KSU criticises changes to revision of paper system

Students who apply for a revision of paper should be given a report outlining where they went wrong, the University Students’ Council is proposing

KSU criticised the “doubling of costs” and argued that the mechanism in place meant to benefit students was not “serving its purpose”.

It pointed out that students who wanted a report outlining where they went wrong had to pay €60 instead of €25.

“KSU believes such a report is generated in any case for internal evaluation and records and KSU is concerned as to why the student is charged more than double for having access to such a report,” it said, adding the report was a student’s right.

KSU also criticised other recent changes in the system, where-by students who applied for a revision of paper also risked seeing their marks being lowered.

The main concern of the students’ organisation was that the system could be prejudicial to the borderline cases that may not be willing to risk having their mark reduced, thereby missing out on the possibility of having a better result.

“It is after all a basic principle of justice that when someone asks for a revision, such revision can only maintain the status quo or improve the situation of the one asking for a revision and can never place the person in question in a less favourable position,” KSU said.

Another change KSU criticised was about the refund that used to be given to all students who had their grades increased but was now restricted to those who, after a revision, were given a pass from a fail.

“This seems to be a form of discouragement for all students who feel they performed highly in a certain examination or assignment. It will be a matter of paying to prove they were right because, even if the mark changes, the money will not be refunded,” KSU said, adding all students who were proved right should be refunded.

KSU’s proposals will be handed to the University administration in the coming days.

When the issue arose, KSU claimed it was not consulted or informed about the changes but the University insisted the changes were approved by Senate last year, where students were represented.

Replying to student organisation Pulse – which first raised the issue – the University had said if the marks could not be lowered, the revision of paper would be reduced to a form of lottery.

It said if an appeal was made for a student’s script to be re-examined and if, as a result, it was found that the student had been given more marks than he deserved, it was only fair the grade was lowered.