Universities

Summary

Miss C, who was a postgraduate student, was required to resit a coursework assessment. Her second submission was unsuccessful and she was withdrawn from her course. She appealed the university's decision, but her appeal was not upheld.

Miss C complained to us that she had not received appropriate support during her postgraduate studies. We found that she had met with her supervisor on two occasions for assessment feedback and that the supervisor had referred her to revision guidelines and a resit session. Although Miss C provided an email trail showing her attempt to arrange a further meeting with the supervisor, she provided no evidence of having told the supervisor that she was struggling with the work, or of having persevered with trying to arrange a meeting after the supervisor declined. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Miss C further complained that the university had failed to take her health issues into account when considering her appeal. We found that the Appeal Committee had taken Miss C's medical evidence into account when considering her appeal, but had not considered it sufficient for justification of submission of a late Extenuating Circumstances Statement. She also complained that the university had failed to follow their procedures before withdrawing her from her course. We found that procedures had been followed appropriately and we did not uphold these two aspects of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was a student on a taught postgraduate course. He complained that he did not receive reasonable supervision during his dissertation research project. Specifically, Mr C felt that his supervisor should have emailed feedback to him, and should have intervened when he experienced difficulties with his project.

We found that Mr C did not raise any concerns about supervision during the course. The course handbook was clear that students were responsible for raising concerns as soon as possible. While students were also responsible for developing a level of independence in their project and laboratory work, they should not hesitate to ask their supervisor for advice when necessary. In addition, students were responsible for arranging meetings with their supervisor at least every two weeks, if not weekly, and for keeping clear records of meetings with their supervisor. The handbook is clear in terms of student responsibilities and being proactive; and specifies the role of their supervisor in providing course-related support when asked.

We found no evidence that Mr C's supervisor failed to act in line with the course handbook. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the university did not provide reasonable feedback following the re-examination of her thesis, provided inaccurate information about the timescales for submitting an appeal, did not process her appeal properly and provided her with inaccurate information about visa matters.

We found that the university provided Ms C with inaccurate information about timescales for submitting her appeal. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. However, we did not make any recommendations as the university acknowledged this failure and apologised. The appeals procedure has also changed since Ms C's appeal.

We found that the feedback provided to Ms C after the re-examination of her thesis was reasonable and that her appeal was processed properly. Therefore, we did not upheld these complaints.

Finally, we found that Ms C had been given the wrong advice about visa matters at certain points, however there was also evidence that information provided to Ms C was on the basis of information from the Home Office, which the university were obliged to accept and pass on. On balance, we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C made a submission of an assignment to the university. Having submitted the assignment a year previously, and failed on that occasion, the university considered this to be his second submission of this work. When the second submission was also marked as a fail, Mr C was obliged to withdraw from his course, in line with university regulations.

Mr C complained that his second submission should not have been considered a second submission as his previous submission had been intended as a draft for feedback and his second submission had not been marked. We found that Mr C had not referred to his first submission as a draft until after he was aware it had been marked as a fail. We also found that he had not taken earlier opportunities to clarify that it had been intended as a draft. There was also evidence that the second submission had been marked. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mrs C raised allegations in her academic appeal that she was victim of racial discrimination, both in the marking and supervision of her dissertation. The university refused Mrs C's academic appeal and failed to address the allegations of racial discrimination. Mrs C complained to us that the university failed to consider and respond to her allegations of racial discrimination and that they had inappropriately appointed a member of staff to mark her dissertation.

We found that the university unreasonably failed to consider the allegations raised during the academic appeals process or register them as a complaint. The university should have identified the complaint and dealt with this appropriately, as part of either the academic appeal or complaint process. Therefore, we upheld this part of Mrs C's complaint. However, we were satisfied that this would not have affected the outcome of her academic appeal.

In relation to the university staff marking her dissertation, we found that Mrs C had not raised a complaint against the member of staff in question, despite being advised to do so if she had concerns. Therefore, we found that the university did not act inappropriately when appointing the markers of her dissertation. We did not uphold this part of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for failing to address the allegations that she raised in her academic appeal. The apology should comply with the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• University staff considering academic appeals and complaints should be reminded of the academic appeals procedure and the complaints handling procedure, together with the importance of identifying and addressing all allegations and concerns brought to their attention.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C was required to withdraw from his course and, despite him no longer being a student at the university, the faculty appeals committee took the decision to mark Mr C's thesis. Although Mr C was initially told that it would be possible for his thesis to be curated in the university library, the unviersity later told him that this would not be appropriate. They explained that the library collection is the official repository for university research produced as a result of the successful award of a research degree, and that if Mr C's thesis was housed there it would wrongly imply that he had achieved such an award. Mr C complained to us about the university's refusal to curate his thesis in the univerisy library, which he said was contrary to university regulations.

