Features

Restaging Z-Score Debacle

Published

5 years ago

2020/11/13

The release of the Z scores for university admission by University Grants Commission (UGC) has brought thousands of complaints and issues from the students, parents, teachers and other stakeholders into discussion. Some others have vowed to take the issue to courts, expecting a fair and just solution.

Most of the complaints are related to the issue of two different cutoff Z scores for new syllabus and old syllabus and comparisons thereof. It is understood that the solutions proposed to resolve a crisis must not only be fair and legal but also seen to be reasonable for the stakeholders. Print media during the last couple of weeks published several opinions on this issue and the use of Z score for university admission is often blamed as the reasons for these discrepancies. It is time we had a closer look at the problem and baseless allegations against the use of Z-score for university admission. The use of Z-score in place of aggregated marks of the three subjects is, by all means, a better method, which has been amply demonstrated with data and examples and subjected to discussion since its introduction for university admission in 2003.

There is a diverse degree of variability in nature itself and so it is with the humans and their work. The scientific discipline called statistics provides the conceptual and procedural approaches to understand the variability and manage it fairly and equitably. Due to the inherent variability present in question papers and evaluations, it is very well understood that the simple aggregate obtained from the marks of different subjects is not a fair criterion for determining the eligibility for university admission. The degree of difficulty of the question papers in different subjects varies significantly and also there are variations of the aptitude measurement scale in different years. Therefore, it was not possible to have a fixed cut-off mark or simple aggregate solution to determine eligibility for university admission. For example, marks for one subject could have a range from 5 to 70 while the range for another subject spans from 45 to 99. A student who obtained 70 is the best among the lot in the first case and the one who obtained 70 in the second case is a mediocre student. When the simple aggregate is taken as the criterion for university admission, the best student in the first case is treated equally with the mediocre student who opted for a relatively easy subject as in the second case. Within the general assumption that students who sit for these two different subjects have a more or less equal level of competence, the disparity in the relative difficulty of the question papers or evaluation criteria warrants some sort of an approach for standardization. This issue was the theme for a series of discussions in academic circles and despite several advanced methodologies available for standardization, the Z score approach was adopted about 20 years back as the criterion for university admission due to its simplicity, computational convenience, application efficiency and the need for only two parametric estimates for its calculation.

Today, the issue is somewhat different and it is not possible to assume that the students who sat for two different papers in the same subject are having a more or less equal level of competence or they are random picked from the larger population. The first group has sat for the examination for the first time and the other group has at least attempted to pass the examination on one or more previous occasions. This is evident from the number of the first, second and third attempt students in different disciplines. In exploring a solution to this present problem, the underlying assumptions made in calculating the Z score rankings need to be reexamined. One of the assumptions is that the aptitude of knowledge and skills of the student population opting for different subjects or subject streams are not significantly different. This assumption should be validated now because almost all the students who sat the examination under the old syllabus except those with valid medical or other reasons have made a failed attempt to enter university earlier.

Those who qualify from the new syllabus are a group of students who took the examination for the first time. The assumption of equal knowledge and similar competency level and skill background for these two diverse groups introduces an error into the fair selection process. It is not possible to issue a single series of Z-scores for these two groups. Before processing marks, the hypothesis of statistically non-significant difference between these two student groups needs to be validated with at least past data for a period of 5 years. Since this hypothesis cannot be proved, then the degree of dissimilarity needs to be assessed to determine a fair ratio for university admission from these two groups of students and design a quota for these two groups. This is what the UGC has attempted to employ in the selection process, however, higher differences in the cut-off Z scores due to the impact of quota applied for the two groups has led to serious doubts in the mind of those without an in-depth knowledge of the method.

The second issue is whether the relative difficulty of two questions papers in both old and new syllabi is significantly different. The expert opinion is the only choice we have in this decision. If experts believe that the two sets of questions papers are of more or less a same level of standard, then the two results could have been combined into a single data series with only one set of Z scores and cut-off marks. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to show that this option had been explored by the UGC. If the question papers are at significantly different standards, then it is not possible to combine the two results series. Then the question must be asked from the Department of Examinations why the standards were made to be different and a strong justification for such an action. We always advise our students that they should propose a valid statistical methodology before they collect their data for research to ensure the compatibility of data with the statistical techniques to be employed in the analysis. Unfortunately, the Department of Examinations could not stick to this advice and only seeks a statistically valid solution after collecting the data from student examinations.

