Mitigating circumstances

4.

If a student feels before the examinations are sat that his/her examination performance might be affected by existing circumstances, he/she might be eligible for special examination arrangements.

5.

Alternatively he/she may apply to defer sitting one or all examinations until the following academic year: See Deferral requests.

6.

Also, students who experience significant problems earlier in the year may apply to interrupt their studies: See Interruption.

7.

It is the School's view that when a student decides to enter an examination he/she has declared him/herself 'fit to sit'.

8.

Having entered an examination, it is also open to a student who feels that his/her examination performance was affected, significantly and negatively, by mitigating circumstances to submit evidence of mitigation. The deadline for doing so is seven days after his/her final examination in the year of the affected examinations, or seven days after the dissertation submission deadline (for MA/MSc students). A mitigation form (Submission of Mitigation (PDF)) can be downloaded from the Student Services Centre (SSC) website, and should be returned to the SSC once completed.  Mitigation submitted on time will be considered by the relevant Sub-Board of Examiners.

9.

All submitted evidence of mitigation is handled confidentially and sensitively.

10.

Evidence of mitigation must be submitted on time. Timely submission allows Sub-Boards of Examiners to review individual cases within the context of all other cases from students on the same programme. This ensures that all students are treated equitably.

11.

Mitigating circumstances must relate to a specific examination or set of examinations, rather than being problems of a kind that affect a year as a whole or parts of it. As a general rule, circumstances affecting a year or parts of it, resulting for example in classes being missed, might prevent a student from gaining knowledge. But there is no fair and equitable way for Sub-Boards to determine how a student might have performed had he/she not been affected by these circumstances. By contrast, mitigating circumstances that affect a specific examination or set of examinations, such as illness/injury, bereavement or other serious personal circumstances on the day of an examination or in the days immediately preceding, might prevent a student from demonstrating knowledge he/she gained over the year.

Procedural Defect

12.

Procedural defect relates to any irregularity in the School's conduct of an examination, processing of scripts or assessment of students (including the proceedings of Exam Sub-Boards) that results in a decision of a Sub-Board being unsafe.

13.

If a student feels that his/her examination performance has been negatively affected by procedural defect, he/she should submit a mitigation form in the way described at 8 above (i.e. within seven days of his/her final examinations in the year of the affected examinations). This will allow the relevant Sub-Board to consider whether it is appropriate and necessary to adjust the results of an examination for the affected student or students. If the alleged procedural defect relates specifically to the proceedings of an Exam Sub-Board, the normal appeal deadline applies (see Regulation 8, below).

Boards of Examiners and suspension of regulations

14.

All final marks for courses are confirmed by a Sub-Board of Examiners, which then applies the School's classification rules to students on its programmes. For purposes of equity across degree programmes, a Sub-Board bases its classification decision only on the actual marks achieved by individual students:

• BA-BSc Degrees
• Bachelor of Laws
• Diplomas
• Four unit Taught Masters Degrees
• Five unit Taught Masters Degrees: (MSc Economic History (Research);  MSc Economics and Philosophy; MSc Health Policy, Planning and Financing; MSc International Health Policy; MSc International Health Policy (Health Economics); and MRes Economics (Track 1))
• MSc, Diploma and Certificate in Health Economics, Policy and Management (modular)
• MRes Political Science
• MSc Management: Pre 2011/12, 2011/12 and beyond
• MPA Degrees: Pre 2011/12, 2011/12 and beyond

15.

All Sub-Board decisions about classification require final approval by a School Board of Examiners. These School-level bodies ensure that all Sub-Boards for different degree programmes apply the School's classification rules consistently and equitably, and that any exceptional cases are also handled consistently and equitably.

16.

To ensure fairness, the marks on which classification decisions are normally based must record individual academic performance in assessed work. Accordingly, marks will never change as a result of mitigating circumstances. Rather, if a student falls marginally short of the next higher classification boundary and can show that his/her examination performance was affected, significantly and negatively, by specific mitigating circumstances that were unforeseen and beyond his/her control, or by procedural defect, it is open to the Sub-Board exceptionally to recommend the suspension of the normal application of the classification rules.

17.

When reviewing individual recommendations from Sub-Boards for suspension of the normal application of the classification rules, the School Boards do so in the knowledge that many students sit their examinations in difficult circumstances.

18

For the normal application of the classification rules to be suspended, specific conditions must be met. First, a student must be very close to the next higher classification boundary (normally within 3 marks in a single paper or 5 marks on aggregate). Second, the student must have marks in that higher classification range. Third, the student must be able to show that the examination or set of examinations in question were significantly and negatively affected by mitigating circumstances that were unforeseen and beyond his/her control. Fourth, the student must also be able to show that his/her performance in the affected examination(s) was significantly out of line with performances in other, unaffected examinations. In light of these very specific criteria, suspensions are very rare.

^

Appeals regulations

General

3.

A student may appeal against the following Exam Sub-Board decisions:

3.1

a final degree classification;

3.2

the non-award of a degree, or decision to class a student as Final Fail;

3.3

a mark or grade in any course, including grades of Absent, Incomplete or Fail.

4

Appeals based on mitigating circumstances cannot result in a change of marks. The Academic Registrar will arrange for the relevant Exam Sub-Board to take such circumstances into account either:

4.1

when a student is in his/her final year so that the Sub-Board can recommend, in light of the circumstances and the closeness of the student's mark profile to the next higher classification boundary, whether the normal application of the classification scheme should be suspended and a higher classification awarded; or

4.2

when a student has failed a course so that the Sub-Board can recommend whether or not to condone or discount a failed attempt.

Valid grounds for making an appeal

5.

There are two grounds the School accepts as the basis for appeals. These are procedural defect or, exceptionally, new information about mitigating circumstances.

6.

For an appeal based on new information about mitigating circumstances to be valid, two conditions must be met:

6.1

First, good reason must be provided about why such information was not submitted within seven days of a student's final examination in the affected year, as set out in paragraph 8 of the 'Principles' section preceding these Regulations and in the 'Examination Procedures for Candidates'.

6.2

Second, the circumstances on which the student wishes to base his/her appeal must be corroborated by official documented evidence (e.g. medical letter, death certificate, etc). The student is responsible for ensuring that all evidence is in English. Translations by the student of original documentation are not acceptable.

7.

The questioning of the academic judgment of a Sub-Board or School Board of Examiners, if it has acted according to all relevant regulations and procedures, cannot form the basis of any appeal.

Procedures for making an appeal

8.

An appeal under these Regulations will be considered if a student submits it in writing to the Academic Registrar. For the avoidance of doubt, email is acceptable. The deadline for doing so is four weeks after the date on which the decision against which the appeal is being made was posted to the student. Exceptionally, the Academic Registrar may use his/her discretion to accept an appeal after the four-week deadline.

9.

The letter of appeal must be signed and dated by the student and state all of the following information:

9.1

the student's name;

9.2

full contact details including postal and email address;

9.3

the Exam Sub-Board decision against which the appeal is being made;

9.4

the grounds being presented for the appeal:

a)

Appeals based on procedural defect must include a personal statement about how the alleged defect significantly and negatively affected the student's individual performance in the examination or set of examinations in question.

b)

Appeals based on new information about mitigating circumstances must include (i) a good reason for the late submission of this information, (ii) official documented evidence in English, and (iii) a personal statement about how these circumstances significantly and negatively affected the student's performance in the examination or set of examinations in question.

10.

The Academic Registrar will acknowledge receipt of the appeal within five working days.

11.

The Academic Registrar will consider the appeal letter and any accompanying material and decide whether the student has identified valid grounds for an appeal, including whether good reason has been provided for the late submission of new information about mitigating circumstances.

12.

If the Academic Registrar decides that the student has identified valid grounds, the appeal will be submitted to the relevant Exam Sub-Board (subject to Regulation 17). On the basis of the new information presented to it the Sub-Board will decide either to uphold or adjust its original decision. Appeals will normally be considered by Sub-Boards in 15 working days during term time and in 30 working days during vacation time.

13.

If the Academic Registrar decides that the student has not identified valid grounds for an appeal, s/he will explain this decision to the student and grant him/her five working days to resubmit his/her appeal.

14.

If the student resubmits his/her appeal and still fails to identify valid grounds for appeal, the Academic Registrar will reject the application.

15.

The student will then have the right to request that the Chair of the relevant School Board of Examiners review the Academic Registrar's decision. If the Chair upholds the decision, a completion of procedures letter will be sent to the student (see Regulation 47).

16.

If the Chair does not uphold the decision, the appeal will be submitted to the relevant Exam Sub-Board under Regulation 12.

17.

