Februari 2009, aduan saya dalam bentuk email saya yang dihantar pada 9 September 2008 tidak disentuh langsung. Saya membuat kesimpulan apabila sesuatu aduan itu tidak disentuh langsung, ini bermakna aduan tersebut sama ada:
>
> 1.    Tidak diambil kira, atau.
> 2.    Diambil kira tetapi aduan itu dianggap sebagai tidak munasabah oleh
> pihak KPT kerana kelakuan biadap ketua-ketua UNIVERSITI SAINS ISLAM MALAYSIA tersebut dianggap wajar oleh pihak KPT, (KALAU SUDAH DIAMBIL KIRA  KENAPA PIHAK KPT TIDAK SENTUH LANGSUNG DALAM SURAT BERTARIKH 3 FEBRUARI
> 2009) atau..
> 3.    Pihak KPT tidak peduli sama ada saya diperlakukan dengan biadap atau tidak, atau.
> 4.    Pihak KPT menganggap saya sebagai pengadu bercakap bohong lalu
mereka-reka cerita, atau
> 5.    Pihak KPT tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa melayan aduan pensyarah.
> 6.    Pihak KPT tidak menganggap kelakuan ketua-ketua UNIVERSITI SAINS ISLAM MALAYSIA tersebut sebagai biadap.      

Tuan Dr Tan, saya mohon bantuan Tuan. Terima kasih.
>
>
>
> —– Forwarded Message —-
> From: myself
> To: radinumx@mohe..gov.my
> Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2008 8:16:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Being shouted at & asked to quit Fw: Re: Dihukum tidak
> efficient kerana enggan manipulasi markah
>
> Assalamualaikum Dato
>
>
>
> Selamat Menyambut Ramadan . I would like to apprise Dato my latest
> development at USIM. I have reached the end of my tether. Attached are the
> letters which are self explanatory. I am writing to Dato as I am of the
> view that my superiors are acting without impunity.
>
> Thank you.

(3 documents were attached)

Letter to the Big Boss of MQA Dato’ Syed Ahmad Hussein

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: myself

To: syedahmad@mqa.gov.my
Cc: tam@bpa.jpm.my; sidek@pmo.gov.my; anwarhalim@mqa.gov.my
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2009 12:27:30 PM
Subject: Fw: Enquiry : Private & Confidential

Yg berbahagia Dato’ Syed Ahmad Hussein,   Berdasarkan kenyataan Anwar Halim Nor Hashim “Siasatan MQA mendapati, perkara ini telah disiasat oleh pihak Senat MMU dan tiada unsur manipulasi.” (the emphasis is mine)

 

1. Berdasarkan kenyataan di atas, adalah pelik pihak senat sendiri yang menyiasat sama ada terdapat unsur manipulasi, sedangkan salah laku dilakukan oleh fakulti di bawah seliaan senat sendiri.

 

2. Does the senate play the roles as the judge, jury and the investigator at the same time, whereas its own credibility is being challenged and indicted as well? Dr Goh said to me, Prof Chua and the senate will not approve your marks!” 

 

3. Where is the check and balance?

 

4. Dr Goh yang tidak berkelulusan undang-undang menukar markah mengikut formula ekonomi ciptaannya sendiri tanpa melihat langsung kertas peperiksaan. Siasatan jenis apakah yang dilakukan oleh senat sedangkan saya sendiri sebagai saksi yang melihat sendiri Dr Goh menukar markah, tidak dipanggil langsung oleh senat atau MQA sendiri?

  Berdasarkan kenyataan Anwar Halim Nor Hashim, “Walau bagaimanapun, maklumbalas  yang diterima daripada puan masih merujuk kepada aduan yang sama serta membangkitkan soal ketetapan sistem penilaian tentang pemberat dan skema pemarkahan. Dalam hal ini, MQA hanya menyediakan panduan bagi tujuan tersebut dan terpulang kepada Institut Pengajian Tinggi untuk menetapkan sistem penilaian yang sewajarnya.”   Soalan saya sebelum ini yang berkenaan ialah:   “24. Prof, Does Lan approve a compulsory rule presribing: a. the maximum number of students who fail {20%]. b. the average marks to be from 60% to 70%.”  

