Some time back, in a packed classroom, a visiting faculty member at my university, made a frank statement, "Do you all realize that grade assessments by academics cannot be challenged, and doing so would be a very futile exercise".
He wasn't wrong. If truth be told, academic appeals in our higher education system rarely advance beyond a smiling professor's office.
It is a long-standing tradition in academia, that teachers possess absolute discretion in grade evaluation. It is also a common-law tradition that students who try to seek legal remedies from courts for grade or academic misconduct-related grievances, rarely succeed. This is because judges exercise judicial restraint and refrain from adjudicating on matters which encroach upon the professional judgements and evaluations of subject experts.
Admittedly, there exists a contractual relationship between a student and the institution. This is a contract (quid pro quo) which is created by the admission of the student in the university, the ‘consideration’ for the institution being to receive the tuition fees and in turn ‘obligations’ such as instruction, transparent assessment, adequate facilities, scholastic resources etc. The students as a contracting party with their ‘obligations’ being to pay tuition fees, time, hard work and fulfill the academic requirements for the ultimate ‘consideration’ to achieve a degree. This is precisely why cynics contend that higher education has become a commodity in a capitalist society.
Courts have had varying interpretations in assessing a contractual legal relationship between a student and the university. For example in American in cases such as Baltimore v.Colton (1904) and Goldstein v. NYU (1902) courts recognized the legal nature of the student-university relationship. The Canadian case of Acadia University v Sutcliffe (1978) also noted such a contractual relationship.
However in Pakistan, courts have dismissed academic grievances and refused to consider an educational institution as a legal “person” as held in Anoosha Shaigan v. LUMS (2006), thereby vitiating the institution’s “competency to contract”. Contrastingly, in a New-Zealand case Norrie v. Senate of University of University of Auckland (1984), the court noted: “…there was a compelling argument for the courts’ scrutiny of some university decisions in the light of the fact that they are bodies set up to promote a public purpose (education)...”
Grading is a critical component of pedagogy as it allows both professors and students to determine progress, capabilities, and encourage the need for improvement. Marks are a form of feedback that should initiate a productive and constructive student-teacher discussion. Unfortunately, the process of grading in Pakistan’s higher education is inscrutable. In fact, it discourages student pleas to instructors over the ‘forbidden’ topic of grading.
Law Professor Roberto L. Corrada at the University of Denver recalls that during his student years, when he tried to discuss his exam performance, one of his professors candidly explained: "Look, the exam is of no moment to me. The institution asks me to give an exam and grade it.. the only thing I care about is the law and the learning of it."
However, exams and grades are extremely important to students because these reflect upon their efforts and hard work, and ideally, should not be taken so lightly by the teacher, especially in large class-sizes. Moreover, student grades alongside their learning, can play a crucial role in their long term success, such as competing for postgraduate scholarships or enhancing their career prospects.
Exam performance obfuscation, or worse still, sketchy falsification of grades has detrimental effects on the student careers. Ludicrously, there are academic institutional policies in place which stipulate that a rechecking or recounting appeal by a student could even yield a lower grade, in the quest for a higher one.
Such intimidating policies are in contravention with the ‘due process’ rights enshrined in Article 10A of the constitution of Pakistan. These also contradict the principle of natural justice ‘audi alteram partem’ which is translated as ‘let the other side be heard as well’. Disregarding student claims is also contrary to ‘principles of policy’ as laid down in Chapter II of the constitution. Moreover, such threatening regulations and practices per se constitute mala fide intent on part of the institutions.
Researchers suggest that marking accuracy may be more trustworthy in empirical subjects such as mathematics, engineering and natural sciences. However in abstract fields such as arts, humanities and social sciences, the marker reliability is low because it portrays an intuitive judgement of the instructor.
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has long introduced the concept of teachers’ ‘academic freedom’. More recently, the AAUP has suggested policies on marking standards and appeal procedures; applying appeal policies uniformly; and making them available to students.
Reformist academics believe that students in some grade appeals have strong arguments and deserve a better grade than they initially received. Such reformers opine that instructors themselves should also be held accountable for any of their grading mistakes, lack of clarity or oversight.
Norway is a country where most students file appeals on the result of their exams, and they are encouraged to do so. The University of Oslo spent $1.2 million worth of resources in addressing student appeals. No wonder, that it is one of the happiest countries in the world.
Conclusively, there are two systems that dominate the grading processes in higher education across the world:
As appalling examples, the cases of Nadia Ashraf, Tarique Ali Shahani, Parveen Rind, Almas Behan and many more reveal a nexus between bullying, sexual harassment and blackmailing by academics through opaque and discretionary grading and administrative powers. This might be an indictment of the conservative approach or grading system which is fostering predatory and exploitative practices in the higher education system of Pakistan.
He wasn't wrong. If truth be told, academic appeals in our higher education system rarely advance beyond a smiling professor's office.
It is a long-standing tradition in academia, that teachers possess absolute discretion in grade evaluation. It is also a common-law tradition that students who try to seek legal remedies from courts for grade or academic misconduct-related grievances, rarely succeed. This is because judges exercise judicial restraint and refrain from adjudicating on matters which encroach upon the professional judgements and evaluations of subject experts.
