It came to my attention that the Newpaper (our local daily tabloid-bah!) wrote an article on the major boo-boo that occurred during an exam conducted by the local partner of a foreign university (note my attempts at being vague but if you're in Singapore and if you read yesterday's Newpaper, you would know, otherwise the details I provide should be fine).

For one, I'm not unaccustomed to lecturers giving students the wrong hint, it's happened to be before in my first semester in university where a lecturer gave blatant hints for the exam/CA only to have NONE of the topics blatantly hinted at appear. What did I learn? Ignore whatever blatant tips lecturers (especially that particular lecturer) give because sometimes, those hints can really screw you up during your test; like how you end up spending 2 days studying the hinted topics and 1 day on the rest (when you could have given equal time to each, but personally, I start studying a week or two before CAs) and then the entire test is based on the portion you spent 1 day on. Boo to such lecturers.

Anyway, it seems the real case in this matter is that:

1) Exam paper was split into 3 portions; Sections A, B and C. Section A accounts for 50%, consisting on 1 compulsory short answer question (with many parts to it). Section B has one compulsory essay question accounting for 25%. Section C accounts for the remainder and allows candidates to select 1 out of a number of questions.

2) The lecturers at this private university in Singapore decided to teach to to the paper. What do I mean? They taught their students how to handle the paper specifically. Something I didn't encounter in my tertiary institution and I took a Sociology module myself this semester and the exam in question? Sociology! Yes, the news did report that they had 21 weeks to teach but guess what? We had 13 weeks to learn and we covered more than they did? The lecturers spent 4 weeks prepping them for Section C, and instead of covering multiple topics, they had chosen to cover one topic. Murphy's Law came into action and that one topic they were prepped for was mistakenly omitted. The result? One exam hall full of panicky students.

3) Examiners (more senior than invigilators) didn't want invigilators helping the students out too much. My presiding examiner insisted the students were wrong, I in turn could only appease them by saying that everyone has the same problem so the best solution would be to try their best and then reflect the problem to the university.

4) We weren't notified that a lecturer was on site, so without knowing, how were we supposed to ask him?

Essentially, the fault pretty much falls on every party available.

The London side for leaving questions out by mistake, the examiners for not being sure and reprimanding the invigilators whenever we tried to help them clarify some of their doubts (I was ignored the first 6 times I brought the problem up to my examiner), the local lecturers for teaching to the paper (seriously, it's a little naive to conduct your syllabus in that manner, especially when you're taking the paper as an external candidate and the setter isn't even in the same country and timezome, always good to play safe by prepping for 3-4 topics).

And one more grouse, there was a remark that the first section was uncharacteristically difficult, I glanced through the paper and recognised it to be solely based on the topics I was lectured for at my first lecture for my Sociology module. Actually, it was pretty easy, a little annoying though for the portions on research and experiment. I just didn't like their compulsory essay question, that one sucked.

All in all, I don't get why the tabloid would write something essentially one-sided and I'm pretty disappointed in some university programs have resorted to teaching to the paper. It seems as if the program is there simply to throw a degree to the student; that takes the sacrosanctness out of attending university as an institution, one where you're supposed to learn and challenge your thoughts, broaden your perspective (most of the time I sound like a jaded undergraduate but hey, I do appreciate the value and role of a university, and it isn't as simple as torturing students so as to throw a degree at them). Attending such a university takes the point out of attending university altogether. The practical nature of the Singapore society has evidently won and has reduced the institution of attending university to one that provides a stepping stone to a better future (arguably); the means to an end. To an idealist, this is tragic and it's a nightmare. And I'm not much of one myself, but yet even I can see the sadness in how the institution of education has deteriorated.