Berdasarkan kenyataan Anwar Halim Nor Hashim, “Walau bagaimanapun, maklumbalas  yang diterima daripada puan masih merujuk kepada aduan yang sama serta membangkitkan soal ketetapan sistem penilaian tentang pemberat dan skema pemarkahan. Dalam hal ini, MQA hanya menyediakan panduan bagi tujuan tersebut dan terpulang kepada Institut Pengajian Tinggi untuk menetapkan sistem penilaian yang sewajarnya.”, amalan MMU menetapkan compulsory rule presribing the maximum number of students who fail {20%] and the average marks to be from 60% to 70%, adalah dianggap wajar oleh MQA. Jadi keputusan peperiksaan telah ditetapkan lebih awal oleh IPT tersebut and does not reflect the actual performance of the students. Kalau macam tu, buat apa ada peperiksaan, bagi aja kelulusan percuma!!!!! Kalau ada peperiksaan pun, pensyarah dikekang oleh kuota markah.Sekiranya ada 100 pelajar, pensyarah wajib luluskan 80 orang, dan hanya boleh gagalkan 20 orang pelajar. Dah Kuota macam itu. Kalau macam ni, pensyarah dihalang berlaku jujur dalam melakukan penilaian dan pemarkahan!

 

Saya terkejut dalam dunia akademik terdapat sistem kuota berapa orang pelajar wajib diluluskan. Jadi para pelajar tak perlulah baca buku, senat sudah tetapkan siang-siang hanya 20 peratus pelajar sahaja dalam satu kursus yang boleh gagal. Jadi kalau ada 200 orang yang ambil satu kursus, 160 orang pelajar WAJIB DILULUSKAN ,hanya 40 orang boleh gagal!!!  

 

 Soalan saya kepada Tuan selaku Tunggak MQA: Adakah amalan ini dinamakan “guaranteed pass”?Adakah ini sama dengan “jual degree”?

 

Soalan saya kepada Tuan selaku Tunggak MQA: Adakah cara di atas, iaitu IPT menetapkan peratusan jumlah pelajar yang WAJIB DILULUSKAN, contoh baik IPT bertaraf  world class?

 

Soalan saya kepada Tuan selaku Tunggak MQA: Berdasarkan pengalaman MQA, nyatakan adakah Universiti Malaya, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia mempunyai sistem kuota jumlah pelajar yang WAJIB DILULUSKAN seperti MMU?

 

Soalan saya kepada Tuan selaku Tunggak MQA:Berdasarkan pengalaman MQA, nyatakan adakah universiti Harvard, universiti Cambridge, Universiti Columbia, Universiti Princeton, universiti Oxford mempunyai sistem kuota jumlah pelajar yang WAJIB DILULUSKAN seperti MMU?

 

 

Since the marks are predetermined, if there are 100 students all of them need not study hard because they know 80 students are guaranteed to pass and only 20 of them are allowed to fail according to the quota set by the senate.

  Based on the above, lecturers cannot exercise their academic freedom as they are forced to mark the papers according to the quota set by the senate.   I believe that the integrity of the lecturers are being undermined.   I also believe that the practice guaranteeing passes above is a corruption and debasement of knowledge.   The above practice guaranteeing passes  does not reflect the real quality of the students.   Sebelum mengundur diri saya dapati Tuan tidak menjawab soalan saya yang saya ajukan kepada Tuan sebelum ini: “Further questions I now raise to MQA are: 3. Did MQA examine the examination papers of the students? 4. Are the papers of high quality? 5. Was the grading a fair one?”     Saya memohon jasa baik Tuan menjawab soalan saya pada kadar yang segera.   Yang benar

 

Jawapan dari

ANWAR HALIM NOR HASHIM diterima pada 5 Mac 2009

Pegawai Eksekutif

Unit Penguatkuasaan

Bahagian Koordinasi Jaminan Kualiti

Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia

 

Dengan hormatnya saya merujuk kepada aduan yang dikemukakan oleh puan pada 30hb Januari 2009 mengenai ‘Marks manipulation at Multimedia University (MMU)’.

 

Semakan Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia (Malaysian Qualification Agency-MQA) mendapati siasatan telah dibuat dan jawapan telah diberi kepada puan pada 5hb Februari  2009 melalui email 

 

 (salinan disertakan)

 

Walau bagaimanapun, maklumbalas  yang diterima daripada puan masih merujuk kepada aduan yang sama serta membangkitkan soal ketetapan sistem penilaian tentang pemberat dan skema pemarkahan. Dalam hal ini, MQA hanya menyediakan panduan bagi tujuan tersebut dan terpulang kepada Institut Pengajian Tinggi untuk menetapkan sistem penilaian yang sewajarnya.

 

Siasatan MQA mendapati, perkara ini telah disiasat oleh pihak Senat MMU dan tiada unsur manipulasi (Jawapan sebelum ini kepada puan pada 5hb Februari 2009 berkaitan).

