We have a separate Concessions Cttee which meets in June and again in
September.  The Cttees assesses the validity and confirms the duration of
the problem only.   The Subject Boards only receive a list of names, who
were deemed to have a valid concession, and the duration of the 'problem',
eg 3 March 2001 or Jan - Mar 2001 or all year.  They receive no detail of
the 'problem' itself and are thus not required to differentiate between
broken arms and depression.

Ncolette


Nicolette Connon, Assistant Registrar
King Alfred's College, Sparkford Road
Winchester S022 4NR
Tel: (01962) 827224
Fax: (01962) 827406
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>




-----Original Message-----
From: Pauline Aldous [ mailto:[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
Sent: 06 March 2001 15:43
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: extenuating circumstances



Thanks Paul for providing this. Since I have to review our extenuating
circumstances procedures, it is very useful. One other piece of information
would have been helpful. Did any of the respondents indicate that they had a
separate panel to consider the mitigating circumstances prior to a main
board of examiners? At present mitigating circumstances are considered at
the subject level and we are thinking about moving consideration to College
level for the sake of greater consistency of practice. We want to avoid
over-long exam boards, however, if we can.

Ideas from Paul or others would be welcome

Pauline Aldous
Ripon and York



-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [ mailto:[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
Sent: 06 March 2001 15:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: extenuating circumstances


Colleagues,

Now that Easter is in sight, I thought I'd provide the long awaited summary
of my Christmas-tide survey of practice concerning extenuating
circumstances.  Many well wishers responded to congratulate me on my great
humanity in this matter and some even offered considerably helpful
information and guidance.  I am, then, grateful to colleagues at the
Universities of Essex, Derby,  Central England, Sussex and Brighton and to
a colleague from Liverpool John Moores University.  Two colleagues sent
hard copies of forms and guidance which were much appreciated.  I borrowed
as much from them as I could apply to the policies of my institution.  We
now have a form and guidance which is proving helpful to some degree
(nothing is ever perfect, afterall) in sorting wheat from chaff - to the
howls of the woolly liberals I respectfully term "the academic community".

(I know everyone wants to work in a caring context, lifting the world from
its despair, but when you think about it there is nowhere other than a
university that offers such job satisfaction.)

Anyhow, to the chase:

1.   It was uniformly the case that the acceptable causes for non- or poor
performance were cast in terms of circumstances that had a "material
effect" on results or "significantly impaired" the ability to perform.
Typically expressed in terms of ill health or adverse circumstances, there
was an expectation that such circumstances would be verifiable.  One
institution did also explicitly allow for issues of duty of care relating
to close family at the time of examination to be acceptable circumstance.

2.   The types of circumstance generally found unacceptable included
complaints about the examination timetable (whether misread or too
compact), short term illness during the year, financial problems or IT
problems.  Two respondents stated that their institution did not find
pressure of work acceptable.  Two others stated that pressure of work would
be acceptable circumstance in respect of part-time students if verified by
the employer (with one respondent indicating that as employers of part-time
students were typically sponsors, it was circumspect not to offer offence
in such matters).

3.   It was quite uniformly the case that third party evidence was
required.  Self certification was deemed invalid.  One institution that
took a commendably hard line routinely sought death certificates.
Anecdotally, I thought I might share my experience of receiving a specimen
jar in one exam board containing some sort of growth.  Suspicious to the
end, I did request DNA identification but the woolies prevailed (well, they
do own the board when all is said and done).

4.   As to the outcomes, respondents identified a range of prospects:
deferral, condoned fail, condoned non-submission, allocation of the grade
point average for an incomplete assessment, aegrotat award, or "generous"
classification (my spin ? Mandy eat your heart out).

5.   One respondent indicated that a resit in a refer (rather than defer)
situation was open to a maximum grade of a bare pass.  Three respondents
indicated that a grade was never adjusted to take account of circumstances
(is a broken leg worth more than a family bereavement?) ? the grade
represented the standard achieved rather than the potential had the
circumstances not occurred.

6.   In terms of timing, 4 respondents indicated that cases should be
submitted before the board (generally 7 days, but in one case 2 days in
advance).  One respondent indicated that circumstances were not sought or
considered until after grades had been notified in order to get shot of
"insurance claims" and allowed only one outcome ? deferral.  Now that
seemed very hard-nosed to me, so its my new crusade within my institution
(I have always thought going to work to be popular is a bad move).

7.   Three respondents made plain that hedging of bets was not viable;  if
a candidate was deferred, the mark for the subsequent sitting stood whether
better or worse.

8.   Generally speaking, the policy on extenuating circumstances was the
same for full-time and part-time students though as indicated above, there
would be some allowance for work-based pressures for part-time students if
supported by an employer.  One respondent indicated that extensions to
deadlines were more prevalent amongst part-time students (again, if an
employer supported the request).

9.   From 4 respondents, one indicated that extensions were not allowed in
her/his institution.  The other 3 institutions did make provision for
extensions.  One set a maximum extension of 10 days.  Another allowed
tutors absolute discretion (subject only to the proviso that extensions be
reported to the board) where the assessment contributed to less than 20% of
the module grade.  A third allowed submission one day late, after which a
zero grade was returned.  If extenuating circumstances were not allowed,
one institution capped the grade at the bare pass as a penalty for late
submission.

So there it is.  Many readers might think this inconsequential but I did
find this survey useful from the point of view of justifying the
development of policy in my institution.  I know at least one colleague has
asked for the summary, so some of you out there do have an interest in
this.  In closing, I should just confirm that my faith in human kind has
been restored.  It was kind of respondents to take the time to give
thorough answers and to copy relevant documents or direct me to their web
pages where their policies are outlined.


Thanks,

Paul