I refer to the unsigned letter attributed to University of Malta BSc ICT (Hons) Year 3 Students (TMIS, 4 October).

Students within the Faculty of ICT have a constituted student representative body, the ICT Student Association (ICTSA), which has always represented student interests in a very professional manner, and has elicited replies and actions on various issues.

Faculty timetables are always worked out according to set and agreed programmes of study. These are approved by the Faculty Board, which includes two student representatives, and by the University Senate. In this particular case, the “unbalanced” timetable referred to was discussed and the differences were minimised, in agreement with the student representatives present at the meeting. It should be noted that it is the students themselves who choose their elective units. Clearly, if students opt to choose all their electives in one semester, then they themselves are the cause of any imbalance.

Specific assignment deadline issues have already been raised in previous communications, and a comprehensive and fully justified reply was sent to ICTSA on 30 March 2009.

If student complaints are sometimes not replied to at once, it is due to the seriousness we attribute to the points of view of both student and lecturer. For this reason, complaints cannot be processed in a superficial manner. The Faculty issues a reply after having heard all stakeholders and after having given due and adequate consideration to all involved.

In this isolated case regarding the revision of an exam paper, the student in question requested a revision of the paper on 6 August 2009 and received a reply on 1 September. It is correct to say that this reply came only a short while before the start of the re-sit exam (the student could have chosen a compensated pass or to re-sit the exam). However, there are two very important factors that were not taken into account by the writers: the lecturer concerned was taken seriously ill during this period. Moreover, according to the latest collective agreement, all lecturers are on official vacation during the entire month of August – it is their legal right. Notwithstanding these facts, the lecturer did respond during the period of his vacation, despite being so unwell.

The statement that exam results were published only two weeks before the start of the re-sit exam session is simply unfounded and untrue. Results for the semester 2 exams were published over 21 and 22 July. There was one result that remained unpublished due to pending plagiarism hearings. The rest were published as stated.

The re-sit exam results were actually published on 28 and 29 September. The number of students and the routine processing involved in marking, submitting, processing, having Faculty Board review and confirm, and finalisation/publication of results, contribute to the necessary time interval between the end of the re-sit session and the publication of results.

The last and most serious issue mentioned regarding lecturer absenteeism was brought up at an initial meeting with ICTSA. It was made abundantly clear that no action, apart from general warnings, can be taken unless the actual names of lecturers are provided to the Dean, strictly on a confidential basis. To date, no names have been provided.

The Faculty would have liked nothing better than to clarify these issues through the students’ own representative body, or even directly with the students concerned, as has happened in the past.

Dr Ernest Cachia

Dean

Faculty of ICT

University of Malta