 

 

ANWAR HALIM NOR HASHIM

Pegawai Eksekutif

Unit Penguatkuasaan

Bahagian Koordinasi Jaminan Kualiti

Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: myself

To: syedahmad@mqa.gov.my
Cc: sidek@pmo.gov.my; tam@bpa.jpm.my
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 9:24:37 AM
Subject: Fw: Enquiry : Private & Confidential

Sila beri sebab Tuan tidak menjawab soalan-soalan saya sebagai pengadu.

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: myself
To: syedahmad@mqa.gov.my
Cc: tam@bpa.jpm.my; sidek@pmo.gov.my; anwarhalim@mqa.gov.my
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2009 12:27:30 PM
Subject: Fw: Enquiry : Private & Confidential

 

 

 

 

Semakan Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia (Malaysian Qualification Agency-MQA) mendapati siasatan telah dibuat dan jawapan telah diberi kepada puan pada 5hb Februari  2009 melalui email  (salinan disertakan)

 

Walau bagaimanapun, maklumbalas  yang diterima daripada puan masih merujuk kepada aduan yang sama serta membangkitkan soal ketetapan sistem penilaian tentang pemberat dan skema pemarkahan. Dalam hal ini, MQA hanya menyediakan panduan bagi tujuan tersebut dan terpulang kepada Institut Pengajian Tinggi untuk menetapkan sistem penilaian yang sewajarnya.

 

Siasatan MQA mendapati, perkara ini telah disiasat oleh pihak Senat MMU dan tiada unsur manipulasi (Jawapan sebelum ini kepada puan pada 5hb Februari 2009 berkaitan).

 

 

ANWAR HALIM NOR HASHIM

Pegawai Eksekutif

Unit Penguatkuasaan

Bahagian Koordinasi Jaminan Kualiti

Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia

—– Forwarded Message —-
From:

To: syedahmad@mqa.gov.my
Cc: sidek@pmo.gov.my; tam@bpa.jpm.my
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 9:24:37 AM
Subject: Fw: Enquiry : Private & Confidential

Sila beri sebab Tuan tidak menjawab soalan-soalan saya sebagai pengadu.

Yg berbahagia Dato’ Syed Ahmad Hussein,

 

Berdasarkan kenyataan Anwar Halim Nor Hashim “Siasatan MQA mendapati, perkara ini telah disiasat oleh pihak Senat MMU dan tiada unsur manipulasi.” (the emphasis is mine)

 

1. Berdasarkan kenyataan di atas, adalah pelik pihak senat sendiri yang menyiasat sama ada terdapat unsur manipulasi, sedangkan salah laku dilakukan oleh fakulti di bawah seliaan senat sendiri.

 

2. Does the senate play the roles as the judge, jury and the investigator at the same time, whereas its own credibility is being challenged and indicted as well? Dr Goh said to me, Prof Chua and the senate will not approve your marks!” 

 

3. Where is the check and balance?

 

4. Dr Goh yang tidak berkelulusan undang-undang menukar markah mengikut formula ekonomi ciptaannya sendiri tanpa melihat langsung kertas peperiksaan. Siasatan jenis apakah yang dilakukan oleh senat sedangkan saya sendiri sebagai saksi yang melihat sendiri Dr Goh menukar markah, tidak dipanggil langsung oleh senat atau MQA sendiri?

 

Berdasarkan kenyataan Anwar Halim Nor Hashim, “Walau bagaimanapun, maklumbalas  yang diterima daripada puan masih merujuk kepada aduan yang sama serta membangkitkan soal ketetapan sistem penilaian tentang pemberat dan skema pemarkahan. Dalam hal ini, MQA hanya menyediakan panduan bagi tujuan tersebut dan terpulang kepada Institut Pengajian Tinggi untuk menetapkan sistem penilaian yang sewajarnya.”

 

Soalan saya sebelum ini yang berkenaan ialah:

 

Berdasarkan kenyataan Anwar Halim Nor Hashim, “Walau bagaimanapun, maklumbalas  yang diterima daripada puan masih merujuk kepada aduan yang sama serta membangkitkan soal ketetapan sistem penilaian tentang pemberat dan skema pemarkahan. Dalam hal ini, MQA hanya menyediakan panduan bagi tujuan tersebut dan terpulang kepada Institut Pengajian Tinggi untuk menetapkan sistem penilaian yang sewajarnya.”, amalan MMU menetapkan compulsory rule presribing the maximum number of students who fail {20%] and the average marks to be from 60% to 70%, adalah dianggap wajar oleh MQA. Jadi keputusan peperiksaan telah ditetapkan lebih awal oleh IPT tersebut and does not reflect the actual performance of the students. Kalau macam tu, buat apa ada peperiksaan, bagi aja kelulusan percuma!!!!! Kalau ada peperiksaan pun, pensyarah dikekang oleh kuota markah.Sekiranya ada 100 pelajar, pensyarah wajib luluskan 80 orang, dan hanya boleh gagalkan 20 orang pelajar. Dah Kuota macam itu. Kalau macam ni, pensyarah dihalang berlaku jujur dalam melakukan penilaian dan pemarkahan!