Without understanding the pertinent facts, some argue that the mistakes made in 2011/12 university admission have been repeated in releasing the Z-scores for 2019/20 university admission. A similar problem indeed arose in 2011/12 admission due to the release of Z scores, combining the results of students who followed the GCE Advanced level under old and new syllabi. However, in 2011/12 university admission, the major issue was the errors made in the calculation of Z scores by the Department of Examinations. That mistake was further complicated due to the release of a single Z score combining the two distinctly different student populations of old and new syllabi as a single group by the UGC. A presidential expert committee was appointed to look into the problem and the mistake in the calculation was quickly identified and corrected. Besides, the need to consider the two student populations of old and new syllabi separately for university admission was proposed and it was later approved by a Supreme Court judgment in a case filed by a group of aggrieved students.

There are few solutions which could have been adopted to avoid the complexity of the problem and misunderstanding among the students, parents and teachers:

a) The easiest approach would have been the designing one question paper for both groups of students sitting the examination under both old and new syllabi giving options to select questions from the areas that had been revised or amended in the new curriculum. It is observed that there have been no major deviations and only minor changes have been made as regards Physics and Chemistry. The relative difficulty level needs to be maintained across all optional questions. Then, it is a single question paper and a single Z score series generated from the results. This should have been achieved at the point of setting of question papers by the examiners with clear instructions.

b) if the two questions papers, although structurally different, are of the same level of difficulty, the results of the two examinations could have been combined and Z scores computed as a single series.

This solution could have been explained to the Supreme Court and concurrence on this approach sought.

It could have been assumed that although the student populations were different, the same level of tests had been administered for both groups and therefore,

c) The most reasonable solution for the problem is to determine the ratios of students admitted to universities for each subject stream and each degree programme separately for old and new syllabus students, and then for each case use the five-year maximum proportion to admit students to universities. Then the total would exceed one hundred since the maximum of both ratios would exceed 100 and a small proportion of students needs to be admitted to each degree programme to avoid any obvious injustice. The use of median value can also be adopted unless there is a positive or negative trend in the ratios. If the five-year values are stationary and have a low variability among years, this becomes a fair solution. In case the five-year values are having a higher degree of variability and an obvious trend, the most recent value should have been the choice. This method of median value was adopted this year and due to the quota being significantly different for different disciplines and degree programmes, the cut-off Z scores have shown many differences for new and old syllabi students. Also, the cut-off Z-scores are significantly high compared to the figures of the previous years due to the application of quota which sometimes 25% of the original 100. This is the reason for the complaints although the method used for selection is in keeping with the ruling of the Supreme Court in 2012.

However, this problem could have been avoided if the two series of Z scores were adjusted as per the quota granted for each series. A simple mathematical computation could have brought the two distributions on a comparable model. The adjusted Z scores are comparable with the figures of the previous years and it would not produce cut-off Z scores which are much different for students in two groups. The confusion created due to the releasing Z scores indicating a different level of access to university entrance in the two different groups could have been avoided with the help of such an approach.

The writer is Former Vice-Chancellor of the Uva Wellassa University and Chairman of the UGC University Admission Committee in 2013/14 and member of Presidential Committee on Z score in 2012 .

All News Advertisement

Features

High Stakes in Pursuing corruption cases

Published

10 hours ago

2026/05/12

Sahan Weerasooriya

Kapila Chandrasena

The death of the most important suspect in the Sri Lankan Airlines Airbus deal has drawn intense public speculation. Kapila Chandrasena the former CEO of the heavily loss-making national airline was found dead under circumstances that the police are still investigating.

He had recently been arrested by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption in connection with the controversial Airbus aircraft purchase agreement signed in 2013. Police investigations are continuing into the cause of death and whether or not he committed suicide. The unresolved death brings to light the high stakes involved in accountability efforts of this nature.

The uncertainty surrounding Chandrasena’s death has revived public memories of other mysterious deaths linked to corruption investigations and public scandals. Among them is the death of Rajeewa Jayaweera, a former SriLankan Airlines executive and outspoken critic of the Airbus transaction. He was following in the tradition of his father, the late foreign service officer and public servant Stanley Jayaweera who mentored the younger generation in good governance practices and formed the group “Avadhi Lanka” along with icons such as Prof Siri Hettige. Rajeewa had written a series of articles exposing irregularities in the deal before he was found dead near Independence Square in Colombo in 2020. The CCTV cameras in that high security area were turned off. Questions raised at that time whether or not he had committed suicide were not satisfactorily resolved.

