The giveReview function allows the teachers to give a review to students once per week. However, reviews are conducted manually, and the teachers manually selects which students to review.
The current setup in the giveReview function is vulnerable to human error or favoritism because the review distribution is manual and unrestricted. Without any fairness enforcement, some students may never receive reviews, which can block their graduation.
Assume there are 10 enrolled students. The teachers, either unintentionally or bias, consistently reviews only 2 of them.
| Week | Reviewed Students | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alice | Only Alice gets reviewed |
| 2 | Alice, Bob | Bob gets 1st, Alice 2nd |
| 3 | Alice, Bob | Alice: 3rd review, Bob: 2nd |
| 4 | Alice, Bob | Alice: 4th review, Bob: 3rd |
Alice can graduate (received 4 reviews).
Bob might graduate.
Other 8 students have zero reviews effectively blocked.
Students may get stuck and unable to graduate due to lack of reviews
This can compromise the integrity and fairness of the review system
Manual review
Implement fairness in review distribution. For example:
Enforce one review per student per week.
The contest is live. Earn rewards by submitting a finding.
This is your time to appeal against judgements on your submissions.
Appeals are being carefully reviewed by our judges.