page 6

Pols

It's been nearly a month since the Pol Sci Department realised it would have to cater for 850 students instead of the 500 it was expecting. Now one must ask if there has been any real progress in overcoming the problems caused the massive overcrowding.

When we spoke to Mr. Cleveland on 14th March, he told us that as soon as he knew of the overcrowding, he realised there would be text-book problems and arranged to have all available copies of both prescribed books taken out of storage. This was the last stock in the country and of course it ran out.

Arrangements were made to photocopy the relevant chapters of the books, and while (except for a temporary gap of about a week) Chapters 4—9 of Mr. Cleveland's lecture notes were procurable, no part of Groth, Major Ideologies could be obtained. Students were advised to borrow copies of the book from friends or the library or Mr. Cleveland himself and photocopy it.

While textbooks posed a long term problem, there was still the question of where to put 400 extra students. By the second week of lectures another stream had been introduced at 4—5 pm., but this only takes about 80—100 of the overload. In a great many cases students are prohibited from joining this stream for the same reasons they chose the other two streams in the first place: timetable clashes and outside work.

Matter came to a head before the first class test when as the result of an inquiry (made, we felt, possibly a little sceptically) it emerged that maybe around 25% of students had no prescribed materials of any form. Clearly the only totally fair remedy was not to hold the test until every student had the texts. However we were told that it could not be put off because that would throw people's work schedules out. So, despite protests, the test was held, with a promise from Mr. Cleveland that he would make further inquiries about texts, and depending on the results of the inquiry the test might not be counted.

So much for promises. What will happen is this: "If your test one score is below five marks out of ten . . . when test two is marked, your test one score will be increased to the same level as your test two score." Sounds fair enough, but it's ally-hypothetical.

Why is it that only those who scored under half are deemed to be disadvantaged? More importantly, how fair is it to assume that the test two score will be an accurate guage of a student's potential, ability, or whatever it is tests are supposed to measure? For reasons quite unrelated to texts a student may do badly the second time round.

When it was known that some students, no matter how few, did not have texts, the test should not have been held. The numbers disadvantaged and the degrees of disadvantage cannot be measured, but while they exist, the proposed compensation is little more than a placatory measure, not Based on the real issues.

Well, just how much better off are we than in the beginning? In the beginning, we had 850 students, We still have them. The third stream has done little to reduce the overload. We had unbelievable textbook problems. We still have them. We also have the bonus of an alarming precedent, where students can be forced to sit a test for which the prescribed materials are just not available and then be told they have no chance of re-assessment because they did not score a low enough mark.

Cleveland has placed the blame on cutbacks in the Commerce faculty, but they claim this would only have accounted for about 50—100 of the extra intake. Almost one in seven students in the whole university are doing this course. What is being done to assure that the same problem does not recurr? After all, it is to avoid this sort of thing that the whole pre-enrolment system is used.

Rire Scotney