The controversy about the cause of Chandrasena’s death is diverting attention away from the massive damage done to the country by the SriLankan Airlines deal itself. The value of the aircraft agreement was close to the size of the International Monetary Fund bailout package that Sri Lanka desperately needed by 2023 in order to stabilise the economy after bankruptcy. Sri Lanka’s IMF Extended Fund Facility amounted to about USD 3 billion spread over four years. The comparison shows the scale of the losses and liabilities that irresponsible and corrupt decisions have imposed on the country and which must never happen again.

Wider Pattern

The corruption linked to the Airbus transaction came fully into the open only because of investigations conducted outside Sri Lanka. In 2020 Airbus agreed to pay record penalties of more than EUR 3.6 billion to authorities in Britain, France and the United States to settle global corruption investigations. Sri Lanka was identified as one of the countries where bribes had allegedly been paid in order to secure contracts. The Airbus deal involved the purchase of six A330 aircraft and four A350 aircraft valued at approximately USD 2.3 billion. Investigations showed that Airbus paid bribes amounting to nearly USD 16 million in order to secure the contract. According to court submissions, at least part of this money amounting to USD 2 million was transferred through a shell company registered in Brunei and routed through Singapore bank accounts linked to the late airline CEO and his wife.

The commissions involved in this deal may seem comparatively small compared to the overall value of the contracts but devastating in their consequences. But they also show that a few million dollars paid secretly to decision makers could lead to the country assuming liabilities worth hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars over decades. This is why corruption is not simply a moral issue. It is a direct economic assault on the living standards of ordinary people. Money lost through corruption is money unavailable for schools, hospitals, rural development and job creation. In the end the burden falls on ordinary citizens who are left to repay debts incurred in their name without receiving commensurate benefits in return.

The SriLankan Airlines transaction gives an indication of the wider pattern of corruption and misuse of national resources that has taken place over many years. This was not an isolated incident. There were numerous large scale infrastructure and procurement projects that imposed heavy debts on the country while enriching politically connected individuals and their associates. Other projects such as the Colombo Port City, Hambantota Harbour and highway construction reveal a similar pattern.

Less publicised but equally damaging scandals have involved fertiliser medicine and energy contracts. Investigations into medicine procurement in recent years uncovered allegations that substandard pharmaceuticals had been imported at inflated prices causing both financial losses and risks to public health.

Moral Renewal

The present government appears determined to investigate major corruption cases in a manner that no previous government has attempted. Those who ransacked and bankrupted the treasury need to be dealt with according to the law. There is considerable public support for efforts to recover stolen assets and ensure accountability.

In his May Day speech President Anura Kumara Dissanayake stated that around 14 corruption cases were nearing completion in the courts this very month and called upon the public to applaud when verdicts are delivered. Political opponents of the government claim that such comments could place pressure on the judiciary and blur the separation between political leadership and the courts. But the deeper public frustration that underlies the president’s remarks also needs to be understood.

The challenge facing Sri Lanka is twofold. The country must ensure that justice is done through due process and independent institutions. If anti corruption campaigns become politicised they can lose legitimacy. But if corruption and abuse of power continue without consequences the country will remain trapped in a cycle of economic decline and moral decay. Sri Lanka also needs to confront past abuses linked to the war period. There are allegations of kidnapping, extortion, disappearances and criminal activity in which members of the security forces have been implicated. Vulnerable sections of the population suffered greatly during those years. If political leaders turned a blind eye or actively connived in such crimes they too need to be held accountable under the law. Selective justice will not heal the country. Accountability must apply across the board regardless of political position, ethnicity or institutional power.

Sri Lanka has paid a very heavy price for corruption and impunity. The economic collapse of 2022 did not occur overnight. It was the result of years of bad governance, reckless decision making, abuse of power and the misuse of public wealth. If the country is to move forward the focus cannot be diverted by sensational speculation alone. Suspicious deaths and political intrigue may dominate headlines for a few days. But the larger issue is the system that enabled corruption to flourish without accountability for so long. The real national task is to end that system. Sri Lanka cannot build a prosperous future on a foundation of corruption and impunity. Unless those who looted public wealth are held accountable and the systems that enabled them are dismantled, the country risks repeating the same cycle again.

