ANXIOUS’ MARK
...House Speaker threatens to sue ‘Express’, University officials explain why House Speaker received EMBA exam concessions
By Denyse Renne denyse.renne@trinidadexpress.com
Story Created: Nov 27, 2013 at 10:56 PM ECT
Story Updated: Nov 28, 2013 at 8:38 AM ECT
House Speaker Wade Mark was allowed to sit in a room by himself to complete his final Executive Masters of Business Administration (EMBA) degree exam because he may have been anxious.
This was the explanation given yesterday by University of the West Indies (UWI) Principal Prof Clement Sankat, executive director of the Arthur Lok Jack Graduate School of Business (GSB) Miguel Carrillo and Dean of the Faculty of Social Science, Errol Sims.
The three officials were interviewed yesterday by the Express at GSB’s Mt Hope offices at their request.
In seeking to clear the air on the circumstances surrounding Mark’s graduation, the trio admitted that Mark was granted two concessions, having failed the Management Accounting course twice in the past. When Mark took the final exam, according to a document obtained by the Express, he topped the class.
The Express asked whether Mark was granted any concessions by the school.
Carrillo responded: “One of the most important parts of being a student-centred institution which we are in the West Indies is that we will help the students, it doesn’t matter who they are, to be successful academically. We will support them and whenever we have a student who is actually taking the last course to graduate, those are in special circumstances where we, as they request, we might consider some concessions and those concessions are nothing special and are things that happen regularly in the UWI system.”
The Express queried exactly what were the concessions afforded to Mark.
Carrillo: “Basically we are talking about a special sitting. It’s that he requested to sit by himself and not with the other cohorts for the final exam. It was requested and approved. The student (Mark) didn’t have to come to class, however. He requested tutoring which is a normal practice in the UWI based on particular circumstances of the student and it was difficult for him to attend class.”
Carrillo added that the final examination administered to Mark was “properly invigilated by UWI and not the Arthur Lok Jack School.
“It was a regular examination. The others (students) were writing the exam at the same time. It wasn’t like we set a special exam for Mr Mark, others were doing the exam at the same time.”
Sankat explained as well that UWI also made such concessions for its students.
“They may have time constraints and they appeal to UWI, we listen and set exams for one person,” he said. Sankat said such concessions are made for students who may attend a funeral or whose “father or mother may have died”.
What was Mark’s reason for wanting to be in a room by himself?” the Express asked.
Carrillo: “There was no particular excuse, he just requested that and we passed that request along. But we have to understand he was sitting down alone with a lot of people he didn’t know and the other part, most important, is the kind of pressure, because it’s his last opportunity to pass and to graduate”.
Sims said: “It could very well have been anxiety. It was his final attempt. If he had failed the exam, he would be gone.
Sankat: “It got to him…anxiety.”
Carrillo: “Anxiety.”
Sims said the heads of departments and boards normally dealt with such requests and in the past there have been lots of cases where special exams have occurred but in Mark’s case, this was not the case.
The Dean explained that the examination consisted of two parts, the more critical being “ownership of the exam and the outcome is the written final exam. This is rated much more heavily than the course work”.
“The final exam is administered by the university in a written form, except in the case with persons with handicaps and so forth. But in written form it is invigilated by the university (UWI),” he said.
On the controversial issue of whether Mark was exempt from course work, Sims said with the course work there is greater flexibility whereby it is essentially the responsibility of the first examiner. He said the course work can take many forms which consist of group, individual or a combination of both.
Mark, however, was excluded from this and given an oral examination instead, according to Carrillo.
“Yes, he was, but it was part of the course work and the written final exam. Oral exams consist of questions that will reflect the general understanding of the concepts of the student,” Carrillo said.
Asked about the framework of such questions, Carrillo said: “We don’t have a framework on what the oral exam should consist of, it depends a lot on the nature of the course and perspective of the examiner so there is not necessary a standard.”
Sims said this was Mark’s third attempt at course work in the Accounting Management course and the oral was administered to him for a reason. He added that in the past, Mark had completed the other course work required.
He said the school had documentary evidence to show where a lecturer as required by university regulations essentially refused to carry out the instructions of the director to set the course work exam.
“The academic programme director who also has overall responsibility for the student also did not carry out his responsibility to see that the student is given the opportunity to do his course work. The regulations require that the gentleman (Mark) should be given his course work before his final exam.
“These two gentlemen..... for whatever reason contrived not to carry out the instructions of giving this man (Mark) his course work assignment,” Sims said.
Asked why they would do this , Carrillo said he did not know.
Carrillo was also asked to explain e-mails sent to Mark requesting that he contact him urgently and also what was the “wrong which needed to be made right” as stated in an e-mail Ghent sent him last Wednesday.
Carrillo said: “I wanted to let him know the programme director was raising questions for his course work and let the student know he complied with all the requirements.”
That e-mail to Mark had stated: “I would like you to contact me urgently on a matter that has arisen at the business school. We would also like to have a private and confidential email address and a physical address that we can use to send you a formal letter.”
The Express observed that the concerns, according to the e-mail exchanges were raised from July to August about Mark’s course work, so why was there need to contact Mark one month later.
Carrillo responded: “Because the programme director only communicated that to me on November 11 in an e-mail which is not published. Three hours after I replied that all course work will be available to him.”
Adding that all senior staff members once authorised have access to course work marks, Carrillo said he could not explain why checks done by Brian Ghent turned up none.
On November 13, programme director Brian Ghent submitted his resignation letter to academic director Ron Sookram.
His letter stated: “In keeping with several discussions we had, I believe it is important that I record here my deepest concern with the circumstances surrounding the award of the EMBA degree to Mr Wade Mark, as well as, the subsequent responses to me since I raised the matter.”
Sources said that Ghent’s resignation came on the heels of e-mails between senior officials at the GSB suggesting that Mark did not fulfill all the requirements for his EMBA degree.
The e-mails suggest that concessions were made by the graduate school to accommodate Mark and in some cases stated that Mark did not complete several core course works which would have enabled him to graduate.
Mark has denied that he did not complete his course work.