KN
Keith N
1 reviews | Active since Apr 2024
17 Apr 2024, 23:12
Studying here was waste of time and money that I will never get back
The campus officials are manipulative and blame students for problems that they are responsible for. I also did not feel comfortable in some lectures as some lecturers would not respect my preferred pronouns and would allow people to make transphobic and prejudiced comments in class, as people were allowed to "share their opinions openly". This was an issue with other LGBTQ students as well and the "psychosocial support" they provide in the form of basic counselling is useless if you have bigger problems than simple procrastination. My mental health is worse now than it was when I started studying at that campus. Further, they expect you to fill out a form that takes 30 minutes to complete where they expect you to provide feedback on your experience in order to RSVP to graduate. You do not have a choice unless you do not wish to attend graduation. The incompetence is disgusting.
Helpful (0)
Replies (2)0
Replies (2)
The South African College of Applied Psychology (sacap)'s replyOfficial
18 Apr 2024, 13:59Dear Keith,
Thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention through usernames Jude L and Keith N. It appears that these complaints originate from a similar source and thus we have consolidated the response to streamline communication.
SACAP is committed to ensuring a positive educational journey for all our students and it is always regrettable hearing that a student's experience has not aligned with this commitment. SACAP has strong policies and processes in place for continued improvement and has always been willing to meet with you to discuss any challenges on campus and implement improvements.
The survey included in the application to graduate is one of the processes in place to ensure we fairly and holistically capture student experience across all campuses, to ensure a continued commitment to improving the student academic journey.
With particular reference to the concerns around Educator grading, SACAP has a strong appeals process in place for students and has previously encouraged you to take up both the Appeals and the Complaints and Grievances process, in this regard. SACAP's Appeals process ensures that where there are valid grounds for a regrade, the assessment can be regraded by an alternative educator.
Should you feel that there are complaints that have not been sufficiently addressed, we encourage you to reach out to our Governance Manager (contact details will follow via email), who holds holistic oversight of all Complaints and Grievance processes, across all campuses, to ensure that complaints are resolved timeously, objectively and transparently, and can be managed in a positive manner that contributes to improved student experience.
The South African College of Applied Psychology (sacap)'s reply18 Apr 2024, 13:59
Official
Dear Keith,
Thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention through usernames Jude L and Keith N. It appears that these complaints originate from a similar source and thus we have consolidated the response to streamline communication.
SACAP is committed to ensuring a positive educational journey for all our students and it is always regrettable hearing that a student's experience has not aligned with this commitment. SACAP has strong policies and processes in place for continued improvement and has always been willing to meet with you to discuss any challenges on campus and implement improvements.
The survey included in the application to graduate is one of the processes in place to ensure we fairly and holistically capture student experience across all campuses, to ensure a continued commitment to improving the student academic journey.
With particular reference to the concerns around Educator grading, SACAP has a strong appeals process in place for students and has previously encouraged you to take up both the Appeals and the Complaints and Grievances process, in this regard. SACAP's Appeals process ensures that where there are valid grounds for a regrade, the assessment can be regraded by an alternative educator.
Should you feel that there are complaints that have not been sufficiently addressed, we encourage you to reach out to our Governance Manager (contact details will follow via email), who holds holistic oversight of all Complaints and Grievance processes, across all campuses, to ensure that complaints are resolved timeously, objectively and transparently, and can be managed in a positive manner that contributes to improved student experience.
KN
Keith N's updateReviewer Update
24 Apr 2024, 16:29To whom it may concern
Firstly, I used two usernames as there are people who know me as Jude who are not aware of my gender identity, however since you are adamant about providing the usual condescending and manipulative feedback, let me make things clear.
Regarding the survey, feedback is a privilege. You, as the campus, are not entitled to feedback and it is uncouth to expect people to answer a 30 minute long survey just to RSVP to graduate, especially considering the fact that when feedback is provided to the campus, it is rarely ever used to improve on the issues brought forward. Further, if people are inconvenienced by your survey, which many were, then how accurate do you believe their responses will be when they are simply just trying to finish the form to RSVP? All feedback should be voluntary, not a requirement.