Jehan Perera

Features

When University systems fail:Supreme Court’s landmark intervention in sexual harassment case

Published

10 hours ago

2026/05/12

Sahan Weerasooriya

Over seven years after making an initial complaint of sexual harassment against her research supervisor, Dr. Udari Abeyasinghe, then a temporary lecturer and now a senior lecturer at the University of Peradeniya, has been finally served justice. On May 8, 2026, the Supreme Court made the following directions regarding Udari’s fundamental rights case: “1) The 1st Respondent [her research supervisor] is prohibited from accepting any post, whether paid or not or honorary, in any university, educational institute or other academic institution; 2) The UGC to issue a direction to all universities and other institutions, coming under its purview, to abstain from giving any appointment, whether paid or not, or honorary, to the 1st Respondent; and 3) The University of Peradeniya, including the Council and respective Respondent [sic], are directed to take appropriate measures to enforce and raise awareness of the University of Peradeniya’s policy on Sexual or Gender-Based Harassment and Sexual Violence for staff and students, including conducting mandatory annual seminars for all academics, staff and students.” I recently spoke with Udari to learn about her experience battling the University’s sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) procedures.

Violence and injustice

Udari was a temporary lecturer when she began working on her MPhil degree. Her research supervisor was a Senior Professor and Dean of her faculty. The harassment began in 2017.

When Udari reached out for support to the SGBV Committee of the University of Peradeniya, the Chair explained the complaint procedure, including how a third party could make a complaint on her behalf. In July 2018, Udari’s mother made a written complaint to the Vice Chancellor (VC). “The very next day [my supervisor] called me … and asked me to withdraw the complaint because it would look bad for me … the university should have taken measures to separate the complainant from the perpetrator … but nothing like that happened.”

Before making the formal complaint, Udari reached out to other academic staff at her Faculty. She shared her experience with a few close colleagues. Many advised her to leave the Faculty. “No one in the Faculty supported me publicly, although some sympathised privately … I was a temporary lecturer … no one really cared.” Some of her colleagues and non-academic staff who knew about the harassments, asked her to avoid involving them because they feared retaliation from higher powers.

Udari faced a preliminary inquiry and then a formal inquiry. The preliminary inquiry took place about four months after her complaint, and the inquiry committee recommended proceeding to a formal inquiry. The latter was held about a year after the initial complaint. “I got to know unofficially that [my supervisor] had got hold of all the statements made at the preliminary inquiry and pressured some colleagues to change their statements before the formal inquiry.” During the time of the formal inquiry, an anonymous letter (“kala paththaraya”) was circulated among staff: “It was a character assassination … the same kala paththaraya would get circulated from time to time.” After the formal inquiry committee submitted its report and recommendations, Udari was informed, in writing, that the University Council had dismissed the report.

“Neither the preliminary inquiry report nor the formal inquiry report were shared with me … I had to make a formal request to the VC and only then did I get a copy of the preliminary inquiry report… I had to get the formal inquiry report through an RTI (a request under the Right to Information Act). What I understand is that [my supervisor] had influenced the Council … that’s why they rejected the report…saying there had been a delay of six months to make a complaint ….” (N. B. there are no time limitations for submitting a complaint in the SGBV by-laws of the University of Peradeniya, although such time bars exist at other universities).

Udari then submitted formal complaints to the University Grants Commission (August 2020) and the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (December 2020), and finally filed a fundamental rights case at the Supreme Court in March 2021. Five years later, on May 8th 2026, Udari’s complaint was vindicated.

University procedures and inquiries

When her mother submitted the complaint against her supervisor, Udari was a temporary lecturer. She had given up her dream of pursuing an academic career because she did not think she would be recruited to a permanent position after making a complaint against a faculty member. It is encouraging that Udari was recruited, but in most instances, students and junior staff endure and stay silent to avoid jeopardising their academic careers. We currently have no procedures in place at universities to protect victims and witnesses from backlash.

According to Udari, the former Chair of the SGBV Committee and the members of her preliminary inquiry panel played a crucial role in her case, and, in her words, “could not be influenced.” But SGBV by-laws at state universities place inordinate power in the hands of the Council and VC. According to the SGBV by-laws of the University of Peradeniya, the Council appoints the 15-member SGBV Committee comprising “[t]wo (02) persons from among the members of the Council; [t]en (10) persons drawn from the permanent and senior members of the academic community; and [t]hree (03) persons external to the University, from among the retired academic or administrative staff of the University” (Section 2.1). While the by-laws recommend appointing persons who have demonstrated “gender-sensitivity, proven interest in working on issues of gender equality and equity, and trained to investigate and inquire into cases of sexual or gender-based harassment and sexual violence” (Section 2.1), we know this is often not the case. In many universities, VCs control which cases are taken up and end up in an inquiry. Most students and staff at state universities have little faith in the existing SGBV complaint procedures.

