Suggesting limitations on complaint rights
The government wishes to reduce the deadline for requesting to see the grounds for exam marks from three weeks to just one week.
På norsk;)
FOTO: Robin Røkke Johansen
- This is a direct restriction of student rights, says Olav Øye, leader of Norwegian Association of Students (StL). The Ministry of Education and Research currently have a suggestion for revision to the laws regarding University and Higher Education out to hearing, one of the suggestions being that the deadline for requesting to see the grounds for exam marks for written exams from three weeks to one week. The reactions didn’t take long to come, and Øye recieves support from Per Anders Langerød and Heine Skipnes, leaders of the The National Union of Students in Norway (NSU) and the Student Parliament at the University of Oslo (SP) respectively.
- I do not care whether or not the institutions have the capacity to inform of the basis for marking. The solution is not to cut down on the students’ already insufficient rights, says a provoked Skipenes.
A bad feeling
The ministry’s suggestion aims to change legislation because the technology of today allows students to get their examination results through Internet-based solutions, which in practice can be reached from anywhere in the world. The student has another three week deadline in which to complain after having seen the reasoning behind their grade, and the ministry argues that institutions often do not have the capacity to deal with long processing periods. Both Skipenes and Øye emphasize that Internet solutions are not a good argument for changing legislation. Many institutions demand that complaints are delivered in person, and so the argument falls short. Many students are on holiday during the period in which they receive their results, and the time-limit can therefore be impossible to keep. Øye also says that one needs time to go through one’s exam paper to assess whether or not one wishes to continue with a complaint.
Anders Anundsen (Frp), representative in the Church, Education and Research Committee (KUF), emphasizes that he is not too familiar with the actual suggestion for the revision of legislation, but says he has «a bad feeling about this case».
- It is meaningless to pressure the students into deciding whether to complain in a short space of time. Being able to check your exam results on the Internet is not a good argument for reducing the complaint deadline, he says.
Demands more resources
Gerd Janne Kristoffersen (Ap), vice president of KUF, says she understands the need for lowering complaint process periods, but that the students’ opinions during the hearings will be taken seriously when parliament plan to change the legislation. Therefore it is important for students to let their voice be heard, she says.
Both Skipenes and Øye think that administrational problems regarding processing periods is not reason enough to restrict legislation, and that instead one should increase resources. Also, they think that grounds for exam marks should be given to all students, whether requested or not.
- The external examiners should take a look at what they get paid for. I cannot comprehend what is so difficult about giving automatic explanations in Studentweb, says Skipnes.
- This is feedback that helps us improve, and reasoning given regarding quality is too poor. It is disturbing that half of all students say that they are given no feedback regarding their work other than exam marks, says Øye, who points to this as one of the main goals of the Quality Reform of higher education.
Anders Anundsen, however, disagrees that all students should be given a written evaluation, as he thinks that this would be a strain on resources. Meanwhile, Øye thinks that this is work the examiners do anyway.
Important input
Among the other recommendations being considered during the hearing is changing the procedures for crediting and approving education taken at another institution, especially abroad. The propositions for change state that it is currently very difficult for students wishing to take further education in Norway to get academic results from other institutions approved.
Also, there is special focus on the rights of students who have children during the course of their education. The suggestions for the hearing conclude that the current practice breaks with the principle of equality, but the proposed change in legislation is mainly restricted to a request that the committee can give pregnant students the right to delayed exams.
Anundsen believes that the suggestions for change are vague compared to what parliament requested. Both he and Gerd Janne Kristoffersen stress that the hearings will be very important and encourage the students to get involved, so that the changes take their interests into consideration.
The deadline for the hearings is the 17th of April this year.
