COMPLAINT OF INJUSTICE

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 186, 3 May 1940, Page 11

COMPLAINT OF INJUSTICE

University Examiners

In Arithmetic REPLY TO SENATE’S STATEMENT (By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND. May 2. A reply to the statement of the University Senate’s executive committee in reference to marking of arithmetic papers was made by Dr. K. E. Bullen, senior lecturer in mathematics at Auckland University College, as follows: —

“The circumstances of tbe original examination were that each member of the panel of examiners first marked 50 scripts. The examiners then conferred at a meeting lasting several hours, during which a scheme of marking was arrived at. The following few weeks were then fully occupied in marking, and the results were sent to Wellington. The panels included examiners who had had much previous experience in this work and also experienced teachers of mathematics. The work was conscientiously Carried out and with a full sense of responsibility. “A rather large number of low marks led to re-examination by another panel. The latter evolved a scheme of marking which, it was clear, differed radically from that used by tbe first panel with the now well-known result that many alterations were made to the original marks. A number of reexamined scripts have been seen by certain of the original examiners, and it is clear that a large proportion of candidates must have gained extra marks through liberal allowances for attempts which the original panel of examiners would consider trifling.” Dr. Bullen said that the original panel held that something more than a few scraps of doubtful work should be necessary for university entrance purposes. The wholesale raising of marks indicated that the executive committee of the Senate was prepared to accept the more lenient scheme of marking of the new examiners. Incident ally, it was not correct that tho scripts were automatically given zero marks for incorrect answers by the original examiners. The fact that he was for tbe present bound to confidence on certain of the facts prevented him from making a further explanation at this juncture. He felt, however, that the wording and publication of the resolution of the committee did a serious injustice to the members of the panel of examiners, and that some reference was necessary to the high indignation that was felt by them. “It may be significant to add my definite opinion that there has been a substantial 'decline in the quality of arithmetic scripts since I previously examined in this subject four years ago,” Dr. Bullen added. “It appears (o me that the committee has failed to face up to this position.”