 

Saya terkejut dalam dunia akademik terdapat sistem kuota berapa orang pelajar wajib diluluskan. Jadi para pelajar tak perlulah baca buku, senat sudah tetapkan siang-siang hanya 20 peratus pelajar sahaja dalam satu kursus yang boleh gagal. Jadi kalau ada 200 orang yang ambil satu kursus, 160 orang pelajar WAJIB DILULUSKAN ,hanya 40 orang boleh gagal!!!  

 

 Soalan saya kepada Tuan selaku Tunggak MQA: Adakah amalan ini dinamakan “guaranteed pass”?Adakah ini sama dengan “jual degree”?

 

Soalan saya kepada Tuan selaku Tunggak MQA: Adakah cara di atas, iaitu IPT menetapkan peratusan jumlah pelajar yang WAJIB DILULUSKAN, contoh baik IPT bertaraf  world class?

 

Soalan saya kepada Tuan selaku Tunggak MQA: Berdasarkan pengalaman MQA, nyatakan adakah Universiti Malaya, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia mempunyai sistem kuota jumlah pelajar yang WAJIB DILULUSKAN seperti MMU?

 

Soalan saya kepada Tuan selaku Tunggak MQA:Berdasarkan pengalaman MQA, nyatakan adakah universiti Harvard, universiti Cambridge, Universiti Columbia, Universiti Princeton, universiti Oxford mempunyai sistem kuota jumlah pelajar yang WAJIB DILULUSKAN seperti MMU?

 

 

 

Since the marks are predetermined, if there are 100 students all of them need not study hard because they know 80 students are guaranteed to pass and only 20 of them are allowed to fail according to the quota set by the senate.

 

Based on the above, lecturers cannot exercise their academic freedom as they are forced to mark the papers according to the quota set by the senate.

 

I believe that the integrity of the lecturers are being undermined.

 

I also believe that the practice guaranteeing passes above is a corruption and debasement of knowledge.

 

The above practice guaranteeing passes  does not reflect the real quality of the students.

 

Sebelum mengundur diri saya dapati Tuan tidak menjawab soalan saya yang saya ajukan kepada Tuan sebelum ini:

“Further questions I now raise to MQA are:

3. Did MQA examine the examination papers of the students?

4. Are the papers of high quality?

5. Was the grading a fair one?”

 

 

Saya memohon jasa baik Tuan menjawab soalan saya pada kadar yang segera.

 

Yang benar

 

“24. Prof, Does Lan approve a compulsory rule presribing:

a. the maximum number of students who fail {20%].

b. the average marks to be from 60% to 70%.”

 

 

 

Jawapan dari

ANWAR HALIM NOR HASHIM diterima pada 5 Mac 2009

Pegawai Eksekutif

Unit Penguatkuasaan

Bahagian Koordinasi Jaminan Kualiti

Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia

 

Dengan hormatnya saya merujuk kepada aduan yang dikemukakan oleh puan pada 30hb Januari 2009 mengenai ‘Marks manipulation at Multimedia University (MMU)’.

Jawapan dari ANWAR HALIM NOR HASHIM Pegawai Eksekutif Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia

Jawapan dari

ANWAR HALIM NOR HASHIM diterima pada 5 Mac 2009

Pegawai Eksekutif

Unit Penguatkuasaan

Bahagian Koordinasi Jaminan Kualiti

Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia

 

Dengan hormatnya saya merujuk kepada aduan yang dikemukakan oleh puan pada 30hb Januari 2009 mengenai ‘Marks manipulation at Multimedia University (MMU)’.

 

Semakan Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia (Malaysian Qualification Agency-MQA) mendapati siasatan telah dibuat dan jawapan telah diberi kepada puan pada 5hb Februari  2009 melalui email  (salinan disertakan)

 

Walau bagaimanapun, maklumbalas  yang diterima daripada puan masih merujuk kepada aduan yang sama serta membangkitkan soal ketetapan sistem penilaian tentang pemberat dan skema pemarkahan. Dalam hal ini, MQA hanya menyediakan panduan bagi tujuan tersebut dan terpulang kepada Institut Pengajian Tinggi untuk menetapkan sistem penilaian yang sewajarnya.

 

Siasatan MQA mendapati, perkara ini telah disiasat oleh pihak Senat MMU dan tiada unsur manipulasi (Jawapan sebelum ini kepada puan pada 5hb Februari 2009 berkaitan).

 

 

ANWAR HALIM NOR HASHIM

Pegawai Eksekutif

Unit Penguatkuasaan

Bahagian Koordinasi Jaminan Kualiti

Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia

 

 

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Myself

To: syedahmad@mqa.gov.my
Cc: sidek@pmo.gov.my; tam@bpa.jpm.my
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 9:24:37 AM
Subject: Fw: Enquiry : Private & Confidential

Sila beri sebab Tuan tidak menjawab soalan-soalan saya sebagai pengadu.

BPA & MQA: Sila beri sebab Tuan tidak menjawab soalan-soalan saya sebagai pengadu.

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Myself

To: syedahmad@mqa.gov.my
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2009 12:44:27 AM
Subject: Fw: Enquiry : Private & Confidential

 

Assalamualaikum Dato Tn Syed

The email from Anwar Halim Nor Hashim from Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia refers. Referring to my first email to Professor Zita (forwarded here), Questions 23 and 23 state the following: 

23. Prof, Does LAN approve Dr Goh’s action, manipulating the marks in order to achieve a pre-determined range of marks/failure/average?

24. Prof, Does Lan approve a compulsory rule presribing:

a. the maximum number of students who fail {20%].

b. the average marks to be from 60% to 70%.

 

Further questions I now raise to MQA are:

3. Did MQA examine the examination papers of the students?

4. Are the papers of high quality?

5. Was the grading a fair one?

 

Kindly answer the queries above as soon as possible. 

Thank you very much.

Subject: Enquiry : Private & Confidential
To: zita@lan.gov.my
Cc: rose@lan.gov.my
Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2007, 1:45 PM

Assalamualaikum Prof

 

1. I am , a lecturer of Law School Multimedia University.

2. Last Semester (March-May 2007) I taught Legal Language II (BLM 1024).

3. I also met Dr Chong, a LAN officer in a meeting last semester. Dr Chong expressed her concern over the local graduates’ poor command of the English language.

4.I took seriously Dr Chong’s concern and emphasized to my students that they have to improve their command of the English language.

5. Professor, I found that the students answered poorly in the mid semester and final examinations. Their answers do not reflect maturity and cogency. Their poor command of English is evident and glaring.

6. When I released the mid-semester marks, the students were angry as 90% failed.

7. They complained to the President of MMU and alleged that I am an incompetent lecturer and raised their high failure rate as their grievance.

8. After the students complained to the President, the Dean of the Faculty of Business and Law, Dr Goh Pek Chen, started to micromanage me. She followed and attended my classes and tutorials on the ground that the students were afraid of me.

9. She forced me to preserve/reinstate an assignment given out by the former lecturer. I took out the assignment as I found out the students’ focus did not conform with the course notes prepared by the previous lecturer.

10. Dr Goh saw the mid term marks [with 90% failure rate] and commented that the marks were too low. Her remark and harassment/micromanagment forced me to adjust the mid-term marks.

11. I did not prepare the final exam questions. The questions were kept by the faculty’s assistant manager. Dr Goh forced me to go to the assistant manager’s room to look at the exam questions and to help the students by giving them tips on the questions coming out in the final exam. She forced me to ensure that the students can answer well.

12. She forced me to give exam tips to the students and also forced me to show to the students “How I mark an exam question”.

13. Dr Goh forced me to provide the details in the answer scheme which the previous lecturer did not provide within the span of 3 hours only.

14. Dr Goh forced me to mark the answer scripts in detail regardless of my protest that a law essay answer is a subjective answer and it is impossible to provide minute details of the marks awarded for every point accepted. She refused to accept my explanation and forced me to mark the exam papers in detail.

15. Upon marking the exam scripts, I discovered that only 22 students out of 142 passed Legal Language II (BLM1024). the average marks is 42.28 and the standard deviation is 7.61.

16. Upon perusing the marks, Dr Goh said that the Senate would not approve my marks. She also said that she had to adjust the marks. I told her that I do not want to be involved in her act [adjusting the marks] as the students’ answer were of low quality. I have given them tips on how to answer the exam and I have guided them more than what I should do because Dr Goh forced me.

