ARITHMETIC PAPERS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 131, 3 May 1940, Page 8

ARITHMETIC PAPERS.

UNIVERSITY MARKING. DIFFERENT SYSTEMS. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, May 2. A reply to the statement of the University Senate’s executive committee in reference to the marking of arithmetic papers has been made by Dr. K. E. Bullen, senior lecturer in mathematics at Auckland University College, as follows : “The circumstances of the original examination were that each member of the panel of examiners first marked fifty scripts. The examiners then conferred at a meeting lasting several hours during which the 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 much previous experience in this work, also experienced teachers of mathematics. “The work was conscientiously curried out and with a full sense of responsibility. The rather large number of low marks led to a re-examination by another panel. The latter evolved a scheme of marking which, it was clear, differed radically from that used by the first panel with the now well-known result that many alterations were made to the original marks. A number of the re-examined scripts have been seen by certain of the original examiners, and it, is clear that a large proportion of the candidates must have gained extra marks through liberal allowances for attempts which the original panel of examiners would consider trifling.” Dr. Bullen said the original panel held that something more than a few scraps of doubtful work should he 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 pf marking of the new examiners. Incidentally,” it was not correct that the scripts were automatically given zero marks for incorrect answers by the original examiners. The fact that he was for the 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 members of Hie panel of examiners, and that some reference was necessary to the high indignation that was felt by them. “It may he significant to add my definite opinion that there has been a substantial decline in the quality ot the arithmetic scripts since I previously examined in this subject four years ago.” Dr. Bullen added. “It appears to me that the committee has failed to face up to this position.”