
At the beginning of July, Post Courier newspaper ran a story titled “cash for grades” following accusations from a Facebook post that senior IT employees from the University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) accepted cash to change grades. This accusation resulted in UPNG announcing a system wide investigation. Below is an explainer of how the system works, and what to do about it.
- The IT Department
The IT Department itself has no powers to change grades. They enter the grades as approved by the university education board (UEB). If the IT is accused for changing grades, it’s an easy fix. Just check the final grade on the transcript, with the UEB list. If the IT changes grades, it should look different from the UEB approved grades.
Some of the accusations are usually because of a misunderstanding of the process. When the lecturer submits the grades to the UEB for approval, the UEB has the discretion to “chnage the grades.” For instance, if the lecturer allocates more Higher Distinctions (HDs) than allowed the HD of students who are at the bottom of the HD list are replaced with a Distinction (DI) – DI is one grade lower than HD.
It is usual practice for students to go to their lectures and ask what grades they were allocated, and then compare it with the grades on the transcript.
But that is not how the system works. If you wanted to, you’d ask the UEB why they changed the grades. However, this would only work if you got a HD, and the UEB changed it to Credit or Pass. HD to DI is a very minor shift.
The UEB is usually very reluctant to change the grade from Pass to Fail. Actually, they push most students from Fail to Pass to help students.
- Change of grade forms
A change of grade form is when a student appeals his or her grade, and the lecturer reviews the student’s marks and recommends a change of grade. Many argue that this is where the “cash for grades” takes place and not the IT system.
There are existing processes to prevent this potential abuse. For instance, when the student requests remarking, another lecturer from the department re-marks the exam or test paper. This procedure needs to be strengthened. Ensuring that existing processes are effective will help bring credibility back to the university.
- Adobe, online editing etc.
Anyone with internet connection or proper software such as Adobe, a laptop and the know-how, can change the grades on a transcript. In fact, those that are tech savvy offer their services for a fee. This is the real “cash for grades” industry. You can change the grades on a transcript, replace the name on the transcript, and even have a degree without going to university.
Employers: always call the university to conduct a background check on the applicants.
- Inefficiency
Much of the complaints arise from frustration. The transcripts sometimes has the wrong grades (not due to corrupt practices but plain inefficiency either on the part of the lecturer, UEB, or IT). Following up on these discrepancies is usually a very slow and frustrating process. Fire, hire, fire, hire, until the people involved realise that inefficiency is not accepted.
The headache is University wide. Students who have over payments wait for years to get their re-funds, if they ever get it at all.
- Selection process
This is the start of it all: Getting the selection process right.
First year students are selected through an online application process, through an algorithm. It’s technically impossible to cheat an algorithm. The concern arises when universities (not only UPNG) submit a “supplementary list” following the online selection. Supplementary list is a list submitted by each school within the universities where spaces are available after the online selection.
The supplementary list also allow selectors to ensure there’s some sort of balance across the country. This is done by allocating the spaces to students from regions/provinces where no students are selected or have a very low cohort entering the university. Between two competing students with the same grade point average, student from the low representation region/province gets the space.
Many have criticised the supplementary list as its controlled by humans, and is prone to abuse (cash for selection). But it also allows humans to consider factors an algorithm cannot. Way forward would be to have a panel decide the supplementary list instead of few individuals within the schools. A panel consisting of selectors across schools.
- Corruption
In a country ranking very high on the corruption perception index, one can expect the potential for corruption to be pervasive. But for institutions like UPNG, most of the systems are already in place to prevent corruption. It requires proper enforcement.


