My daughter is depressed and thinking of self harm because of a recent decision by SUSS. Before the university have blood on their hands, I would like the public to know what is happening in SUSS, and to seek advice as to how to help her. My family is just an average Singapore family with no connections to big shots in the university, and no avenues of help.
The SUSS talks about compassion, and empathy. But does the university management truly believe in such values, or are they just hypocrites making students harm themselves because of their own academic & administrative failures and lack of compassion? Do the examiners and lecturers truly know what they are teaching, and read the answers for questions or are they simply letting tools like Examena and Turnitin determine the fate of a child's life?
So why is SUSS itself using automated, and imperfect tools like Examena and Turnitin if they believe that nobody should be using automated tools? Is the unmitigated use and overdependence of such tools by SUSS examiners themselves a sign that the lecturers are not well qualified, or have no time to read answers and to respond individually to each student in an original manner to help students learn? If examiners themselves failed to be original, how do they expect their students to be original? And why can't SUSS provide students with Turnitin to check for plagiarism before they hand in exam answers (only for assignments)? Is any tool perfect, let alone untested examination platforms such as Examena? Turnitin itself is imperfect.
In our kids' era, they need to learn how to use research tools properly. In SUSS, instead of teaching students how to use search tools, and AI tools and to learn how to paraphrase and be original in answers, the students are repeatedly asked: "Why did you use AI tools"? before failing them in assignments and exams. Are they focused on helping students to be original thinkers and to write in their own words or are they simply terminating a child's life and dreams by terminating their education because "educators" themselves failed to understand the importance of teaching students how to correctly use tools for research? Isn't this an integral part of education?
Especially for those who started taking SUSS courses during Covid, they were very strongly encouraged to use online resources. But there was no in depth training on how to use such tools correctly. For those who are working adults, their work and family commitments means they may be less careful about paraphrasing and plagiarism. Isn't this an opportunity to educate for SUSS, to help such students become better? Or are they just interested to make money from course fees, and terminating them unfairly? Wouldn't getting students to pay for an extra course to learn proper research techniques and to avoid plagiarism be more pragmatic than kicking them out of the education system totally? Such lack of pragmatism and compassion by SUSS is reflective of the management of the university.
Take the example of a student whose assignments are sometimes top in class, but mostly average. A few times she, for whatever reasons failed to provide proper citations or references, failed to paraphrase properly (due to the imperfections of search and AI tools or lack of English proficiency on the student's part), or were falsely flagged for plagiarism because of common English phrases and frequently used sentences (an overdependence on Turnitin by SUSS) . Except for a single question, this student correctly answered all questions in an exam without plagiarism. Should she fail the entire paper because of problematic answers in one question? Should she get only zero for this question and not the entire paper? Should she get partial marks acknowledging she still got parts of the question correct and without plagiarism? No, SUSS thinks she should be terminated and be kicked out from SUSS. Did SUSS show the student what went wrong, and how to improve? No, SUSS just thinks the students can learn by themselves how to get things done correctly as long as you hang a noose of failure around their necks.
So what did the student pay the course fees to SUSS for? What did the taxpayers pay to set up this university for? Is SUSS expecting students to be linguistic experts such as the dean? Or is SUSS able to help maximize the potential of each child by showing compassion, and truly helping each child to succeed. Singapore needs young Singaporeans to be educated in order to contribute to our socioeconomic progress.
Singapore taxpayers did not fund high handed SUSS examination administrators and heads of programmes to take Power Trips when they "interview" students for plagiarism and bully them into depression. No student can be prepared well enough for such unfair, strongly-voiced, one-sided inquisition. What's even the purpose for such "interviews" if examiners and exam administrators do not show compassion to find out how best to help each child to correct their specific mistakes, or to understand the unique perspectives and circumstances that led to their seemingly repeated mistakes. It is so easy to earn a salary just by referring to automated/imperfect software tools as the final judge of a student's commitment to education.
The SUSS has been built with taxpayers' money to educate. Taxpayers did not fund Power Trips, or the laziness of lecturers to educate. Taxpayers did not fund SUSS to make students depressed and to harm themselves.
Every Singapore child deserves a chance to maximize their potential, not to have their potential terminated because of high handed decision makers. And if something happens to my child, I will make it my life's commitment to right the wrong from the high handed decision makers, even though my family is not rich or powerful. I believe average Singaporeans like my family deserves a chance in life and fairness.
