EXAMINATION “LEAKAGE”

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27226, 18 December 1953, Page 10

EXAMINATION “LEAKAGE”

MEDICAL PAPER SET LAST MONTH “QUITE UNCONFIRMED SUSPICION ” (New Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, Dec. 17. There was no leakage of the contents of the written obstetrics and gynaecological paper set for final-year New Zealand medical • students last month. This statement was made in Auckland today by Dr. E. G. Sayers, sub-dean of the Auckland branch faculty of the Medical School, and Dr. T. R. Plunkett, external examiner. The joint statement says: “At the recent final examinations held in Dunedin for the degrees of M. 8., Chß., complaints were made to the vicechancellor of Otago University by some unknown student or students that there had been a leakage of information in Auckland regarding the questions in the paper on obstetrics and gynaecology. Because of this quite unconfirmed suspicion, the students were required to sit another paper in this subject. “In fairness to the lecturers and staff of the Cornwall Hospital, it is felt that a statement should be made of the relevant facts.

“On October 23, when Dr. Sayers returned from Sydney, he was informed by a senior student that he thought there had been some leakage of information regarding the paper in obstetrics and gynaecology. He said that a member of the visiting staff at Cornwall had been overheard discussing the paper with a registrar, and that the questions discussed might have been passed on to the students. “The sub-dean communicated immediately with Dr. Plunkett. It seemed most unlikely that any leakage could have occurred -because: “It seemed inconceivable that a responsible member of the visiting staff would ever discuss an examination paper with anybody. “Dr. Plunkett had scrupulously observed the traditional methods of dealing with examination papers laid down by the New Zealand University. He himself opened the sealed envelope on its arrival, signed the examination paper, resealed it, and sent it to Dunedin. At no time had he discussed the questions in the paper with anybody. “The rumoured questions were not among the questions in the paper. “No Grounds for Suspicion” “In view of this, it was decided that no leakage had in fact occurred. The following week Professor J. L. Wright came to Auckland to conduct the clinical examination in obstetrics and gynaecology, and the matter was discussed with him by Dr. Plunkett. He agreed that there were no grounds for suspicion. At no time either in Auckland or in Dunedin was the matter discussed with Professor Wright by the sub-dean. “‘On November 28, while at the airways office in Dunedin before returning to Auckland, after examining fourth-year students in their second professional examination, the sub-dean was informed by Sir Charles Hercus that that morning students had approached the vice-chancellor and told him of a leakage in the O. and G.’ paper. The sub-dean told Sir Charles Hercus of what had happened in Auckland in October. It was agreed in a brief and hurried discussion that if after investigation there were any real grounds for suspicion, it would be wise to set another paper. This was done. “Investigations since the examination show without question that the conversation about an examination paper heard at Cornwall Hospital related to a J’aper set in London for the M.R.C.O.G. examination some months earlier. The questions in the paper had been sefft out by a former registrar of the hospital as a matter of interest. Neither of the doctors concerned had any knowledge of the Dunedin paper. “Moreover, the resident doctor who overheard the conversation about the London examination paper, and mistakenly assumed that it concerned the Dunedin paper, has since admitted that he was entirely in error. “It has also been stated in the press that Dr. Plunkett, in a lecture to students, had suggested that certain subjects discussed would be likely examination Subjects. Dr. Plunkett denies this, and there is no truth whatever in the statement. This has been confirmed by an accredited representative of the Auckland students. “It would appear, therefore, that there is no evidence to support any leakage of information. This statement is not meant in any wav to imply criticism of the dean and Otago University authorities in ordering a second examination. They were laced with having to make a quick decision with very inadequate evidence, and, in the light of the suspicion among certain students, there was no option but to set another paper.”