Kalatea, out of all the contributors to the above subject, has made some very valuable observations and suggestions that those in authority need to consider if they wish to address the issue of USP SIG sponsored students not meeting the minimum progression requirements in their respective courses at the Laucala Campus. Obviously, there could be a number of factors that may have contributed to SI students failing their courses at USP, as pointed out by Kalatea and others. But, what are the causes?

To do justice to the students and their sponsor (SIG), it is imperative that proper investigation be conducted into the factors that might have contributed to the failure of the students concerned in meeting their course requirements. I agree with previous contributors who suggest the need for proper research to be conducted into the reasons why SI students fail, in order to identify the 'real' causes of their academic failure. In addition, it is vitally important that the MEHRD have access to information that are obtained through proper research, so that policy decisions relating to SIG funded scholarships in the future can be based on concrete data, rather than on anecdotal evidence.

I think the best way forward on this matter is for the MEHRD to mandate an inquiry into SI students' performance at USP, as suggested by Kalatea, by engaging an independent researcher, or a group of researchers. Having USP students to conduct a research into their own performance, as proposed by someone earlier on, may yield bias results. On the other hand, engaging a team of MEHRD staff to conduct such an investigation may also yield bias results.

Hence, I would strongly suggest that an inquiry of such a nature be conducted by an independent group of researchers, and should encompass all aspects of becoming and being a student at USP, Laucala Campus.