Secondly, as for the appeals process, the class complained about the lecturer because she was unprepared for lectures, read off of the slides, did not engage the students, and could not answer basic questions about the content. Further, she was unprofessional with regards to re-scheduling lessons and informing people of her absences. These complaints were not resolved and instead the students were given feedback from the Head of Teaching and Learning where the students were gaslit and told to be prepared for class. The issues stated about the lecturer were deflected and made to seem as if the students were the ones who were unprepared which was not the case. This manipulative approach was made worse by the unprofessional manner in which the feedback was written. There were spelling errors in the letter and the person who wrote it did not sign it off with their name and signature. This conveys that the person is either trying to evade taking responsibility for what they wrote or is simply unprofessional.
This is why students suspected that they were being marked down. The marks that they were given were much lower than their averages and little feedback was provided by the lecturer on why this was the case. Further, my assignment feedback was blatantly incorrect for both assignments.
The appeals process would have taken too much time as it was at the end of the third term of my third year and I needed my marks for applications. My marks were already delayed by these inconveniences, I could not wait longer for a remark. Further, the appeals process would not fix the fact that the main complaints were not resolved in the 10 week term despite having multiple meetings with SSD and management to try and resolve it BEFORE it escalated to your educator seemingly marking people down discriminately.
In addition to this, many students were already fed up with the campus by that point because there was a culture of choosing to protect the staff and educators by shifting blame to the students on the campus that was prevalent. As such, your campus' credibility in terms of being unbiased had been slowly declining over the years I was there. Why exactly would anyone trust the campus to be unbiased in the appeals process if they've proven over and over again that they are in fact extremely biased towards protecting staff? Regardless, I have evidence of all of my claims. The campus has yet to prove that they are capable of resolving any of the issues brought forward and this condescending response only proves my point about the campus being manipulative, money-hungry, and willing to gaslight students to protect their interests and image.
You say in your automated response that "it is always regrettable hearing that a student's experience has not aligned with this commitment", yet you make no effort to make the students experience align with the false promises you give. You say that "SACAP has strong policies and processes in place for continued improvement and has always been willing to meet with you to discuss any challenges on campus and implement improvements" and it is true that you have always been willing to meet with students. However, all those meetings were worthless and were used to feign productivity to make people believe that improvements were being made when they weren't. The campus has not shown any sort of willingness to genuinely listen to students and improve their services according to the feedback from those fee-paying students. SACAP wastes people's time and money and throws your feedback in your face when it threatens their image.
So please refrain from continuing to provide back-handed feedback. Your campus has shown its true colours and I will not pretend like you are dedicated to supporting anyone but yourselves.
Firstly, I used two usernames as there are people who know me as Jude who are not aware of my gender identity, however since you are adamant about providing the usual condescending and manipulative feedback, let me make things clear.
Regarding the survey, feedback is a privilege. You, as the campus, are not entitled to feedback and it is uncouth to expect people to answer a 30 minute long survey just to RSVP to graduate, especially considering the fact that when feedback is provided to the campus, it is rarely ever used to improve on the issues brought forward. Further, if people are inconvenienced by your survey, which many were, then how accurate do you believe their responses will be when they are simply just trying to finish the form to RSVP? All feedback should be voluntary, not a requirement.
Secondly, as for the appeals process, the class complained about the lecturer because she was unprepared for lectures, read off of the slides, did not engage the students, and could not answer basic questions about the content. Further, she was unprofessional with regards to re-scheduling lessons and informing people of her absences. These complaints were not resolved and instead the students were given feedback from the Head of Teaching and Learning where the students were gaslit and told to be prepared for class. The issues stated about the lecturer were deflected and made to seem as if the students were the ones who were unprepared which was not the case. This manipulative approach was made worse by the unprofessional manner in which the feedback was written. There were spelling errors in the letter and the person who wrote it did not sign it off with their name and signature. This conveys that the person is either trying to evade taking responsibility for what they wrote or is simply unprofessional.
This is why students suspected that they were being marked down. The marks that they were given were much lower than their averages and little feedback was provided by the lecturer on why this was the case. Further, my assignment feedback was blatantly incorrect for both assignments.