We were critical of the university for suggesting that it might be possible for his thesis to be curated in the library. However, we considered this to have been a genuine mistake and we noted that an apology had been given. We found that there was no regulation supporting Mr C's position that his thesis should have been curated in the library. We found that the unviersity's explanation of why the thesis could not be curated was reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint.

However, we considered that by agreeing to mark the thesis the university may have raised Mr C's expectations that it would be curated in the library. We also acknowledged that there was a delay in Mr C finding out the result of his thesis, noting that it had not helped his situation to have been waiting several months to find out whether he had passed or failed. Although we did not uphold the complaint, we recommended that the university apologise for the shortcomings identified.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the delays in communicating with him about his thesis. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C failed her exams and was advised by the university that she could not resit them. Ms C appealed this decision and went through three stages of the appeal process. Ms C complained that the university failed to deal with all stages of the appeals process within a reasonable period of time.

We found that in relation to the second stage of her appeal, which was to the senate office, Ms C had to prompt the university to advise her that there was a delay. The university did not tell her the reason for the delay, and the decision was not issued within the timescale set out in the university's code of procedure for appeals to the senate office. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for failing to deal with the appeals process within a reasonable period of time. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Where an appeal is being considered, the university should ensure that the applicant is advised of any delay and the reason for that delay.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Miss C was a student on a university course that involved professional placement. Miss C felt that she was not supported on the course, both generally and for her additional learning needs. She was unhappy as she felt that the university did not help her find placements, and that they would not count a placement she had already completed towards her course. Finally, Miss C was not happy with how the university handled her complaint.

We looked at all the evidence provided to us by both Miss C and the university. In relation to general support for Miss C, we found that certain processes could have been handled better, and we gave the university feedback on this. However, we noted that these issues were remedied either at the time or as a result of Miss C's complaint to the university. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

We had some concerns about how the university dealt with specific aspects of Miss C's support for additional learning needs, and we made the university aware of our concerns. However, we did not find evidence that the university failed to provide the support that was agreed. We did not uphold this complaint.

In relation to course placements, we found that the university acted reasonably. The course handbook was clear that students were responsible for finding their own placements and the placement that Miss C had already completed did not meet the requirements to be counted. Therefore, we did not uphold either aspect of this complaint.

Finally, we found that the university's handling of Miss C's complaint was reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A). Mr A, a postgraduate student, became the subject of two misconduct investigations by the university. The first was about several allegations of misconduct related to Mr A's behaviour (case A). The second related to an allegation of academic misconduct in a paper published by Mr A at a conference (case B). Following investigation, both cases were upheld by the respective conduct investigators and both were referred to a student disciplinary committee (SDC). Following a hearing, the SDC upheld case B and most of the allegations under case A. The SDC decided to exclude Mr A permanently from the university, with no eligibility for re-admittance on any course or degree programme.

Mrs C complained that the university's investigation of both cases was unreasonable, as important aspects of the process were unfair, perverse, irrational or arbitrary. Mrs C also complained that the conduct of the SDC and the disciplinary penalty imposed were unfair. Amongst other things, she raised concerns that:

Mr A was not offered an interview during the investigation into case B;

the SDC hearing went ahead despite Mr A submitting a medical certificate stating he was unfit to work;

several witnesses who had been asked to attend the SDC (to support case A) decided at a late stage not to attend; and

the SDC did not allow Mr A to have a translator or take into account that he speaks English as a second language.

We found that Mr A received adequate notice of the allegations, and had a reasonable opportunity to respond. The evidence provided by the university showed that the investigators had taken into account relevant evidence and given detailed reasons for their decision, which were shared with Mr A before the hearing. We noted that the university's policy did not specifically set out how they would deal with requests for postponing an SDC hearing (for example on medical grounds), or how they would take into account students' individual needs in considering requests for additional support (such as the use of a translator). However, in this case we considered the evidence indicated that Mr A received a fair hearing, particularly as there was a dual language speaker available at the hearing to assist with translation issues. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university failed to follow their assessment policy in relation to the re-assessment of his dissertation by an independent marker. He also complained about the handling of his academic appeal.

We found that the university's assessment policy and related guidance did not, for Mr C's circumstances, specify how an assessment was to be re-marked or define what was meant by independent. The university explained that, in Mr C's case, an independent marker was someone who was not previously involved in marking Mr C's dissertation. We concluded that the university's explanation was reasonable, and that it was not proportionate to have a policy for every possible exceptional circumstance. We also found that the university's handling of Mr C's academic appeal was reasonable in the circumstances, as we found that they had acted in line with their assessment policy. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.