The Business School will not be making any adjustments to the BEE2024 exam, after students complained about the “poor delivery of the module” in January this year.
In an email yesterday, students were notified that no changes will be made after an independent external examiner reviewed the questions and the marking, confirming they did not find “any significant problem with either.”
The email confirmed that “upon careful scrutiny of the examination paper”, the examiner “was unable to substantiate that it contained a number of errors” and summarised it as “a good quality paper”.
It was also noted that “the marking was very consistent and that answers of comparable standard had been graded equally.” From the syllabus and module descriptor “the examination content was appropriate and the questions were covered by the syllabus.”
A review such as this is normally conducted in June – once all modules are completed – by a Departmental Assessment, Progression and Awarding Committee, which is similar to an exam board. However, this took place in January shortly after a group of students complained about the module.
In an email sent to fellow students in February, participants of the BEE2024 Economic Principles and Policy expressed “concerns” that “their [exam] result is significantly different to their other marks.”
It was also mentioned that students felt “unprepared” for the exam, which “failed to reflect the course.”
Ben Street, VP Education said: “The Students’ Guild has been working with the Business School, the University and all affected students to ensure that there has been clear and swift communication over this matter. I know that many students will be disappointed by the findings of the external examiner so the Students’ Guild will continue to provide support and advice for the students who are affected by this decision.”
A Facebook group was created earlier this year, in order to collate complaints and to gather “some sort of petition”, in order to raise these issues with the Business School.
Additionally, complaints of this kind about the same module have been made in previous years, most notably in 2012.
Rachel Gelormini, Online News Editorbookmark me