17. Dr Goh adjusted the marks.

18. Dr Goh made her adjustment of marks in order to gain the Senate’s approval and to achieve the following:

The average marks is: 60-70%,

Failure rate: maximum is 20%,

Standard deviation: From 8-15.

19. Dr Goh forced me to key in the new marks she “cooked up/invented”. She also forced me to endorse the “Exam Results Report for Verification Generated by Exam Unit”.

20. After 2 sleepless nights, I informed Dr Goh that I retract the endorsement as I signed it against my will out of fear of losing my job.

21. After my retraction, Dr Goh suspended me from teaching Company Law 1 and Legal Language II this semester.

22. There is a shortage of lecturers at the Law School. Nobody is teaching “Contract II” and “Cyber Law”. Instead of asking me to teach those subjects, Dr Goh asked those lecturers who reached their maximum teaching hours, to apply to teach those subjects as part-timers.

23. Prof, Does LAN approve Dr Goh’s action, manipulating the marks in order to achieve a pre-determined range of marks/failure/average?

24. Prof, Does Lan approve a compulsory rule presribing:

a. the maximum number of students who fail {20%].

b. the average marks to be from 60% to 70%.

 

Prof, please reply my email/registered letter RD316361464MY (the same content as this email) as I believe I am wronged, my academic integrity being condemned, my career at stake.

 

Prof please reply via email and also to this address  

Thank You Prof.

Yours Sincerely

LAN/MQA & MMU: Big Brother shielding Small Brother! Don’t Pray!!Pray!!! Naive La You Ni, Thinking that LAN/MQA will punish MMU!!! Where got road!!!!

—– Forwarded Message —-

From: Myself

To: syedahmad@mqa.gov.my

 Sent: Friday, February 6, 2009 12:44:27 AM

Subject: Fw: Enquiry : Private & Confidential Assalamualaikum

Dato Tn Syed

 The email from Anwar Halim Nor Hashim from Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia refers. Referring to my first email to Professor Zita (forwarded here), Questions 23 and 23 state the following: 23. Prof, Does LAN approve Dr Goh’s action, manipulating the marks in order to achieve a pre-determined range of marks/failure/average? 24. Prof, Does Lan approve a compulsory rule presribing: a. the maximum number of students who fail {20%]. b. the average marks to be from 60% to 70%. Therefore does MQA approve: 1. Dr Goh’s action, manipulating the marks in order to achieve a pre-determined range of marks/failure/average? 2. A compulsory rule which MMU imposed on lecturer presribing: a. the maximum number of students who fail {20%]. b. the average marks to be from 60% to 70%. Further questions I now raise to MQA are: 3. Did MQA examine the examination papers of the students? 4. Are the papers of high quality? 5. Was the grading a fair one? Kindly answer the queries above as soon as possible. Thank you very much.

 

 From: myself

 Subject: Enquiry : Private & Confidential

To: zita@lan.gov.my

 Cc: rose@lan.gov.my

Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2007, 1:45 PM

Assalamualaikum Prof

1. I am, a lecturer of Law School Multimedia University.

2. Last Semester (March-May 2007) I taught Legal Language II (BLM 1024). 3. I also met Dr Chong, a LAN officer in a meeting last semester. Dr Chong expressed her concern over the local graduates’ poor command of the English language.

4.I took seriously Dr Chong’s concern and emphasized to my students that they have to improve their command of the English language.

5. Professor, I found that the students answered poorly in the mid semester and final examinations. Their answers do not reflect maturity and cogency. Their poor command of English is evident and glaring.

6. When I released the mid-semester marks, the students were angry as 90% failed.

7. They complained to the President of MMU and alleged that I am an incompetent lecturer and raised their high failure rate as their grievance.

8. After the students complained to the President, the Dean of the Faculty of Business and Law, Dr Goh Pek Chen, started to micromanage me. She followed and attended my classes and tutorials on the ground that the students were afraid of me.

9. She forced me to preserve/reinstate an assignment given out by the former lecturer. I took out the assignment as I found out the students’ focus did not conform with the course notes prepared by the previous lecturer. 10. Dr Goh saw the mid term marks [with 90% failure rate] and commented that the marks were too low. Her remark and harassment/micromanagment forced me to adjust the mid-term marks.

11. I did not prepare the final exam questions. The questions were kept by the faculty’s assistant manager. Dr Goh forced me to go to the assistant manager’s room to look at the exam questions and to help the students by giving them tips on the questions coming out in the final exam. She forced me to ensure that the students can answer well.