The SUSS talks about compassion, and empathy. But does the university management truly believe in such values, or are they just hypocrites making students harm themselves because of their own academic & administrative failures and lack of compassion? Do the examiners and lecturers truly know what they are teaching, and read the answers for questions or are they simply letting tools like Examena and Turnitin determine the fate of a child's life?
So why is SUSS itself using automated, and imperfect tools like Examena and Turnitin if they believe that nobody should be using automated tools? Is the unmitigated use and overdependence of such tools by SUSS examiners themselves a sign that the lecturers are not well qualified, or have no time to read answers and to respond individually to each student in an original manner to help students learn? If examiners themselves failed to be original, how do they expect their students to be original? And why can't SUSS provide students with Turnitin to check for plagiarism before they hand in exam answers (only for assignments)? Is any tool perfect, let alone untested examination platforms such as Examena? Turnitin itself is imperfect.
In our kids' era, they need to learn how to use research tools properly. In SUSS, instead of teaching students how to use search tools, and AI tools and to learn how to paraphrase and be original in answers, the students are repeatedly asked: "Why did you use AI tools"? before failing them in assignments and exams. Are they focused on helping students to be original thinkers and to write in their own words or are they simply terminating a child's life and dreams by terminating their education because "educators" themselves failed to understand the importance of teaching students how to correctly use tools for research? Isn't this an integral part of education?
Especially for those who started taking SUSS courses during Covid, they were very strongly encouraged to use online resources. But there was no in depth training on how to use such tools correctly. For those who are working adults, their work and family commitments means they may be less careful about paraphrasing and plagiarism. Isn't this an opportunity to educate for SUSS, to help such students become better? Or are they just interested to make money from course fees, and terminating them unfairly? Wouldn't getting students to pay for an extra course to learn proper research techniques and to avoid plagiarism be more pragmatic than kicking them out of the education system totally? Such lack of pragmatism and compassion by SUSS is reflective of the management of the university.
Take the example of a student whose assignments are sometimes top in class, but mostly average. A few times she, for whatever reasons failed to provide proper citations or references, failed to paraphrase properly (due to the imperfections of search and AI tools or lack of English proficiency on the student's part), or were falsely flagged for plagiarism because of common English phrases and frequently used sentences (an overdependence on Turnitin by SUSS) . Except for a single question, this student correctly answered all questions in an exam without plagiarism. Should she fail the entire paper because of problematic answers in one question? Should she get only zero for this question and not the entire paper? Should she get partial marks acknowledging she still got parts of the question correct and without plagiarism? No, SUSS thinks she should be terminated and be kicked out from SUSS. Did SUSS show the student what went wrong, and how to improve? No, SUSS just thinks the students can learn by themselves how to get things done correctly as long as you hang a noose of failure around their necks.
So what did the student pay the course fees to SUSS for? What did the taxpayers pay to set up this university for? Is SUSS expecting students to be linguistic experts such as the dean? Or is SUSS able to help maximize the potential of each child by showing compassion, and truly helping each child to succeed. Singapore needs young Singaporeans to be educated in order to contribute to our socioeconomic progress.
Singapore taxpayers did not fund high handed SUSS examination administrators and heads of programmes to take Power Trips when they "interview" students for plagiarism and bully them into depression. No student can be prepared well enough for such unfair, strongly-voiced, one-sided inquisition. What's even the purpose for such "interviews" if examiners and exam administrators do not show compassion to find out how best to help each child to correct their specific mistakes, or to understand the unique perspectives and circumstances that led to their seemingly repeated mistakes. It is so easy to earn a salary just by referring to automated/imperfect software tools as the final judge of a student's commitment to education.
The SUSS has been built with taxpayers' money to educate. Taxpayers did not fund Power Trips, or the laziness of lecturers to educate. Taxpayers did not fund SUSS to make students depressed and to harm themselves.
Every Singapore child deserves a chance to maximize their potential, not to have their potential terminated because of high handed decision makers. And if something happens to my child, I will make it my life's commitment to right the wrong from the high handed decision makers, even though my family is not rich or powerful. I believe average Singaporeans like my family deserves a chance in life and fairness.
