Improve online selection system

Editorial

WHILE the introduction of the electronic selection of grade 12 leavers into Government-funded tertiary institutions is good news, it seems there is still more room for improvement.
The developments should cater for all institutions’ requirements to address what has happened at the University of Papua New Guinea.
The electronic selection was used for the first time last year to improve transparency, accountability and efficiency in the selection process.
It was noted that the previous process had high instances of dubious means of selecting students to high institutions.
Some students were being selected through nepotism, through wantoks and they rode into the system on that.
The online selection was also to increase the probability of capable and eligible school-leavers being admitted while ensuring institutions’ autonomy in the selection process is maintained.
UPNG has come out to say while they welcome the electronic process they need to know how the programme was written and how is it selecting?
They make reference to four points used in the manual selection – selection criteria for each programme; the quota for each programme; the grade 12 results; and the school leaver forms.
The above is what UPNG based its check and balance on – school leaver forms resulting in 126 students finding themselves not on the university list despite being selected on the DHERST (Department of Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology) list.
With the online selection, UPNG was asked to input two things – criteria for programme and the quota.
So, was the online selection process trialed out with live data prior to it being approved for use?
UPNG says they respect the right of choice for students on where they want to study, hence they took into consideration the selections on the school leaver form.
If this is what UPNG has done, then the authority of selecting students into tertiary institutions must be clearly spelt out so the stuents know who is responsible for the selection going forward.
Has that responsibility being taken away from the institutions and given to DHERST?
UPNG says the selection of candidates for various programmes is an academic qualification and must be carried out by the respective schools.
Which brings in the question of open commutation. Prior to DHERST publishing its selected candidates, was there consultation between them and the higher education institution so everyone is on the same understanding?
Universities should have been advised that there are students selected to study there based on the third option on the school leaver form so they are accommodated into system.
This will save the unnecessary stress and embarrassment on the student and their families in the case of UPNG.
DHERST on its website says through this inaugural process, a number of issues have been identified by selectors and the DHERST.
It is now committed to improving the Online Selections System for the next round of national selections.
The software must be tested, there should be a trial run and there must be sufficient time to train the people who are going to use the software.
This now calls for open dialogue and communication between all relevant stakeholders so there are no problems next year.