MQA allows MMU’s Senate to be a judge of its own cause

—– Forwarded Message —- From: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> 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
Yasmin Norhazleena Bahari
Jawapan dariANWAR HALIM NOR HASHIM diterima pada 5 Mac 2009Pegawai 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 yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com. (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: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> 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: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> 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. 07, yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> 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 Yasmin Norhazleena Bahari, 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 18 Jln Bukit Beruang Utama 1/9, Taman Bukit Beruang Utama Seksyen 1, 75450 Melaka.
My HP no is : 0162657415.
Thank You Prof.
Yours Sincerely
Yasmin Norhazleena
—– Forwarded Message —- From: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> To: syedahmad@mqa.gov.my Cc: sidek@pmo.gov.my; tam@bpa.gov.my; anwarhalim@mqa.gov.my; minister@mohe.gov.my Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2009 12:21:11 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 LULUS ,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 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 dengan jujur dan amanah pada kadar yang segera.
Yang benar
Yasmin Norhazleena Bahari
Jawapan dariANWAR HALIM NOR HASHIM diterima pada 5 Mac 2009Pegawai 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 yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com. (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: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> 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: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> 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. 07, yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: yasmin noor <yasminnorhazleena@yahoo.com> 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 Yasmin Norhazleena Bahari, 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 18 Jln Bukit Beruang Utama 1/9, Taman Bukit Beruang Utama Seksyen 1, 75450 Melaka.
My HP no is : 0162657415.
Thank You Prof.
Yours Sincerely
Yasmin Norhazleena

Comments are closed.