Exam scores conversion could produce dilettantes<\/p>\n
B. Herry-Priyono, Jakarta<\/p>\n
A recent sluggish Monday morning turned into a mental inferno
\nas my cellular phone was barraged by a series of messages from
\nacquaintances: the statistical conversion of the 2004 national
\nfinal examination results had flattened the "for each according
\nto his\/her own intellectual ability" ethos in education.<\/p>\n
Shocked by what sounded like a rape of intelligence, I was
\nthinking that the fuss might just be a rage in the heat of the
\nmoment.<\/p>\n
But then, when I began inquiring into what the fuss was all
\nabout, I began to see the scale of the absurdity. The public has
\nnever known whether the national final examination (UAN) system
\nwas driven by the noble cause of improving educational standards
\nor by the sheer pursuit of financial gain from organizing a
\nlucrative project as big as the UAN. It seems futile to pin down
\nthe motive, for life always stands on a mixture of various, often
\ncontradictory, motives. Whatever the motive, we have the
\nfollowing absurdity.<\/p>\n
Suppose you are a secondary school student. With or without
\nangst, you have to take the final exam in order to graduate. Now,
\nwith shivering feelings you sit for a math exam. There are 40
\nproblems on the paper you have to answer. Suppose you answer
\ncorrectly 10 out of the 40 problems, or you get 75 percent
\nincorrect.<\/p>\n
According to strict standards, you would get a score as low as
\n2.50 and you would not pass (Kompas, June 15, 2004).
\nBut, as if by a play of magic, some angels working for the
\nMinistry of National Education rescue you. Instead of keeping
\nyour score at 2.50 and failing you, the angels raise it to 4.01
\nand you pass. Bravo! This, of course, is simply one aspect of the
\nabsurdity surrounding the UAN, and the same magic also works for
\nother subjects. How on earth did these angels change your score
\nfrom 2.50 to 4.01? It is here where the problem begins.<\/p>\n
The score difference is statistically taken, at random of
\ncourse, from the high scores obtained by other pupils. As a
\nstudent of social sciences once trained in statistics, I can see
\nthe glee of making a curve more elegant by taking some points
\nfrom one numerical cluster and adding them to another. And if the
\nstatistics involve a public issue as crucial as the UAN, the
\nfinessed curve will be socially more palatable. It will give an
\nimpression that the UAN is a big success.<\/p>\n
But certainly the delight of finessing the curve is beside the
\npoint. In any case, the mandarins at the Ministry of National
\nEducation could not have possibly done the finessing for sheer
\nstatistical delight. Then, for what reason? Bahrul Hayat from the
\nministry admitted the existence of this score conversion and said
\nthat it has been employed since 1995\/1996 to "administer justice
\nin grading students at the national level" (Kompas, June 15,
\n2004).<\/p>\n
What? Justice? Do we mishear? We surely know that there is a
\nyawning gap between the academic abilities of students at wealthy
\nschools and those of their counterparts at poorly equipped
\nschools in remote areas. We accept that this is part of the sorry
\nstate of education in Indonesia. To address the problem by
\nemploying score conversion at the national level, and in the name
\nof justice, is completely amiss. It is not called justice but
\nblunder. The rhetoric of justice being used to justify the
\nconversion sounds lofty, but it is based on a rotten
\nunderstanding of the most fundamental principle of education.<\/p>\n
This time the problem befalls education, but in fact it
\nmirrors what happens so often in many areas. When circumstances
\nin our national life call for the application of a socially
\noriented principle (say, in regulating financial capital for
\nstimulating the real economy), we instead apply a ruthless
\nindividualistic principle. Now, when circumstances call for the
\napplication of a personal-based criteria of evaluation (in
\neducation), we instead employ a tribal\/communal yardstick.<\/p>\n
The public outrage that has erupted is justified. No doubt the
\npublic will never learn the exact reasons for the score
\nconversion. Indeed, the real motives of the mandarins at the
\neducation ministry will remain hidden. But there is no need to
\ndig deep into their motives in order to feel outraged. The crux
\nis clear: it is plainly wrong, illegitimate and unjustified to
\nsteal high scores from high achievers to compensate the low
\nscores of poor achievers. The designers of this ill-fated score
\nconversion may have been inspired by income redistribution in the
\npolitical economy. The latter, however, is a completely different
\nissue.<\/p>\n
As in many gross mistakes, the implications of this ill-fated
\nscore conversion are far-reaching. First and most obvious is that
\nit makes the poor achievers gleeful. But even for those with a
\nnoble concern for the poor, this surely is not what education is
\nfor. As for the high achievers, their laments feel like a pang.
\nThey have earned high scores with hard work. With this bizarre
\nscore conversion, a generation of students has been informed that
\nhard work is not as important as they had been told.<\/p>\n
Second, we do not know yet the extent to which this case has
\ndire implications for individual students. But it is not
\ndifficult to foresee the risks involved for those who aspire to
\npursue further studies. It is not unusual for universities or
\ntertiary institutes to impose minimum grade and score standards
\nfor applicants. This score conversion could be a curse on those
\nwho have to face this requirement.<\/p>\n
Third, it is unpalatable to accept the ill-fated score
\nconversion amid growing calls for competitiveness in the context
\nof globalization. The competitive ethos does not fall from the
\nsky, but needs to be built painstakingly from within all aspects
\nof life. The bizarre score conversion is a way to stultify that
\ntransformation.<\/p>\n
Last, the ill-fated UAN score conversion is like a cultural
\ndeath wish to turn the nation's educational system into a circus.
\nLike those lunatic television programs called Indonesian Idol and
\nAkademi Fantasi Indosiar (AFI), it creates a hysteria for instant
\nsuccess at the expense of the formation of an ethos for substance
\nand hard work. In brief, it is a shortcut to a future Indonesia
\nas a nation of dilettantes.<\/p>\n
The writer is head of the Postgraduate Academic Program at the
\nDriyarkara School of Philosophy, Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/exam-scores-conversion-could-produce-dilettantes-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}