The list of ‘top’ students is not credible
Feb 16, 2009
EDITOR—Since the release of the 2008 PLE and O’ level examination results there has been a spate of false publications of lists of top schools and top students in the press. However, your February 8, Sunday Vision lead article entiled “Top 100
EDITOR—Since the release of the 2008 PLE and O’ level examination results there has been a spate of false publications of lists of top schools and top students in the press. However, your February 8, Sunday Vision lead article entiled “Top 100
O’level students named†cannot pass unchallenged. Now that A’level results are about to be released, readers should not be taken for a ride.
Why were students who scored aggregate 9 and 10 listed before exhausting those who scored aggregate 8? One of the “traditional†schools had 15 students who scored aggregate 8 (the school’s results are still pinned up on their notice board) but The new Vision only listed two of them! There are many more that scored aggregate 9 but never made it to your list. Instead you listed those who scored aggregate 10. Another glaring omission is of one Amanda Gowa with aggregate 8. She appeared on the front page of your previous Sunday Vision edition being hugged by her mother. This time round she did not make it to the list.What is the motive of publishing lists of ‘top’ schools and ‘top’ students anyway, after UNEB had declined to do so? I only hope that the publication of those false lists is not deliberate to gain mileage over competitors. Remember, the records you publish today make up tomorrow’s history!
J. M. N. Kisolo
Kampala
Ed: The omission is a result of some schools declining to provide complete lists of the results. Any inconveniences caused are highly regretted
O’level students named†cannot pass unchallenged. Now that A’level results are about to be released, readers should not be taken for a ride.
Why were students who scored aggregate 9 and 10 listed before exhausting those who scored aggregate 8? One of the “traditional†schools had 15 students who scored aggregate 8 (the school’s results are still pinned up on their notice board) but The new Vision only listed two of them! There are many more that scored aggregate 9 but never made it to your list. Instead you listed those who scored aggregate 10. Another glaring omission is of one Amanda Gowa with aggregate 8. She appeared on the front page of your previous Sunday Vision edition being hugged by her mother. This time round she did not make it to the list.What is the motive of publishing lists of ‘top’ schools and ‘top’ students anyway, after UNEB had declined to do so? I only hope that the publication of those false lists is not deliberate to gain mileage over competitors. Remember, the records you publish today make up tomorrow’s history!
J. M. N. Kisolo
Kampala
Ed: The omission is a result of some schools declining to provide complete lists of the results. Any inconveniences caused are highly regretted