Johannesburg - The Public Protector’s office has upheld Wits University’s decision not to readmit four medical students who failed to obtain minimum marks allowing them to progress to the next year of study.
The office of the Public Protector said it had no competency to interfere with the university’s statutory arrangements and any attempt to do so would amount to rewriting the legislation, something they may not do.
This comes after a woman complained to the Public Protector’s office in May 2019 that Wits had unfairly excluded her son and three other students from readmission to Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBCh) programmes.
The woman took on the case on behalf of her son as well as three other students.
She claimed the students had been prejudiced by the implementation of the Standard Setting Tool by the university, She stated that, according to the Wits University’s Faculty of Health Sciences handbook, the pass mark for MBBCh degree was 60% from the third year of study.
“She alleged that the affected students achieved between 59% and 63% respectively. She also stated that the marks allocated to students were not raw, but calibrated.
“Also that the marking process used was a pilot project which the Faculty of Health Sciences was trying to implement as its Standard Setting Tool managed through the Cohen 60 system.
“According to her, Cohen 60 uses the top achievers of the class (95%) to work out what the average student should achieve. The use of the system was as a result of a thesis that was done by a certain Professor Schoeman in 2015.”
The Public Protector’s office said investigations revealed the Cohen 60 system applied to all medical students as implemented by the university, with some students passing and others failing the examination.
It was found that the complainant’s son had failed his second year, repeated it and passed. In 2018, he registered for his third year and obtained 59%. Wits then informed him he failed his third year and was therefore excluded from re-registering for his third year for the same medical programme in 2019.
“There is no evidence to suggest that this system (Cohen 60) differentiated between students or categories of students based on any of the prohibited or listed grounds.
“There can be no question of other forms of discrimination in this particular instance since Cohen 60 assessment method applied to all students indiscriminately.
“It is noted that while professional and oversight bodies set minimum standards in line with their accreditation criteria, which all institutions are required to comply with, each institution of higher learning is statutorily permitted to make and implement its own minimum requirements and standards, in connection with the studies, instruction and examinations of students and research, in concurrence with the Senate of that institution.
“To this end, the Public Protector submits that institutions of higher learning are legally empowered to make their own determination on further rigours and standards that need to be met, and make their own choices of assessment methods to be used.
“The Public Protector is not competent to interfere with this statutory arrangement and any attempt to do so will amount to rewriting the legislation which this office may not do.
“This is a legislatively protected autonomy enjoyed by all public institutions of higher learning. In the circumstances, the purported intervention by my office into this space, would be deemed ultra-vires, unlawful and subject to a possible review.
“The investigation has been closed,” the office said.
IOL