This Tuesday the student council was a guest at the Chair of Production Metrology and Quality Management at the Laboratory for Machine Tools and Production Engineering. Professor Schmitt’s invitation was in response to your criticism and displeasure about the module Fundamentals of Electrical Engineering for Mechatronic Systems (GEMS). Among other things, the unexpected change in the focus of the exam, the evaluation process, the supervision of the exercises and homework, but also the behaviour of some students, especially in the social media, were the subject of the discussion.
We would like to thank Professor Schmitt. It is not a given that the student council will be actively invited to participate in any module in the event of criticism. We agree that teaching and examination must be competence-oriented. The demands on students must not be lowered despite the special challenges of the Corona Semester.
However, there was also disagreement on relevant points. In our view, parts of the examination, despite their unusual form, are an answer-choice procedure (“multiple choice”). The change in the focus of the exam was justified by the publication of the old exam, for which a completely “disjunctive” exam had to be set. We did not think this was necessary because there was no good reason to do so and this very publication contributed to the confusion. Any insinuations by the department that the publication of the exam was at the insistence of students are incorrect and led to unjustified blame. We also explained that the teaching did not prepare sufficiently for the exam due to the short-term restructuring of the exam.
At this point, we would like to remind all students once again of their right to receive a copy of their exam: https://www.asta.rwth-aachen.de/einsichtnahmen-aber-richtig/ (cf. §22 (3) ÜPO)
We have pointed out to the chair that the review of the exam should not only be used to check the accuracy of the correction. Students must be able to learn from their mistakes, so that either a sample solution must be provided or the correct solution must be explained. The Chair has promised to pay more attention to this. We recommend that you read the handout “Einsichtnahme” (fsmb.eu/handreichung_einsicht) yourself.
We have pointed this out to the Chair and agree with it that its statements should in no way give the impression that it is morally reprehensible for students to demand their rights.
Unfortunately, some students have made it difficult for us to communicate with the Chair through their statements. Even professors and assistants are only human and deserve to be treated with respect. Polemical and impertinent statements by individual students – even more anonymously – damage the reputation of all students and make it difficult for us to represent your interests. We condemn this behaviour!
We look forward to discussing the feedback from the evaluations and possible improvements of the module in future meetings with the Chair.
If you have any further questions, please send us an email to email@example.com.