Editor’s note: As of Dec. 17, this article has been updated to include comment from John Rogers.

Several engineering students have alleged that Carleton professor John Rogers used out-of-course material for a recent electronics midterm exam to cut student numbers in his class.

The ELEC 3509 course, titled “Electronics II,” is the second in a series of mandatory courses for electrical engineering students at Carleton.

According to the course website, data listing students’ grades from 2011-13 showed more than half the class failed their midterm exam in the years Rogers had previously taught the class.

At least 20 students from this year’s class came forward and told the Charlatan that Rogers made unsolicited comments prior to the Oct. 29 exam in his class, stating Rogers told the class he planned on intentionally failing students because the class size was larger than previous years.

Beth Gorham, Carleton’s media relations officer, said the university followed up on these concerns by investigating into the matter.

“There were discussions that took place with the professor and it was determined that there were a couple of things that needed to happen to make sure that the students were to be evaluated fairly,” Gorham said.

“I can tell you that the dean definitely took steps to ensure that the final exam would reflect the material covered in the course.”

Niall Tait, the electronics department chair, said he individually met with students earlier this month after they raised concerns about their grading on the exam.

“We engaged in a bit more detailed discussion of the midterm exam and why it was perceived to be unfair,” Tait said in an email. “One suggestion clearly was to talk to Professor Rogers regarding his comments in class.”

Tait added he met with Rogers later that week to inquire about the comments he made in class.

“Rogers indicated he was trying to ensure students who were performing poorly in the course were aware of this and had opportunity to take action to improve,” he said.

“I asked him to keep his comments brief and to the point, and to consider how students might perceive them.”

But, Tait said he thought the exam—worth 15 per cent of students’ final grade—“did not look unreasonable.”

“This is a challenging course,” he said. “Rogers is committed to instilling an appropriate depth of knowledge and understanding in our graduates.

“I hope with some tempering of his in-class remarks and a collaborative review of his exams, we can ensure that this course continues to meet the needs of our students and programs.”

In an email to the Charlatan, Rogers said he did warn his class that he would change the questions from previous versions of the exam but he said he did not make them harder.

“I do not think that either in scope, or in difficulty level, this exam was exceptional in any way,” he said.

Rogers added that he “simply asked different questions on the material” and that some of the questions had appeared in a mock midterm—done by the course’s PASS facilitator—before the actual exam.

“I actually considered changing the midterm because I was worried it might be too easy,” he said.

Hyder Naqvi, a fourth-year engineering student enrolled in the course, said Rogers’ alleged comments in class add to a negative trend of what he calls “unfair grading” in the engineering department.

“It’s not just about the grading—although that is definitely also a concern—it’s about the way he just said that in his class like he didn’t care whether we failed or passed,” Naqvi said.

“It’s highly unprofessional to say that one of your main goals is to reduce the course (student) number.”

“I respect Professor Rogers as an instructor and because of his reputation,” Naqvi added, “but I want the university to recognize that these comments and this culture in the department is not good for students to perform to the best of their abilities.”

Fourth-year engineering student Saad Chehade, who is also enrolled in the course, said he agreed with Naqvi.

“The topics in the exam were not introduced, at least so far in the course,” Chehade said. “From my perspective, it’s almost absurd because it’s like bragging about how a certain class is known to fail such and such many students.”

“I truly believe that if he (Rogers) told us that the scope is bigger than you think—like that [he] was going to include this topic in this subject and midterm—the performance of the class on it would be much better,” Chehade added.

Rogers said the course he teaches is difficult and that “students need to be prepared for the realities and expectations that come with that.”

But, he said he “would never intentionally fail any students.” He added that the claims that he told a class he planned to intentionally fail them to reduce course size is “preposterous.”

Gorham said Carleton is not looking further into this matter. All future queries about the course have been asked to be redirected to Tait.

“[Rogers] could reduce the weight of the midterm when calculating final grades, if this was of benefit to the student,” Tait said.

Rogers told the Charlatan that moving the weight of a midterm around is not a new practice. He said he has consistently moved the weight to the final for every class in the last five years if it was in the student’s interest to do so.

“This was not done in response to these complaints,” he said.

Tait added that a third party will be looking at the final exam for Rogers’ class worth 50 per cent of the course grade. Rogers said he suggested that this action be taken and that having exams reviewed by department peers was previously a common practice.

“I asked professor Rogers about review of his final exam, and he is in fact very happy to have an independent evaluation of the final exam content by another faculty member,” Tait said.

“I do not control the failure rate,” Rogers said. “If the exam is fair, and all questions have a right answer, then the failure rate is what it is.”

Photo by Tim Austen