Cases relating to studies and examinations
A number of college/university students submitted complaints in regards to decisions made by the higher education institution concerning issues relating to studies and examinations. Most of the complainants contacted the Office as a last resort. Specifically, when they were forced to repeat a term as a result of their application for a postponement of an examination was rejected or if they could not pass the closing examination and obtain a degree at the expected time.
In many cases the Office found that the grievance of the student was not justified and that the higher education institution had acted in line with the relevant rules. It seemed that students did not know or did not know how to interpret the legal regulations.
|
In general, study and examination regulations provide that heads of universities and colleges decide on the basis of fairness on applications concerning the postponements of examinations. Thus the students criticising the rejection of their applications had to be informed that heads of universities and colleges had such discretion. The person exercising fairness within the scope of decision- making based on and in line with the authorisation by law and its procedural rules is free to assess circumstances and can make a discretionary decision on the subject matter of an application. The Office cannot overrule the contents of such decision. (VI/361/2000.)
Likewise, we established that there was no infringement when a higher education institution did not re-admit a student dismissed on account of successive failures in repeating terms. In that case, the study and examination regulations provided that after a period of two years, the individual can be readmitted to the institution but this is not to be conferred as a right to readmission. (VI/37/2000.) |
Some students turned to our Office when they lost the possibility to receive a degree as a result of a measure taken by the higher education institution.
|
Two students complained that their higher education institution did not permit them to submit and defend their already completed theses. In both cases, we found that the institutions concerned had complied with the rules. They did not let the students take the final examinations because they had not attended the necessary number of lectures/tutorials and therefore they could not fulfil the requirements for obtaining a final certificate. (VI/268/2000. VI/293/2000.)
|
In a number of cases, students complained about higher education institutions that required writing language proficiency examinations as a pre-requisite to writing their final examination. In most cases this was due to the lack of information received by students. It seems that it is not generally known that since 1994 not only universities and colleges, but also government regulations may prescribe the holding of foreign language proficiency certificates as a pre-requisite for participating in final examinations. These qualification requirements caused problems for the first time in 2000, as the application of the 1994 statutory provisions came into effect.
It should be noted that the introduction of the obligation of acquiring a foreign language certificate, in itself has not violated the educational rights of students. In two cases, however, it was found that the higher education institution provided incorrect or insufficient information to the students concerning the requirement of a foreign language proficiency certificate. As a result, the institution violated their educational rights. Even in such cases, we could not submit proposals to the higher education institution that it should make exceptions to the provisions of the government decree on the grounds of fairness. But in both cases, we recommended that students be provided with relevant information on language proficiency related requirements and that those concerned should be provided with timely, repeated and salient information on changes of the study related requirements. We also recommended that higher education institutions contribute to the raising of awareness of the requirements specified by law. (VI/273/2000. VI/332/2000.)
In one case the Office was informed of a grave violation of the law.
|
Students claimed that at the end of a written test, the teacher announced that for the sum payable to repeat an examination, i.e.) HUF 2,000, he would promptly enter the mark of '2' (acceptable) in their report booklets. As the teacher did not even bother to review the tests, the students queued up with their booklets and their HUF 2,000. For HUF 3,000, HUF 4,000 and HUF 5,000, the teacher sold marks of '3' (medium), '4' (good) and '5' (excellent), respectively. The head of the institution was called for his position with respect to the case and was asked to take the necessary measures. He was to make sure to prevent the repetition of this violation in the future. The head of the institution corrected the infringement by having the students take supervised examinations and launched disciplinary measure against the teacher. (VI/565/2000.)
|
|
