Embedded Files
If the majority of students failed in a language test, the possibilities were:
(1) students were really very bad at that language and performed poorly in the test*;
OR
(2) the passing standard was set unrealistically high that any reasonable student could not pass.
If (1) is true, I am afraid there is nothing or too much the university can do, as language education is supposed to start from elementary schools. But if (2) is true, then the question is why? The test in question was to decide who can be exempted from taking a course that was "compulsory" to all students. So, more students pass, fewer will need to take that course. Then, what difference would it make if 2000 students took that course or just 200 students took it? Who would benefit?
By the way, all students should know history, then why didn't the university make a History course compulsory? Even basic physics should be good for everyone. Why can't Physics be a compulsory course too? How much resource would go to a department or teaching centre if a course it teaches is compulsory to all students?
The reality is that universities do have politics and departments compete for resources, and students with least bargaining power are often made the scapegoats!
January 2018
________________________
*"Baptist University students should go back to primary school" -- Alex Lo, South China Morning Post Comments (Jan 26, 2018)
Note: Mr Lo probably did not understand how universities work. He found the test paper easy, and jumped immediately to the conclusion that students failed because they were very bad at putonghua. Precisely, if the paper was so easy, why would 70% of students fail? Why would the teaching centre want to ensure so few students could get exempted from taking their course? No department heads want to keep their staff busy for nothing!
Google Sites
Report abuse