page 2

Assessment Forum

For too long students at V.U.W., have suffered from a deficiancy of fair play: that is fair play on the part of some members of the Professorial Board.

With the recent outspoken remarks from many prominent and "senior" members of Departmental & Faculty Staffs, it is obvious that the present system of Assessment is corrupt.

While the more moderate but very concerned actions of individuals such as members of the French department who wish to operate experimental departmental schemes, are being clobbered by the stamp of bureaucratic Registry Regulations, it must be hoped that they meet with success very soon. For yet again the stonewalling effect of officialdom is cramping up an expansive wealth of student unrest and frustration that will soon yet again, rise to engulf the perpetrators of archaic (old fashioned) methods that are hurting all students so dearly.

The nature of the problem is highly explosive and must be dealt with carefully.

For assessment determines the future course of all our lives. Assessment is not a "pie in the sky" problem as has been asserted by one very clever gentleman recently, but an issue that must be controlled by the people who are directly affected by it, and not solely by people already secure in their jobs.

For too often today we are becoming familiar with entities playing "God" with our destinies. The chain of our future lies with us and our elected representatives.

Not with the paid bureaucrats who should do little other than follow the considered wish of the masses.

As we are all intelligent people, it is time we all, staff and students, from Professor to 1st year student, recognised the fact and found a common ground to solve the problem, before untimely precipitate action is forced upon us all.

The issue must be settled in a common forum, and not behind the closed doors of any Board or Council.

The problem is with us now, and like any cancer must be dealt with now, in real terms. Elect and support your class assessment rep, your future lies in you and your reps' actions. Be part of the common concern, don't be caught unaware, know the facts.

•

Is the Italian Department Committing Suicide?

These majoring requirements are of a similar structure to those for most other languages.

Of the approximately 30 students who completed Ital III last year, 11 have enrolled in the second year language course, Ital 211. Very few, if any, of these students will be majoring in Italian. The reasons are two fold: First, many of these students were unable to study the required complimentary literature courses because of timetable clashes. Among the clashes were those with second year French literature, and with some English courses. Surely, not unusual combinations with Italian?

Secondly, the 3 students enrolled in the literature course Ital 202 (at least 2 of whom wish to have Italian as a major subject,) were informed somewhat belatedly that they may not be able to major in Italian at all. The reason? The head of Department is leaving this year. The students were told that it probably will not be economically viable to employ another senior lecturer to teach 2 students the stage three literature courses next year.

You may well say, "Fair enough. Of course it would be a waste of money," but for one thing. At least 5 Ital 211 students (who are Not now studying the complimentary literature courses) either rang the Department of paid it a visit between last November and enrolment day, informing the Department that, although they would like to study the literature or even major in the subject, they were unable to because of timetable clashes. Was there any possibility of changes in the schedule hours? Each of these students was individually given non-commital replies. If they persisted, they were told that the hours would remain fixed, as the Department could be held legally responsible for what was published in the Calendar. Presumably this is only a remote possibility, since the majority of students wanted the hours changed. Surely times that suited everyone could have been found? However none of the students was given any indication that others were in the same predicament, and were making the same enquiries. Therefore, they each felt they were a lone voice, and that there was thus little point in pursuing the issue.

The result: 5 fewer second year literature students for the Italian Department; Probably 2 or 3 fewer for next year's stage three literature classes (since second year literature is a pre-requisite for third year literature.) And therefore too few students in these third year classes to warrant holding them at all.

•

I object to an assessment system which entails having to obtain a minimum mark in assignment and exams through the year, just to obtain the right to sit an exam, at the end of the year. It seems to me to be grossly unfair as in Legal System and Law in Society we have to obtain 45% of the marks in our assignments and exams. Then after a whole year slogging our guts out, we find we have only 40% and have wasted a whole year. I can also imagine the situation where someone could get, say 90% for assignments, get terms, then fail the exam. Again all that work for nothing.

Instead of the unfair system envisaged by the "powers above", I suggest that either the assignments count as a % of your mark Or that to obtain terms one only needs to hand in a % of the assignments and attend a % of the Tuts. Thus the mark you get in your assignments would not count for terms at all.

—Paul Cochrane.