A working group is set to discuss the possibility of changing undergraduate papers from 18 to 15 points (as well as semester weeks). The group includes senior University staff, several academics from different divisions, and Academic Rep Stella Lynch. They’re set to meet on March 31st and report their findings back to Senate at either the April or May meeting.
The paper explaining the possibility of change went to Senate last year. Stella explained to Critic Te Ārohi that there seem to be three main points ‘for’ the change. The first is attempting to even out student workload across the semesters – students would take 4 papers per semester to make up the points they need for the year. The second is allowing students to choose a broader selection of papers to contribute toward their degree (students would take 24 papers instead of 20), and the final point suggests easing the process for students who wish to change between Otago and other universities in New Zealand.
Speaking to the first point about evening out workload, Stella explained she didn’t feel this would actually be all that beneficial for students. The 18-point paper model allows students to take seven papers every year and still get a degree out of it. “This is a good thing for student-athletes and students who may fail a paper,” she told Critic.
A 15-point system would require students to take eight per year – an extra four papers to complete their degree. Stella used the example of her own Ecology degree to illustrate the importance of this. “I failed STAT210 in my second year, which is a major requirement paper for ecology. Because of the uneven workload, the 18-point system, and only taking three papers in one semester, I could retake that paper in my third year.” Stella wants to make it clear that taking seven papers gives students leeway if they fail a paper. You can retake things and not add time to your study in most instances. “I wasn’t gonna be pushed a semester behind. I could graduate with my cohort.”
On the second point about a broader selection of papers for students to complete during their study, Stella also had her concerns. Firstly, she wondered about how departments would go about reducing their papers down three points. “It’s a huge piece of work. To do it right, each department has to go through and stocktake the content in each paper and then figure out what is worth keeping [to reduce the three points].”
Furthermore, she explained that “it’s been signalled by the University several times now that our paper offerings are not going to increase [...] At the moment, it’s generally a one-in-one-out rule.” The University was trying to streamline their paper selection through this. “If you’re asking students to take four more papers to finish their degree, they’re not actually going to be able to take them from their programme of study.” She provided the example of how senior History students struggle to fill their degree with 300-level History papers. “You’re asking students to take more papers from a shrinking pool of papers.” The ramifications of this may be more timetable clashes and more admin for the Uni to handle. “I don’t think we’ve thought about the consequences of this – at all.”
On the point that transfer of credit may be made easier, Stella expressed that she had not heard of students complaining that the process was too difficult as it was already. “It’s not impossible,” she affirmed, expressing a general sentiment that “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.”
There is also an outlying issue about paper costs. In theory, she explained you’d be paying for 360 points’ worth of content for completion of your degree under the 15-point model. “But you’d be doing twenty-four papers instead of twenty, so there’s more administrative costs to front up. I don’t understand how we’re going to be paying the same amount – or at least, I’ve got no confidence that if costs go up, it’s not a direct result of moving to a 15-point paper model.”
“I don’t think we’ll be moving to a 15-point paper model,” Stella said. “Pigs might fly before we do that.” She explained that while this is a conversation that may be had again in ten years, she felt there was little academic or student appetite for the potential shift. “I intend to go [into the working group] and just nip it in the bud.”
Stella doesn’t seem to be alone in her thoughts. This was the first time that four out of five student representatives in Senate had spoken up about a particular issue, and reportedly the first time the UOPISA President had spoken on an issue in Senate. “It’s quite big, [because Senate] is a really scary room to be in. It’s in the Clocktower Council Chambers – a massive meeting. People who are head of department, heads of division. And you’ve got to go in there and represent students.”
When Critic Te Ārohi approached the University with a long and detailed email with Stella’s comments and concerns (emphasis on the latter), the response was a short and to-the-point answer: “It was agreed at that meeting that a review be undertaken to consider different alternative point values for undergraduate papers. A working group has since been established to undertake the review and has been consulting with students and staff [...] No decisions have yet been made.” Sit tight, ig.