As Udari experienced, the decisions of inquiry committees can be overruled and dismissed by University Councils, indicating the importance of appointing appropriate members to the Councils. The Deans of faculties, who are Ex-officio members, usually collude to protect their own interests and fiefdoms, while the appointment of external members to Councils is deeply politicised. At present, there is no application process or vetting of candidates before they are appointed. They are usually persons who are seen to be sympathetic to the incumbent political dispensation. Furthermore, external members are dependent on the university hierarchy for information on the issues being discussed, the details of which are often hidden from them. It is not surprising then that University Councils would adjudicate on the side of power.

Final recommendation

Beyond barring Udari’s former research supervisor from holding positions in the university system, the Supreme Court has directed the University of Peradeniya to raise awareness on SGBV among staff and students. While SGBV is addressed in the induction courses and orientation programmes at universities, staff and students must be made aware of the nitty-gritties of complaint procedures, including time bars, which were crucial to the outcome of Udari’s case. But is raising awareness sufficient? Do we have ways to hold university authorities accountable for arbitrary and/or prejudicial decision-making and other abuses of power?

For Udari, life continues to be difficult, with constant surveillance of her activities.

“In November 2024 , I shared a post about my case.. it was a newspaper article stating that the Supreme Court had granted leave to proceed… I just took a photograph of it and posted it on my Facebook without any captions… a few weeks later I was summoned by higher authorities…I was informed that several academics had verbally complained about me using my social media to tarnish the name of the faculty and the university and, if that’s the case, that I should know that the University Council has the authority to take action against me … we also spoke briefly about the case and at one point I was told that this incident (harassment) happened to me because I showed some positivity towards (the perpetrator) …”

Let’s hope that university administrations pause before victimising and revictimising SGBV survivors in future. As a community, we have to rethink the hierarchical ways in which universities function and create a meaningful mechanism that supports students and staff to complain without fear of repercussion.

Thank you, Udari, for taking this step forward. University administrations will have to stop, listen and change their ways.

(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna, and is an alumna of the University of Peradeniya).

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

By Ramya Kumar

Features

‘Nidahase’ in the spotlight

Published

10 hours ago

2026/05/12

Sahan Weerasooriya

Senani Wijesena, the Sri Lankan-Australian singer-songwriter, known for fusion pop/R&B with ethnic elements, like the tabla and sitar, is in the news again.

She was featured in The Island, in early April (2026), regarding her career in the music scene, and the release of her first ever Sinhala song ‘Nidahase.’

The song was released in Sri Lanka, on 17th April, with Senani in town to do the needful.

The music video was filmed at the Polgampola Waterfall, in Sri Lanka, and also features co-star Senura Ambegoda … playing the romantic interest.

Describing the setup, Senani had this to say:

“To achieve the high falls scenes, I had to climb large rocks and slippery edges to get to the top of the falls, and I had to do it in the yellow saree I was wearing. Of course the film crew assisted me.”

The initial scenes were filmed in bustling Pettah where Senani meets co-star Senura Ambegoda, working in a street stall, and when their eyes meet it triggers a memory of soul connection and transports her into another world entering the forest scene.

The forest, says Senani, symbolically represented a retreat to nature and peace.

The couple later rejoin at Colombo City Centre where they danced together and enjoyed each other’s company.

Says Senani: “The short dance routine was created on the spot, on set. Senura is a dance teacher, as well as a model and actor, and we learnt the routine, in 10 minutes, before it was filmed.”

‘Nidahase’ means Freedom in English – about being free in life, love, expression and movement.

It’s, in fact, a reworked version of her highly successful English song ‘Free’ which was nominated for a Hollywood Music In Media award in the RNB/Soul category, and also reached the Top 20 of the Music Week Dance charts in the UK.

‘Nidahase’ can be heard on all streaming platforms, including Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon.

Senani’s YouTube channel is www.youtube.com/senanimusic

Her social media pages are: www.instagram.com/senanimusic and www.facebook.com/senanimusic. Her website is www.senani.com

For the record, Senani is the daughter of film actress Jeevarani Kurukulasuriya and Dr Lanka Wijesena.