Case Summaries

The student submitted an academic appeal against the examiners’ decision, explaining that they disagreed with the examiners’ conclusions. They pointed to consistent positive feedback from their supervisors as evidence that the examiners were wrong about their work. The student also raised concerns about the number and nature of the revisions they needed to make, and the timescale in which they were required to complete them. They said they felt they were being set up to fail. The provider dismissed the student’s academic appeal as a challenge to academic judgment and upheld the examiners’ decision. The student complained to us.

We did not uphold the student’s complaint (we decided it was Not Justified). There was evidence to show the provider had followed its procedures when nominating the examiners and independent chair, and that the examiners were suitably qualified to form conclusions about the student’s work, including whether it was of sufficient quality to be awarded a PhD. The student’s supervisors had offered them some encouragement and been supportive of the student during the difficult circumstances they faced during their studies. However, there was also evidence within the student’s supervisory records that they had given the student some direct feedback about the areas the student needed to work on. While there appeared to be some disparity between the student’s understanding of the supervisors’ feedback and the constructive criticism they’d been given, we didn’t think this was evidence of unfairness in the assessment process or of poor supervision.