Case Summaries

The examiners decided that the student should have 12 months to make major corrections to the thesis and then be examined again. At the second examination the examiners decided that the work did not meet the standard to be awarded a PhD. They awarded an MSc.

The student appealed this decision and asked for another chance to submit their work for the award of PhD. They said that there had been poor supervision in the early part of their studies. They also raised issues of ill health, caring responsibilities, and said that they were under a lot of stress because their government had asked them to repay their funding and to complete their studies more quickly.

The provider rejected the student’s appeal. It explained that it was too late for the student to complain about poor supervision, because this had been several years ago and the student had received good support between the first and second examination. The student had not asked for support for their personal circumstances when they were ongoing, and didn’t have clear evidence about when and how they had been impacted by the circumstances.

The student complained to us. We did not uphold the complaint (we decided that it was Not Justified). We could see that the student felt considerable pressure to succeed in their studies but they had not given a good reason to explain why they hadn’t asked the provider for support before submitting their work for the second time.