The appeals process would have taken too much time as it was at the end of the third term of my third year and I needed my marks for applications. My marks were already delayed by these inconveniences, I could not wait longer for a remark. Further, the appeals process would not fix the fact that the main complaints were not resolved in the 10 week term despite having multiple meetings with SSD and management to try and resolve it BEFORE it escalated to your educator seemingly marking people down discriminately.
In addition to this, many students were already fed up with the campus by that point because there was a culture of choosing to protect the staff and educators by shifting blame to the students on the campus that was prevalent. As such, your campus' credibility in terms of being unbiased had been slowly declining over the years I was there. Why exactly would anyone trust the campus to be unbiased in the appeals process if they've proven over and over again that they are in fact extremely biased towards protecting staff? Regardless, I have evidence of all of my claims. The campus has yet to prove that they are capable of resolving any of the issues brought forward and this condescending response only proves my point about the campus being manipulative, money-hungry, and willing to gaslight students to protect their interests and image.
You say in your automated response that "it is always regrettable hearing that a student's experience has not aligned with this commitment", yet you make no effort to make the students experience align with the false promises you give. You say that "SACAP has strong policies and processes in place for continued improvement and has always been willing to meet with you to discuss any challenges on campus and implement improvements" and it is true that you have always been willing to meet with students. However, all those meetings were worthless and were used to feign productivity to make people believe that improvements were being made when they weren't. The campus has not shown any sort of willingness to genuinely listen to students and improve their services according to the feedback from those fee-paying students. SACAP wastes people's time and money and throws your feedback in your face when it threatens their image.
So please refrain from continuing to provide back-handed feedback. Your campus has shown its true colours and I will not pretend like you are dedicated to supporting anyone but yourselves.
KN
Keith N's update24 Apr 2024, 16:29
Reviewer Update
To whom it may concern
Firstly, I used two usernames as there are people who know me as Jude who are not aware of my gender identity, however since you are adamant about providing the usual condescending and manipulative feedback, let me make things clear.
Regarding the survey, feedback is a privilege. You, as the campus, are not entitled to feedback and it is uncouth to expect people to answer a 30 minute long survey just to RSVP to graduate, especially considering the fact that when feedback is provided to the campus, it is rarely ever used to improve on the issues brought forward. Further, if people are inconvenienced by your survey, which many were, then how accurate do you believe their responses will be when they are simply just trying to finish the form to RSVP? All feedback should be voluntary, not a requirement.
Secondly, as for the appeals process, the class complained about the lecturer because she was unprepared for lectures, read off of the slides, did not engage the students, and could not answer basic questions about the content. Further, she was unprofessional with regards to re-scheduling lessons and informing people of her absences. These complaints were not resolved and instead the students were given feedback from the Head of Teaching and Learning where the students were gaslit and told to be prepared for class. The issues stated about the lecturer were deflected and made to seem as if the students were the ones who were unprepared which was not the case. This manipulative approach was made worse by the unprofessional manner in which the feedback was written. There were spelling errors in the letter and the person who wrote it did not sign it off with their name and signature. This conveys that the person is either trying to evade taking responsibility for what they wrote or is simply unprofessional.
This is why students suspected that they were being marked down. The marks that they were given were much lower than their averages and little feedback was provided by the lecturer on why this was the case. Further, my assignment feedback was blatantly incorrect for both assignments.
The appeals process would have taken too much time as it was at the end of the third term of my third year and I needed my marks for applications. My marks were already delayed by these inconveniences, I could not wait longer for a remark. Further, the appeals process would not fix the fact that the main complaints were not resolved in the 10 week term despite having multiple meetings with SSD and management to try and resolve it BEFORE it escalated to your educator seemingly marking people down discriminately.
In addition to this, many students were already fed up with the campus by that point because there was a culture of choosing to protect the staff and educators by shifting blame to the students on the campus that was prevalent. As such, your campus' credibility in terms of being unbiased had been slowly declining over the years I was there. Why exactly would anyone trust the campus to be unbiased in the appeals process if they've proven over and over again that they are in fact extremely biased towards protecting staff? Regardless, I have evidence of all of my claims. The campus has yet to prove that they are capable of resolving any of the issues brought forward and this condescending response only proves my point about the campus being manipulative, money-hungry, and willing to gaslight students to protect their interests and image.