12. She forced me to give exam tips to the students and also forced me to show to the students “How I mark an exam question”.

13. Dr Goh forced me to provide the details in the answer scheme which the previous lecturer did not provide within the span of 3 hours only.

14. Dr Goh forced me to mark the answer scripts in detail regardless of my protest that a law essay answer is a subjective answer and it is impossible to provide minute details of the marks awarded for every point accepted. She refused to accept my explanation and forced me to mark the exam papers in detail.

15. Upon marking the exam scripts, I discovered that only 22 students out of 142 passed Legal Language II (BLM1024). the average marks is 42.28 and the standard deviation is 7.61. 16. Upon perusing the marks, Dr Goh said that the Senate would not approve my marks. She also said that she had to adjust the marks. I told her that I do not want to be involved in her act [adjusting the marks] as the students’ answer were of low quality. I have given them tips on how to answer the exam and I have guided them more than what I should do because Dr Goh forced me.

17. Dr Goh adjusted the marks.

18. Dr Goh made her adjustment of marks in order to gain the Senate’s approval and to achieve the following: The average marks is: 60-70%, Failure rate: maximum is 20%, Standard deviation: From 8-15.

19. Dr Goh forced me to key in the new marks she “cooked up/invented”. She also forced me to endorse the “Exam Results Report for Verification Generated by Exam Unit”.

20. After 2 sleepless nights, I informed Dr Goh that I retract the endorsement as I signed it against my will out of fear of losing my job.

21. After my retraction, Dr Goh suspended me from teaching Company Law 1 and Legal Language II this semester.

22. There is a shortage of lecturers at the Law School. Nobody is teaching “Contract II” and “Cyber Law”. Instead of asking me to teach those subjects, Dr Goh asked those lecturers who reached their maximum teaching hours, to apply to teach those subjects as part-timers.

23. Prof, Does LAN approve Dr Goh’s action, manipulating the marks in order to achieve a pre-determined range of marks/failure/average?

24. Prof, Does Lan approve a compulsory rule presribing:

a. the maximum number of students who fail {20%].

b. the average marks to be from 60% to 70%. Prof, please reply my email/registered letter RD316361464MY (the same content as this email) as I believe I am wronged, my academic integrity being condemned, my career at stake. Prof please reply via email and also to this address My HP no is : . Thank You Prof. Yours Sincerely

Kosmo! on UPSI!

The MOHE Minister promised to solve problem one day after Kosmo! published the front page news yesterday!!!!! Mr Minister, Why were you SILENT on USIM & MMU??????????

14 Mei 2009

Kuliah UPSI macam pusat tuisyen – Kampus UPSI kian sesak, 9,000 mahasiswa belajar dalam rumah kedai

 

Oleh HISHAM IDRIS, JUNHAIRI ALYASA dan NOR HAMIDAH MOHD. ABBAS
berita@kosmo.com.my

TANJUNG MALIM – Nama Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) gah sebagai institusi pendidikan unggul tertua di negara ini, namun jangan terkejut jika sebahagian besar pelajarnya kini terpaksa menimba ilmu di kelas-kelas dalam deretan rumah kedai.

Itulah realiti yang terpaksa dihadapi kira-kira 9,000 pelajar UPSI gara-gara kampus induk mereka di sini sudah tidak mampu menampung pertambahan pelajar.

Kebanyakan bakal guru siswazah itu belajar dalam suasana yang kurang selesa di rumah-rumah kedai yang kelihatan seperti pusat tuisyen swasta.

Daripada 16,000 pelajar, hanya 7,000 yang dapat meneruskan pelajaran menggunakan kemudahan dalam kampus UPSI.

Tinjauan Kosmo! di beberapa kawasan rumah kedai sekitar universiti tersebut semalam mendapati pihak pengurusan UPSI terpaksa menyewa 29 unit rumah kedai dan mengubahsuainya menjadi 53 bilik kuliah.

Antara rumah kedai itu ialah 13 unit di Taman U mengandungi 39 bilik kuliah dan 16 unit di Taman Bernam Baru dengan 14 bilik kuliah dan lapan buah makmal.

Lot-lot kedai yang disewa telah diubahsuai sepenuhnya bagi dijadikan bilik kuliah, makmal, surau, bilik-bilik pensyarah, pejabat am, pejabat penolong pendaftar, bilik rehat pelajar dan bilik keselamatan.

Malah, bagi mengasingkan kesemua blok yang disewa pihak pengurusan terpaksa meletakkan pagar di kaki lima premis tersebut demi menjaga keselamatan pelajar.

