We have had a very similar case recently - the dylsexia was known, but it
turned out that the extent was not properly known.
We did hear the appeal - indeed, we have always heard appeals on late
medical evidence. The numbers of such appeals has always been very small -
I am sure that if this changed we would want to review our policy. The
advantage of our present policy is that we don't get into tricky
situations of trying to decide whether or not an appellant is right that
the medical condition could not have reasonably been known beforehand.
Dr Richard Messer
Assistant Registrar (examinations)
The University of Reading
On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Patrick Kennedy wrote:
> An Exeter colleague has asked me to forward the following
> query to the list:
>
> A recently graduated student, obviously disgruntled with
> their degree classification, is appealing on more than one
> ground, but the one in question here is retrospective
> medical evidence.
>
> The student feels that the degree result did not reflect
> their true ability, and has, after the event, been
> certified as dyslexic. At Exeter as in many institutions,
> such certification ahead of exams would have triggered a
> number of special assessment arrangements.
>
> The student has submitted this evidence outside the
> 'normal' time boundaries, but would claim that this
> condition was unknown to them until professionally
> diagnosed.
>
> Clearly there are a number of issues here - not least the
> one of the precedent for a whole raft of retrospective
> appeals where medical conditions were generally unknown
> at the time.
>
> I'd appreciate any responses from other institutions that
> have dealt with similar cases recently.
>
> Thanks
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
> ----------------------
> Patrick Kennedy
> University of Exeter
> (01392) 263021
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|