By Thapelo Molefe
Wits postgraduate students are protesting against a compulsory data analysis course they say was introduced after enrolment, adding that the change was imposed without proper consultation and is causing serious academic and psychological pressure.
At the centre of the dispute is a Data Analysis (R/Python) course introduced this year for Master of Commerce students in Inequality Studies under the Southern Centre for Inequality Studies (SCIS).
Students say the course was not part of the programme curriculum when they applied, were accepted, and enrolled, but that it is now being enforced as a requirement for graduation.
The fallout has already seen at least one student leave the programme. Class representative Ziyaad Dockrat has since deregistered, saying the pressure surrounding the course forced him to leave the programme.
Dockrat had initially raised concerns with the university, stating that the course had not been communicated as part of the programme, and questioned its compulsory status. At the time, he and other students understood the course to be for non-degree purposes.
However, students were later told that they would be required not only to enrol but to pass the course in order to graduate.
“I deregistered because of the pressure,” Dockrat said, adding that the sudden shift in requirements created uncertainty and fundamentally changed the conditions under which he had enrolled.
He has since enrolled in another programme at the university.
In an email to the School of Economics and Finance, Dockrat wrote that “there was no indication that a Data Analysis course would also be introduced as a requirement,” adding that student contracts “do not state that new compulsory courses may be added during the course of the programme”.
He described the decision to introduce the course “a week after enrolment” and automatically add students to it as raising “questions about fairness and transparency in programme requirements”.
Dockrat further said that the compulsory nature of the course was difficult to justify given that it is offered for non-degree purposes.
“Introducing a new requirement after students have already enrolled places them in a position where they must comply with conditions that were not part of the initial agreement,” he wrote.
Several students who spoke on condition of anonymity echoed these concerns, describing confusion around the course requirements and the strain of being forced to take on a technically demanding subject mid-semester.
One student said they were initially exempt from the course, only to be forced to enrol later.
“I was explicitly exempted from taking it… now, mid-semester, I’m suddenly being forced to enroll,” the student said. “I’ve already missed tests… and I’m trying to catch up on content I’ve never been exposed to before.”
According to multiple accounts, students were informed during orientation in February that failure to complete the course would prevent them from graduating.
Student Mantoa Selepe said the course was introduced after enrolment and enforced despite being classified as non-degree, raising academic, financial, and performance concerns.
“The main issue is that it was not part of our curriculum, and now it is being forced on us,” she said.
“Most of our research is qualitative, so we don’t need coding, and it does not align with inequality studies.”
Selepe said the course also placed an unexpected financial burden on students.
“Many of us did not budget for this course because it was never included in the programme,” she said.
“Now we are expected to take it on without any preparation, both academically and financially.”
“It is like coercion because they’re telling you that you’re not going to graduate,” she said.
Selepe also raised concerns about high failure rates, saying that the course could push students out of the programme.
“All the students who wrote the test failed,” she said. “In this programme, if you fail one course, you are out, so this could mean many students will be forced to leave.”
She questioned why a non-degree course is being enforced as compulsory.
“If something is non-degree purpose, why should this course be compulsory now?” she asked.
Students say that the course is not aligned with the programme’s focus on political economy and qualitative research.
“Our research is qualitative… and then they bring Python. What are we doing with coding?” Selepe said.
Others raised concerns about workload and duplication, noting that they are already undertaking research methodology training.
“There is also uncertainty regarding overlap with existing research training,” Dockrat wrote, adding that the additional course reduces time available for core academic work.
The pressure appears to be taking a toll beyond academics.
Selepe said Dockrat’s departure showed the impact on students, adding that several others were struggling and seeking support.
Another student said the course was “affecting my academic work and well-being very negatively.”
In response to student concerns, Head of Department Adeola Oyenubi defended the inclusion of the course, saying that data analysis skills are essential in a modern, data-driven economy.
“It turns out that this is an important skill in today’s labour market,” Oyenubi said in correspondence to students.
“We had to update our programme to fit the market.”
He acknowledged that learning programming is “hard and time consuming” but said that maintaining academic standards was necessary.
“We will rather be ‘harsh’ and turn out market ready students than do otherwise,” he said.
Oyenubi also rejected criticism of assessment methods, telling students: “You don’t get to decide how you are tested, you are not the expert on that.”
On concerns about fairness, he suggested that the requirement had been communicated during orientation and that students should have sought clarity at that stage.
Responding to media enquiries, Oyenubi said the university would provide a detailed response after internal consultation.
Students have escalated the matter to the Department of Higher Education and Training but say they have received no response.
They are now calling for urgent intervention and a review of the requirement, saying that the retrospective imposition of coursework undermines trust in academic processes.
INSIDE EDUCATION
