Last week, the University of Malta announced that students with learning difficulties will be exempt from the obligatory entry requirements of maths, Maltese and English SEC exams if they hold the entry requirements specific for their intended course.

This change is based on the argument that these subjects are surplus to requirements and students are quite capable to pursue their university course without having a pass in these subjects.

For example, the lack of a pass in the maths SEC exam does not hinder in anyway someone that wishes to read for a BA in English.

I welcome this change wholeheartedly. But I cannot understand why these changes should not be extended to other students who are not officially diagnosed as having learning difficulties.

Why should somebody who doesn’t have a pass in maths SEC exam be stopped from following a BA in history? If the maths SEC exam is considered as surplus for those with learning difficulties doesn’t this also hold for the rest?

As a teacher, I have met many students who excel in some subjects but find difficulties in one of the so-called ‘core’ subjects. Why should these students be handicapped? I have also met many graduates who recall how they used to fail miserably, for example in maths, when still in school, but somehow managed to get a pass at SEC level and were so relieved that they got rid of the subject at post-secondary level. I believe in a holistic education but at post-secondary level one starts to specialise and if certain subjects are considered as surplus for some they should be considered as surplus for the rest.

We should start to consider whether these compulsory requirements reflect the modern educational perspective or are still a relic of the past.