Universities

Summary
Ms C was studying for a professional degree at the university. Following two instances of plagiarism, and because Ms C walked out of formal meetings, the university referred her to a fitness to practice hearing. Following the hearing, the university wrote to Ms C terminating her studies with immediate effect, and saying she would receive the award of a diploma in higher education.

Ms C complained that, during two meetings with the university (one about plagiarism, the other about placement), they did not support her or take into consideration that her personal circumstances had caused her to break down. She also complained that the fitness to practice hearing failed to take into account the circumstances she was in at the time of the two meetings, and she was not given the opportunity to provide an explanation for her behaviour. In addition, Ms C complained that, contrary to the university's policy and procedure for a fitness to practice hearing, they did not provide her with a copy of a briefing paper.

We did not uphold any of Ms C's complaints. As there were conflicting recollections of events, without direct objective evidence to support either Ms C's or the university's version, it was not possible to conclude with any certainty what actually happened at the two meetings or the fitness to practice panel. In relation to the briefing paper, we accepted as reasonable the university's explanation as to why, in the circumstances, they did not produce a paper on this occasion.

Summary
Mr C was a postgraduate student. He complained that the university failed to give him the appropriate quantity of supervision during his postgraduate course.

From looking at the evidence provided by Mr C and the university, we found that there was no specific standard for the quantity of supervision. The university's code of practice for postgraduate research courses stated that it was the responsibility of students to maintain regular contact with their supervisory team. The university provided sufficient evidence that Mr C was seen on a regular basis by his principal supervisor and, when necessary, his second supervisor. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that the university did not deal with his complaint in line with their procedure, because they did not have a meeting with either him or his student union representative. Mr C also said that he did not have a student union representative throughout the time he made his complaint. We found from looking at the evidence, that Mr C had a named representative from the student union at both formal stages of his complaint. We also found that under the university’s complaints procedure, the university's investigator was not required to meet with a complainant, although a meeting would normally take place at stage 1 of the procedure. We asked the university to remind their investigators of this, and suggested that it might be helpful if their investigators explained to complainants why there was no meeting on this occasion when they did not take place. Overall, there was no evidence that the university had not dealt with Mr C's complaint in line with their procedure and, therefore, we did not uphold his complaint.
 

Summary
As Miss C accumulated more than four failures during her studies for an MSc in Art Therapy, she was required to withdraw from the course. She lodged an academic appeal which was unsuccessful and her stage 2 submission was not progressed to full academic appeal. Miss C complained that the appeal process was not carried out fairly and that the university delayed in responding to her appeal.

From the evidence provided by Miss C, and from further details received from the university, we were satisfied that all relevant information was considered when assessing her appeal. We, therefore, did not uphold her complaint regarding the fairness of the process. Many of the concerns Miss C raised were academic matters which this office was unable to consider.

It was clear, however, that the university delayed in responding to Miss C's appeal. They accepted this, and advised of steps they had since taken to create a post for the administration of complaints and appeals. The person in this new post will also be available to offer advice to students throughout the process. As we considered this action to be reasonable, we did not make any further recommendations.
 

Summary
Mr C complained about an academic appeal about his postgraduate studies. He complained that the university did not handle the appeals process properly; did not maintain adequate records in relation to the faculty appeal; failed to take into account documentary evidence during the senate appeal; and took unnecessary amounts of time to provide requested documentary evidence. Mr C also complained that a departmental representative provided false, misleading or incomplete evidence during the senate appeals committee meeting.

When we investigated, we found that the university did handle the appeals process fairly and properly and acted in line with their academic appeals procedure. We also found there was no evidence that they did not take relevant evidence into account, and they did not take too long to provide evidence to Mr C. In addition, we did not find any reason to question the departmental representative's evidence to the senate appeals committee. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that Glasgow Caledonian University failed to fully investigate his complaint about an incident in the student halls of residence when security staff alleged that Mr C and two other colleagues were fly posting for the student elections without permission. Having reviewed the university's investigation we were, however, satisfied that it was carried out in accordance with their own procedures and that, in light of the nature of the incident, it was a proportionate examination of the complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C said that the university did not follow their complaints policy when considering his complaint. He said they delayed and, because he was not allowed to proceed to the final stages of their complaints procedure, he was denied assistance from the ASK service (a student support service). Mr C made eight complaints to the university. Because of their overlapping nature and the voluminous correspondence associated with them, the university decided to deal with them together in terms of the Student Complaints Procedure. They gave Mr C their decision just over four months later, telling him that their involvement in the matter was at an end and that he should complain to the Ombudsman if he was unhappy with their decision. Our investigation determined that, although the university had at all times been courteous and objective in the face of a huge flow of correspondence from Mr C, they failed to follow their stated complaints procedure by allowing him to appeal their decision to them. Similarly, we agreed that there had been delay in dealing with the matter and that, as a consequence of the university's refusal to proceed to an appeal, the ASK service had withdrawn their involvement. Our recommendations were aimed at ensuring that the university follow their own policies correctly in future.

Recommendations
We recommend that University of Strathclyde:
• remind staff of the importance of following their stated complaints procedure;
• apologise to the complainant for failing to inform him of his right to appeal at stage 3 of their complaints procedure;
• in the event that Mr C wishes to appeal any decision made on his stage 2 complaints to the university, we recommend that his appeals are considered in terms of stage 3 of their stated complaints procedures; and
• apologise to Mr C for their delay in dealing with his complaint made in July 2010.

Summary
The university awarded Mr C a degree, but he did not receive the classification to
which he thought he was entitled. He complained that the university failed to follow their procedure for classification of his degree, failed to follow their appeals process (and that there was excessive delay in handling his academic appeal), and failed to answer questions about how the marking scheme was applied in his case.

We cannot consider issues about academic judgment, so we could not comment on whether a degree was awarded at the correct level. We can, however, look at whether or not the university followed the proper procedure. In Mr C’s case, the university acknowledged that the student handbook explanation of the calculation of final awards was unclear. They revised this for the following year. They also gave us a fuller explanation of how they calculated Mr C’s mark. We found, however, that the handbook was only a general guide for students, rather than a rulebook saying exactly how an award should be calculated. Having considered the evidence supplied by Mr C and the university, we were satisfied that they properly followed the procedure when classifying his degree and that they also took appropriate steps to improve the explanation to students. We therefore did not uphold this complaint, nor his complaint about his questions on the marking scheme. We found that Mr C asked these after the appeal process was completed. The university told him that they had already dealt with the appeal and were not going to re-open it. We found this to be a reasonable response in the circumstances.

We did, however, uphold Mr C’s complaint that the university did not follow their proper procedure when handling his academic appeal. They decided that Mr C’s original appeal was not competent. We took the view that they handled this decision appropriately. The university then invited Mr C to submit another appeal. Their communication on this second appeal was unreasonable. There was considerable delay in dealing with it, and Mr C received no explanations or updates about this at the time. It took the university four months to deal with the appeal, which was well over the timescale suggested in the guidance notes.

Recommendations
We recommended that the university formally apologise to Mr C for the delay in
handling his appeal.