kheru2006 (kheru2006) wrote,
kheru2006
kheru2006

Parents and students cry foul over college’s marking process

 By RICHARD LIM educate@thestar.com.my

PETALING JAYA: A college offering technical courses in Selangor is embroiled in a marking controversy as students and parents cried foul over its “unfair processes” and lack of transparency.

This comes after a sizeable number of students failed their trade test held on Monday.

The open book test comprising theory and practical components is deemed by the college as a gauge of industrial readiness before students move on to their respective specialisations in their diploma programme.

The problem arose when students were prevented from sitting for their practical after failing the theory exam.

A meeting involving 10 parents and 40 students with the college's management yesterday failed to resolve the issue.

Senior financial executive Suresh Nagaraju said the college kept stressing that 80% of a student's scores would come from practical tests before the students joined.

“If that is the case, it makes no sense to penalise them prematurely based on a lesser component,” he said.

He said the college representatives appeared to sidestep the issue and requests to speak with its top management were not met.

Students said they had to pay RM1,100 to resit the trade test.

They also alleged that the college demanded RM300 for each student who wanted to view their test papers.

In response, the head of the college's students' centre Kavitha Arumugam said the institution maintained strict standards to meet industrial demands.

She said the college would look into the grouses to determine whether there was any miscommunication.


Source: The STAR Home > News > Nation Thursday April 28, 2011
Tags: pendidikan
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments