Current Case Studies

Summary:

S was studying for the award of PhD.

S submitted his thesis for examination and the examiners carried out a preliminary report prior to the viva.

The examiners decided that the thesis was not of PhD standard and S was awarded an MPhil, subject to minor amendments being completed.

S lodged an academic appeal against the decision which was heard before an Appeals Panel. S said that there had been a procedural error in the conduct of the examination. S said that his supervisor had incorrectly advised him to submit his thesis for examination, even though S considered it was not ready for submission. S also said that his supervisor informed him that, if the examiners considered the thesis was not of an acceptable standard, they would make recommendations and he would be given the opportunity to resubmit the thesis at a later stage. S also stated that he had not been informed of the reasons why his thesis did not meet the criteria for a PhD award. S believed that his PhD thesis had been judged against a different set of criteria than that set out in the University’s Regulations.

S attended the appeal hearing. The Appeal Panel rejected the appeal on the grounds that S had failed to establish the grounds of appeal.

S complained to the OIA that:

• He did not receive feedback from the examiners following the failure of his PhD.M
• He was given incorrect advice regarding the submission of his thesis by his supervisor.

Reasons:

The OIA found the complaint to be Not Justified.

The OIA found that there was no breach of the assessment regulations in the marking of the S’s thesis. The OIA found that S was, in fact, challenging the academic judgment of the examiners and the OIA was unable to interfere with the University’s academic judgment. The OIA was satisfied from the documents provided that the examiners had identified significant failings in the thesis. The OIA noted that it was the academic judgment of the examiners that the thesis could not meet the standard of PhD even if further work were completed. The OIA found that this decision was open to the examiners under the University’s assessment regulations.

The OIA was satisfied that it was the student’s responsibility to decide when his thesis was ready for submission as set out in the Research Handbook.

The OIA noted that students were clearly informed by the University of all possible outcomes in the examination process. The OIA considered that, in deciding when to submit their thesis for examination, all students must weigh up the likelihood that they may not reach the required PhD standard and consider the implications of all possible results which may be awarded.

The OIA found that the Appeal was conducted in accordance with the University’s procedures and the decision to reject the appeal was reasonable in the circumstances.

Summary:

S was studying medicine at the University. He was born in the UK in 1989 and, in 1996, his family moved to the USA due to his mother’s employment. His mother had continued to work in the USA on temporary annual contracts since that point. S then returned to the UK in 2007 to continue his studies.

Prior to registering as a student, S was classed as an international student and was charged international fees on that basis. Following his registration at the University, S submitted a number of appeals to the University against his classification as an international student.

S stated that as he was now settled in the UK following his 18th birthday and that as the only citizenship he held was British, he intended to settle permanently in the UK. S stated that he had not lived in the UK for three years prior to his registration as a student, but he had come to the UK with a one way ticket and therefore he was now permanently and ordinarily settled in the UK. S asked that he be charged home fees.

The University rejected the appeal and maintained that as S had not been ordinarily resident in the UK in the last three years, it was right to charge him international student fees.

S complained to the OIA that the University was incorrect to charge him international student fees and he was entitled to be charged home fees in line with the University’s regulations.

Reasons

The OIA found the complaint to be Not Justified as the OIA found that, in order for S to be charged home fees, he needed to demonstrate that his time abroad had been temporary due to his parents’ employment abroad.  If he proved this he would be considered to be an ‘excepted student’ and would only have to pay home fees.

The OIA found that the DfES guidance provided a check list for absence due to employment to assist assessors in reaching a decision on cases where British students had not been in resident in the UK for three years. The OIA noted that this guidance advises universities that consideration should be given to whether the employment contract of the parent was the first overseas posting of its type or whether it was a continuation of similar contracts. It stated that a succession of similar temporary contracts could be construed as permanent employment

The OIA was satisfied that the University was able to consider S’s mother’s succession of temporary contracts as an indictor that she was permanently employed abroad and found that the decision to charge S international student fees was reasonable in all the circumstances.

Summary:

S was a part-time student studying for an award of PhD.

S’s first supervisor, Professor A, left the University two years into S’s research and her second supervisor, Professor B, became the lead supervisor.  S was not allocated a new second supervisor.  Four years later, the University carried out an audit of all research students and S was asked to attend a progress meeting with the Research Degree Committee (“RDC”) to discuss her apparent lack of progress.  At the meeting, S was advised that she was to be withdrawn from the course because she had not submitted any progress or annual reports during her time on the course as required under the University’s regulations. 

S appealed to the Vice Chancellor against the decision of the RDC on the basis of various mitigating circumstances including failure by the University to provide appropriate resources and ill health and family problems, all of which impeded her progress.  S also stated that she had submitted her annual reports when the University provided them to her to complete and that she had not had any supervision for four years.

The Vice Chancellor rejected S’s appeal.

S complained to the OIA that:

• Her annual reports had been submitted except that for the current year.
• S had not been warned of the time limits or given a deadline in which to submit the 10 month progress report prior to being withdrawn.
• The University had not provided S with a new second supervisor and Professor B had been unavailable for supervision.
• S was not provided with the necessary resources to undertake her studies, even though she made the University aware of her problems.
• The University failed to take into account of her mitigating circumstances.
• S had not been warned prior to the progress meeting that she was to be withdrawn and she considered that the outcome of the meeting had been predetermined.
• The minutes of the progress meeting were not an accurate reflection of the meeting.
• There was also a delay in sending a copy of the minutes to her.

Reasons

The OIA found the complaint to be Partly Justified.

The OIA was highly critical of the University’s failure to ensure adequate supervisory arrangements were in place for S when Professor A left.  Whilst the OIA accepted that the supervisory relationship was of a two way nature and it was satisfied that S should have contacted Professor B after Professor A had left the University, in the OIA’s view the primary responsibility for perceiving and acting on a problem lay with Professor B.  When Professor A left the University that role, as the University accepted, should have been assumed by Professor B.

The OIA noted that the University failed to provide any clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the student / supervisor relationship.  The OIA also noted that there appeared to have been no supervisory framework as recommended in the QAA Code of Practice. 

The OIA concluded that S appeared not to have received any supervision from Professor B nor was she reminded by him of the milestones that she was expected to meet in order to progress on the course.  The OIA noted that the University admitted in its internal document that Professor B had never supervised the student.  The OIA was critical that the University had failed to monitor, or addressed, S’s lack of academic progress for four years. 

The OIA noted that S had not been proactive in addressing her supervision and her lack of academic progress and it appeared that S was content to continue to re-enrol on the course and pay fees each year in spite of receiving no supervision and making no apparent academic progress.  However, the OIA did not think it reasonable for the University to continue to allow S to re-enrol on the course each year in such circumstances as the University’s regulations made it clear that at least once a year, the RDC needed to establish whether a candidate was actively engaged on the research programme and was maintaining regular and frequent contact with supervisors.   The RDC was also required to consider reports from the supervisors on the candidate’s progress and take appropriate action.  This had not happened in S’s case.

The OIA was not satisfied that the letter sent to S prior to the progress meeting notified her that she might be withdrawn.  The OIA considered that given the seriousness of the potential outcome, S should have been made explicitly aware of the possible outcome of the meeting. 

The OIA was also critical of the apparent lack of any written procedure governing the process by which the University may withdraw a postgraduate student due to lack of academic progress.

The OIA upheld S’s complaint that the University did not provide the minutes of the progress meeting in a timely manner which made it difficult for S to formulate her appeal.

The OIA noted that the University did not have a mitigating circumstance procedure for postgraduate research students.  However, the OIA found that the University was entitled to find that the circumstances which S raised in her appeal did not adequately explain her lack of progress on the course.

Recommendations

• The University put in place mechanisms to ensure that where a change in the supervisory team is required, the student is notified in writing of the fact and of the steps taken by the University to facilitate the change.
• The University review its procedures for monitoring the progress of research degree students on at least an annual basis.
• The University review its mechanisms for providing feedback on a student’s lack of academic progress and to ensure that all staff receive training to ensure that they are aware of their roles in that process.  As part of the review, the University should consider providing clear written guidance in the Handbook and Regulations as to the process to be followed in the event that it becomes necessary to withdraw a student through the lack of academic progress.
• The University to offer to pay S the sum of £800 for compensation for the failings highlighted.  In deciding this amount, the OIA took into account the fact that S was not sufficiently proactive in raising and resolving these issues.

Observations

The OIA noted that comments made by academic staff at the progress meeting were insensitive and, whilst the OIA did not consider the comments were material to the University’s decision to withdraw S, the University may wish to consider that staff should be aware of the need to handle discussions with students, particularly those facing withdrawal, with an appropriate level of sensitivity.

Summary:

S was an international student registered on a postgraduate research course.

Before being accepted onto the Course, the University interviewed and obtained references on S.  It ascertained that her International English Language Testing System (“IELTS”) score was poor and that her results from her previous master’s course were low passes.  As a condition of being accepted on to the University’s programme, S was required to attend English classes.  S attended some English classes, but gave them up, informing her supervisor of this.

Although there were difficulties in arranging mutually convenient tutorials, eight sessions were held and the Annual Review indicated that good progress had been made and that there was a satisfactory student-supervisor relationship.  However, S’s application to transfer to PhD study was not approved because of poor research design compounded by the use of poor English.

S complained to the head of the PhD programme about the decision of the Transfer Panel and her supervision.  A meeting was held with the head of the PhD programme and her supervisor to determine the way forward.  After several further supervision sessions, a revised transfer application was submitted.  The supervisor initially responded that he could not provide any feedback because of the poor English.  After several resubmissions, he provided detailed written feedback.  The second Transfer Panel approved the revised application and S progressed to PhD study.

S submitted an outline of her research which related to a different topic to that agreed by the Transfer Panel.  The supervisor requested further information on the new proposal.  S was in her home country at that stage and, after being chased by the supervisor, appeared confused as to what was required of her. 

S refused to sign the subsequent annual review form and met with the Head of PhD Studies and requested a different supervisor.  The University agreed to this.

Several months later, it became apparent there were difficulties between the new supervisor and S.  S requested a more “sympathetic” supervisor.  S attended meetings with the Head of the PhD Studies and the new supervisor to discuss the supervision arrangements and the work required of her.  In the second of the meetings, S appeared distressed and was referred to the Student Health Centre.  S complained about the meeting.

S attended a further meeting with the head of the PhD Studies, the new supervisor and the Dean of Faculty to discuss her lack of progress and the continuation of her registration.  S was informed that she appeared to have unrealistic expectations of the role of her supervisor and was offered the option of changing to study for an MPhil which she appeared to accept.  S submitted a draft MPhil thesis to the head of PhD study.

S subsequently made a formal complaint about inadequate supervision and the decision to transfer her to an MPhil programme.  The complaint was not upheld.  S submitted a further complaint but this was also rejected.

S requested that the OIA reviewed:

• The supervision she received.
• The University’s investigation of her complaint.
• The decision to transfer her to an MPhil programme.

Reasons

The OIA found the complaint to be Partly Justified.

The OIA found that the University admitted S onto the PhD programme knowing of her low marks in her master’s course and that she had a poor IELTS test score. Whilst the OIA could not comment on the University’s decision to accept her on the course, the OIA found that the University should have been on notice that S required more support than other students in the circumstances.

The OIA considered that much of S’s complaint arose from her not fully understanding the nature of independent study at PhD level and having an incorrect view of what was required of her and her supervisors.  The OIA considered that this was not addressed at the outset of her research as required by the Regulations. 

The OIA found that the decision to transfer S to an MPhil programme was one of academic judgment and it fell outside the scope of the OIA’s review. 
The OIA noted that the University had already waived £8,000 of S’s fees.

Summary:

S was registered on part time taught MA course. Students were required to pass a core research skills module and two option modules in stage 1 and a dissertation in stage 2 to complete the MA.

S selected two option modules taught by Dr A. Four months into S’s studies Dr A left the University's employment but continued to be responsible for supporting students on these modules, offering remote support by email.

Owing to illness S requested an extension, which was granted, to complete her assessed work for these modules.  S also drew attention to Dr A's absence. S submitted her assessments by the new deadline.

The Exam Board noted that S had failed stage 1 of the course and it thought that she had withdrawn.  The Exam Board therefore did not arrange for her to take any reassessments.

S submitted an Appeal against the decision of the Exam Board. She stated that she had received no lectures in writing and research skills at Masters level which she felt was needed to  adjust to postgraduate writing and she complained about Dr A’s absence and a lack of support.

The University rejected S's Appeal on the grounds that the Exam Board had been aware of all the matters raised by S at the time it made its decision.  It said that after Dr A had left, S had been able to contact Dr A and that Professor B had been available for additional support.  The University stated that Professor B said that S had only had minimal contact with him.  The University noted that the Chair of the Exam Board said that a student studying at this level should already have a good standard of essay writing and that further guidance was available in the handbook.  The University took her ill health into consideration when making its decision.  It also said that S’s complaint was a result of a mismatch of her expectations of the programme and the Department’s expectations of the students.  The University suggested that Masters level study was characterized by independent study and research rather than direct teaching.  It went on to say that, as S had a good degree, it was not unreasonable for her to have made the transition to master’s level smoothly.

S complained to the OIA about her appeal. The OIA suspended consideration of S's application because the University was investigating her complaint and there were considerable areas of overlap with her appeal. The University rejected S's application to initiate the final stage of the complaints procedure because it was out of time.

S subsequently complained to the OIA that:

• The University did not offer appropriate levels of academic support which caused her to fail. S contended that the University did not provide the level of teaching outlined in the programme handbook and emails from Dr A were not equivalent to face-to-face teaching.
• The stress S suffered as a result of this lack of support caused her to be unwell which had financial consequences.

Reasons

The OIA found the complaint Justified.

The University did not consider whether S's concerns were based on a legitimate expectation that she would receive face-to-face teaching in order to develop the skills and knowledge required by the course. The University consideration of the complaint was insufficiently investigated as the Department did not present any evidence that S had been supported in the manner promised by the prospectus. The OIA found that the course prospectus and handbook, and other published material stressed the importance of personal tutorial contact and the acquisition and development of skills at master's level through regular meetings and tutor-led learning.

The OIA was critical of the University's management of the tutor’s departure as there was no discussion with individual students as to the impact of Dr A’s departure. No alternative support was put in place until students expressed dissatisfaction.

The Exam Board’s decision in regard to S’s progression was based on a flawed assumption that she had withdrawn. A lack of transparency in the appeals procedure meant S was not given a copy of the papers so was unaware the Board had made this assumption and was unable to challenge it.

The University was unhelpful in the manner in which it communicated information about the final stage of its complaints procedure as its letter did not say it was possible to appeal against the formal decision letter or provide any time limits for doing so. Its decision to reject C’s complaint as out of time was unreasonable.

Recommendations

As S had obtained a lesser award of PG Diploma, the OIA did not consider it appropriate to recommend her fees be refunded in full. It recommended that the University:

• Should offer to pay £900 in compensation for its failure to provide academic support as described in the course prospectus and handbook.
• Should consider the effect of this failure properly within its appeal and complaints procedures.

Observations

The OIA was critical of the fact that the University did not provide S with copies of reports prepared by the Department in response to her appeal prior to the appeal panel hearing.  The OIA considers that universities have a duty to act fairly and is required to ensure that all parties to a dispute should have the opportunity to see and comment on material relied on by the decision maker.  The OIA strongly suggested that the University reviewed its procedures in relation to this.

Summary

S was registered on an MA by research course, which included the submission of a thesis. 

The supervisor said that only stylistic changes needed to be made to S’s thesis. The supervisor believed there were issues with S’s level of English but did not advise her to undertake further classes to address this issue.  When S asked whether the thesis was of a standard to submit, the supervisor hesitated and suggested they consult with another person.   The supervisor arranged for a retired colleague to review the thesis.  The colleague’s comments were more critical than the supervisor’s.  S made the amendments and the supervisor again gave positive feedback to S.

S was subsequently referred in her thesis.  S complained to the Director of Research Development that she had received inadequate supervision and of delays.  The Director responded that delays had occurred due to emails being sent to another staff member with the same name as her tutor and also reported that the examiners had indicated that the thesis should be referred for further work before an oral examination could take place.

S escalated her complaint about inadequate supervision to the Head of the Department.  S said that she had had positive comments from her supervisor on the thesis and was disappointed to learn that the thesis required profound reworking and restructuring.  S asked for compensation in the form of a transfer to another university for which the University would pay the transfer fee.

The Head of the Department rejected the complaint.  He believed that S received more supervision than other students and that her supervisor had raised issues similar to those raised by the examiners.

S escalated her complaint.  A reply was due within ten working days.  Four months later, the University replied rejecting the complaint.  It emphasised that the responsibility for the academic nature of the research and the final thesis submission lay with the student.

S complained to the OIA that she had been unfairly treated by the University.  S said that the supervision was so poor she did not wish to stay at the University after her thesis had been referred.

Reasons

The OIA found the complaint to be Justified.

The OIA found that the University was unable to provide any record of supervision of S’s research or minutes of meetings which took place to discuss S’s dissatisfaction with the supervision.  The supervisor had not completed any successful supervisions of PhD at the time of S’s supervision.  S had not been given any Personal Development Portfolio as required by the Regulations.  S had not been interviewed before being accepted onto the course nor did the Department require her to attend the Induction Day as stipulated in the Regulations.  S was not required to undergo an annual review or offered targeted training as set out in the Regulations.

The OIA’s review showed that the supervisor had many other commitments, suffered serious health issues and was not always available to respond to S’s questions. 

In light of the general tone of the email correspondence, the lack of the primary documentation which should have recorded the key stages of the research degree process, the OIA found that the University failed to demonstrate that it complied with the normal professional levels of supervision and guidance routinely anticipated by students to ensure satisfactory progress in a research degree.

In referring to his retired colleague rather than following the supervision procedures, the OIA considered that the supervisor showed a lack of confidence in his own skills to monitor the work and to offer the kind of constructive criticism that was required.

The OIA was not satisfied that the University adequately addressed S’s concerns regarding her supervision.

The OIA found that there were delays in the University’s handling of S’s complaints and in responding to the OIA’s requests for information.

Recommendations

• The University should offer S the sum of £3,500 in compensation.