You say in your automated response that "it is always regrettable hearing that a student's experience has not aligned with this commitment", yet you make no effort to make the students experience align with the false promises you give. You say that "SACAP has strong policies and processes in place for continued improvement and has always been willing to meet with you to discuss any challenges on campus and implement improvements" and it is true that you have always been willing to meet with students. However, all those meetings were worthless and were used to feign productivity to make people believe that improvements were being made when they weren't. The campus has not shown any sort of willingness to genuinely listen to students and improve their services according to the feedback from those fee-paying students. SACAP wastes people's time and money and throws your feedback in your face when it threatens their image.
So please refrain from continuing to provide back-handed feedback. Your campus has shown its true colours and I will not pretend like you are dedicated to supporting anyone but yourselves.
Firstly, I used two usernames as there are people who know me as Jude who are not aware of my gender identity, however since you are adamant about providing the usual condescending and manipulative feedback, let me make things clear.
Regarding the survey, feedback is a privilege. You, as the campus, are not entitled to feedback and it is uncouth to expect people to answer a 30 minute long survey just to RSVP to graduate, especially considering the fact that when feedback is provided to the campus, it is rarely ever used to improve on the issues brought forward. Further, if people are inconvenienced by your survey, which many were, then how accurate do you believe their responses will be when they are simply just trying to finish the form to RSVP? All feedback should be voluntary, not a requirement.
Secondly, as for the appeals process, the class complained about the lecturer because she was unprepared for lectures, read off of the slides, did not engage the students, and could not answer basic questions about the content. Further, she was unprofessional with regards to re-scheduling lessons and informing people of her absences. These complaints were not resolved and instead the students were given feedback from the Head of Teaching and Learning where the students were gaslit and told to be prepared for class. The issues stated about the lecturer were deflected and made to seem as if the students were the ones who were unprepared which was not the case. This manipulative approach was made worse by the unprofessional manner in which the feedback was written. There were spelling errors in the letter and the person who wrote it did not sign it off with their name and signature. This conveys that the person is either trying to evade taking responsibility for what they wrote or is simply unprofessional.
This is why students suspected that they were being marked down. The marks that they were given were much lower than their averages and little feedback was provided by the lecturer on why this was the case. Further, my assignment feedback was blatantly incorrect for both assignments.
The appeals process would have taken too much time as it was at the end of the third term of my third year and I needed my marks for applications. My marks were already delayed by these inconveniences, I could not wait longer for a remark. Further, the appeals process would not fix the fact that the main complaints were not resolved in the 10 week term despite having multiple meetings with SSD and management to try and resolve it BEFORE it escalated to your educator seemingly marking people down discriminately.
In addition to this, many students were already fed up with the campus by that point because there was a culture of choosing to protect the staff and educators by shifting blame to the students on the campus that was prevalent. As such, your campus' credibility in terms of being unbiased had been slowly declining over the years I was there. Why exactly would anyone trust the campus to be unbiased in the appeals process if they've proven over and over again that they are in fact extremely biased towards protecting staff? Regardless, I have evidence of all of my claims. The campus has yet to prove that they are capable of resolving any of the issues brought forward and this condescending response only proves my point about the campus being manipulative, money-hungry, and willing to gaslight students to protect their interests and image.
You say in your automated response that "it is always regrettable hearing that a student's experience has not aligned with this commitment", yet you make no effort to make the students experience align with the false promises you give. You say that "SACAP has strong policies and processes in place for continued improvement and has always been willing to meet with you to discuss any challenges on campus and implement improvements" and it is true that you have always been willing to meet with students. However, all those meetings were worthless and were used to feign productivity to make people believe that improvements were being made when they weren't. The campus has not shown any sort of willingness to genuinely listen to students and improve their services according to the feedback from those fee-paying students. SACAP wastes people's time and money and throws your feedback in your face when it threatens their image.
So please refrain from continuing to provide back-handed feedback. Your campus has shown its true colours and I will not pretend like you are dedicated to supporting anyone but yourselves.