Admittedly, there exists a contractual relationship between a student and the institution. This is a contract (quid pro quo) which is created by the admission of the student in the university, the ‘consideration’ for the institution being to receive the tuition fees and in turn ‘obligations’ such as instruction, transparent assessment, adequate facilities, scholastic resources etc. The students as a contracting party with their ‘obligations’ being to pay tuition fees, time, hard work and fulfill the academic requirements for the ultimate ‘consideration’ to achieve a degree. This is precisely why cynics contend that higher education has become a commodity in a capitalist society.
Courts have had varying interpretations in assessing a contractual legal relationship between a student and the university. For example in American in cases such as Baltimore v.Colton (1904) and Goldstein v. NYU (1902) courts recognized the legal nature of the student-university relationship. The Canadian case of Acadia University v Sutcliffe (1978) also noted such a contractual relationship.
However in Pakistan, courts have dismissed academic grievances and refused to consider an educational institution as a legal “person” as held in Anoosha Shaigan v. LUMS (2006), thereby vitiating the institution’s “competency to contract”. Contrastingly, in a New-Zealand case Norrie v. Senate of University of University of Auckland (1984), the court noted: “…there was a compelling argument for the courts’ scrutiny of some university decisions in the light of the fact that they are bodies set up to promote a public purpose (education)...”
Grading is a critical component of pedagogy as it allows both professors and students to determine progress, capabilities, and encourage the need for improvement. Marks are a form of feedback that should initiate a productive and constructive student-teacher discussion. Unfortunately, the process of grading in Pakistan’s higher education is inscrutable. In fact, it discourages student pleas to instructors over the ‘forbidden’ topic of grading.
It is also a common-law tradition that students who try to seek legal remedies from courts for grade or academic misconduct-related grievances, rarely succeed. This is because judges exercise judicial restraint and refrain from adjudicating on matters which encroach upon the professional judgements and evaluations of subject experts.
Law Professor Roberto L. Corrada at the University of Denver recalls that during his student years, when he tried to discuss his exam performance, one of his professors candidly explained: "Look, the exam is of no moment to me. The institution asks me to give an exam and grade it.. the only thing I care about is the law and the learning of it."
However, exams and grades are extremely important to students because these reflect upon their efforts and hard work, and ideally, should not be taken so lightly by the teacher, especially in large class-sizes. Moreover, student grades alongside their learning, can play a crucial role in their long term success, such as competing for postgraduate scholarships or enhancing their career prospects.
Exam performance obfuscation, or worse still, sketchy falsification of grades has detrimental effects on the student careers. Ludicrously, there are academic institutional policies in place which stipulate that a rechecking or recounting appeal by a student could even yield a lower grade, in the quest for a higher one.
Such intimidating policies are in contravention with the ‘due process’ rights enshrined in Article 10A of the constitution of Pakistan. These also contradict the principle of natural justice ‘audi alteram partem’ which is translated as ‘let the other side be heard as well’. Disregarding student claims is also contrary to ‘principles of policy’ as laid down in Chapter II of the constitution. Moreover, such threatening regulations and practices per se constitute mala fide intent on part of the institutions.
Researchers suggest that marking accuracy may be more trustworthy in empirical subjects such as mathematics, engineering and natural sciences. However in abstract fields such as arts, humanities and social sciences, the marker reliability is low because it portrays an intuitive judgement of the instructor.
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has long introduced the concept of teachers’ ‘academic freedom’. More recently, the AAUP has suggested policies on marking standards and appeal procedures; applying appeal policies uniformly; and making them available to students.
Reformist academics believe that students in some grade appeals have strong arguments and deserve a better grade than they initially received. Such reformers opine that instructors themselves should also be held accountable for any of their grading mistakes, lack of clarity or oversight.
Norway is a country where most students file appeals on the result of their exams, and they are encouraged to do so. The University of Oslo spent $1.2 million worth of resources in addressing student appeals. No wonder, that it is one of the happiest countries in the world.
As appalling examples, the cases of Nadia Ashraf, Tarique Ali Shahani, Parveen Rind, Almas Behan and many more reveal a nexus between bullying, sexual harassment and blackmailing by academics through opaque and discretionary grading and administrative powers. This might be an indictment of the conservative approach or grading system which is fostering predatory and exploitative practices in the higher education system of Pakistan.
Conclusively, there are two systems that dominate the grading processes in higher education across the world:
- The rationalist/progressive approach —which encourages objectivity and impartiality. This can be achieved through reliable assessment tools such as pre-determined detailed lecture plans, course outlines, expected learning outcomes, supplementary course materials, marking rubrics and student self-assessment and reviews along with transparent appeals procedures.
- The conservative approach —which encourages despotism in such a way that subject specialists are reliable markers possessing absolute discretion and their credibility or integrity is unquestionable and set in stone, with little or no justiciability in the courts of law.
As appalling examples, the cases of Nadia Ashraf, Tarique Ali Shahani, Parveen Rind, Almas Behan and many more reveal a nexus between bullying, sexual harassment and blackmailing by academics through opaque and discretionary grading and administrative powers. This might be an indictment of the conservative approach or grading system which is fostering predatory and exploitative practices in the higher education system of Pakistan.