> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:39:34 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
> Priority: NORMAL
> Subject: Academic Appeals
> From: Patrick Kennedy <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Reply-to: [log in to unmask]
> 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
>
>I think the only line to take is that each case has to be considered
individually. If it was genuinely not possible to inform the Board of
Examiners about the condition when it met then the Board should
consider it now - or at least the Chairman should decide whether the
evidence is likely to have made any difference to the decision taken.
If so, then the Board should reconvene, even if this has to be by
telephone/email consultation.
Of course, just because medical evidence is presented doesn't mean
the academic decision should be changed - a judgement still has to be
made as to its relevance and importance. In two cases here this
summer one after-the-event medical certificate was
rejected as insubstantial, and in the other the Board actually
reconvened to look at more substantial medical evidence but resolved
that this did not affect its judgement of the candidate's academic
worth.
Joe Taylor
Academic Office
University of Warwick
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|