Bagaimanapun, pihak pengurusan UPSI difahamkan bakal berdepan masalah baru apabila seramai 5,000 pelajar baru dijangka mendaftar pada Julai ini kerana jumlah bilik kuliah yang terdapat di deretan kedai itu juga sudah tidak mencukupi.

Untuk itu, UPSI mungkin terpaksa menyewa premis baru di Proton City bagi menampung para pelajar baru.

Kos pengubahsuaiannya mencecah RM500,000 bagi 14 bilik kuliah.

15 Mei 2009

Tiada kompromi jika projek kampus lewat

 Oleh JUNHAIRI ALYASA
junhairi.alyasa@kosmo.com.my

Menterinya, Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin menegaskan, pihaknya tidak mahu berkompromi dengan sebarang kelewatan memandangkan jika itu yang berlaku, kesulitan kakitangan serta para pelajar UPSI yang terpaksa belajar di rumah-rumah kedai di luar kampus akan berterusan.

“Disebabkan kepentingan itu, saya sendiri akan memberi perhatian terhadap projek ini,” katanya pada sidang akhbar selepas menyaksikan majlis menandatangani perjanjian persefahaman di antara Universiti Utara Malaysia dan ACCA Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. di sini semalam.

Kosmo! semalam melaporkan tentang nasib pelajar-pelajar di UPSI yang terpaksa meneruskan pengajian di rumah-rumah kedai ekoran kampus induk mereka sudah sesak.

Pihak pengurusan UPSI bimbang masalah itu akan menjadi lebih rumit dengan kemasukan kira-kira 5,000 pelajar baru pada Julai ini.

Masalah yang dihadapi itu berpunca daripada kampus induk yang sudah sesak selain projek kampus baru di Behrang Ulu terlewat daripada jadual selama tiga bulan.

Buat masa ini, Mohamed Khaled meminta kakitangan dan pelajar UPSI supaya bersabar sementara masalah tersebut ditangani dengan siapnya projek kampus baru kelak.

The toothless & redundant LAN/MQA: A story of a lack of integrity, being so weak & powerless

— On Tue, 9/25/07, Suhana Ramli <suhanaramli@lan.gov.my> wrote:

From: Suhana Ramli <suhanaramli@lan.gov.my>
Subject: RE: marks final
To: Myself

Date: Tuesday, September 25, 2007, 7:46 AM

Assalammualaikum w.b.t.h puan,

 

Untuk pengetahuan puan, walaupun pihak kami tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk mencampuri senat tetapi pihak kami sentiasa mengambil perhatian terhadap aduan pihak yang dikemukakan oleh pihak puan. Untuk maklumat puan juga, setelah pihak kami mengadakan perbincangan berkaitan aduan puan, satu perancangan telah dibuat dimana kami akan mengadakan audit di MMU berdasarkan aduan yang dikemukakan. Pihak kami akan sentiasa memberikan maklumat yang terkini kepada pihak puan.

 

Diharap pihak puan dapat bersabar.

 

Sekian, terima kasih.

 

Yang menjalankan tugas;

SUHANA BINTI RAMLI

PENGURUS PERUNDANGAN DAN PENGUATKUASAAN

LEMBAGA AKREDITASI NEGARA

TKT 13B, MENARA PKNS-PJ

17, JALAN YONG SHOOK LIN

46050 PETALING JAYA

SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN

 

 

—–Original Message—–
From: Myself

Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 5:13 PM
To: Suhana Ramli
Subject: RE: marks final

 

Wslm Puan

Jadi sekiranya saya maklumkan pada MMU maknanya mereka akan tahu bahawa saya telah report kepada Lan. Puan, MMU telah banyak menyusahkan hidup saya, lagipun berdasarkan jawapan Puan saya rasa Lan tidak menganggap perbuatan menipu markah oleh Senate tidak beretika kerana Puan menyatakan Lan tiada kuasa kerana Senate telah luluskan. Terima kasih banyak2 saya sudah hilang keyakinan terhadap integriti di Malaysia.

Suhana Ramli <suhanaramli@lan.gov.my> wrote:

Assalammualaikum puan,

 

Berkaitan dengan paper exam pelajar yang puan hendak berikan kepada pihak kami, kami sedia menerimanya. Namun begitu, minta puan maklumkan kepada MMU bahawa kertas jawapan pelajar itu puan akan serahkan kepada kami.

 

Sekian, terima kasih.

 

Yang benar,

SUHANA BINTI RAMLI