Where the Academic Registrar determines that the student has identified valid grounds for an appeal, but that the student's mark profile indicates that the appeal will not succeed (see paragraph 18 of the 'Principles' section), the Academic Registrar may ask the Chair of the relevant School Board of Examiners to certify the appeal as invalid. The Academic Registrar will normally request that an appeal be invalidated if:

17.1

the student's appeal is against either the classification or non-award of a degree; and

17.2

the student's mark profile is more than 3 marks away from the next higher classification boundary in a single course; and/or

17.3

the student's mark profile is more than 5 marks away from the next higher classification boundary on aggregate; and/or

17.4

the student's performance in the examination or set of examinations affected by mitigating circumstances was/were not significantly out of line with his/her performance in other unaffected courses taken at any stage of the programme.

18.

If the Chair upholds the request to certify the appeal as invalid, a completion of procedures letter will be sent to the student (see Regulation 47).

19.

If the Chair does not uphold the request, the appeal will be submitted to the relevant Exam Sub-Board under Regulation 12.

20.

The Academic Registrar will convey in writing to the student the final decision of the Sub-Board where an appeal goes forward to a Sub-Board under Regulations 12, 16 or 19, subject to ratification by the Chair of the relevant School Board of Examiners¹. In the case of intercollegiate, ERASMUS or General Course students, the Sub-Board's decision may extend to making a recommendation to the student's awarding body.

¹ This letter will be a completion of procedures letter, subject to the student's eligibility to request an Appeals Committee hearing (Regulation 21) and his/her right to appeal to a Pro-Director on the grounds of procedural irregularity in the handling of his/her appeal (Regulation 41).

Appeals Committee

29.

The Academic Registrar will appoint a Committee Secretary. The Secretary will organise the membership of the Committee, set a date for the hearing, advise on procedure, be present during the hearing of the appeal, and keep a record of proceedings.

30.

The Secretary will inform the student of the date on which the hearing is to take place and of the Committee's membership at least ten working days beforehand (though it is open to the student to waive this notice period).

31.

The Appeals Committee hearing will take place as soon as possible, and normally within four term-time weeks from the date the Academic Registrar determines under Regulation 24 that the matter should proceed.

32.

Each member has one vote. The quorum of the Appeals Committee will be two, including the Chair. In the case of a two-member Committee, the Chair will have the casting vote. If a quorum is not reached within 30 minutes of the notified start time, the hearing will be adjourned to a new date/time.

33.

The student will be invited to appear before the Appeals Committee. He/she will have the right to present his/her appeal and to see and challenge evidence considered by the Committee. He/she may be accompanied by a friend or representative from the Students' Union. If the student is to be accompanied by a friend, he/she will inform the Committee Secretary of the friend's background and professional qualifications five working days before the date of the hearing. Where the student has indicated that he/she is to be represented, the Academic Registrar may recruit a representative to assist the School at the hearing.

34.

The student will have the right to submit documents and additional evidence but only in relation to the alleged procedural defect. Additional material must be submitted at least two working days prior to the date of the hearing. Evidence submitted later will only be considered by the Committee with the agreement of the Chair.

35.

The validity of the proceedings of the Committee will not be affected by the unwillingness or inability of the student, or other person acting with or for him/her, to reply to questions, orally or in writing, or to appear before the Committee. Before considering an appeal in the absence of the student or his/her representative, the Committee must satisfy itself that the Secretary to the Committee has fulfilled Regulation 30 and that the student has had a reasonable chance to respond. Where the Committee concludes that the student or his/her representative is unwilling to reply to a question or questions, it may draw reasonable inferences from that refusal.

36.

The Committee may adjourn the hearing to seek other evidence to help in reaching its decision. Independent expert evidence may be obtained and introduced by either party, including the use of IT hardware or software, as long as it is received by the Secretary at least two working days before the hearing. Any evidence requested by the Committee shall be disclosed to the student, who shall be given the opportunity to comment upon it. Where a hearing has restarted, its membership shall be as originally appointed; no substitutes or replacements will be allowed except in exceptional circumstances.

37.

The student and his/her representative are entitled to attend the return hearing. The student is also entitled to submit further evidence and/or written submissions in response to any new evidence to be considered by the Committee, as long as these are received by the Secretary at least two working days before the restart of the hearing.

38.

The Committee may make one of the following decisions:

38.1

that the decision by the Sub-Board under Regulation 12 not to adjust its original decision be upheld and the appeal dismissed; or

38.2

that the decision by the Sub-Board under Regulation 12 not to adjust its original decision not be upheld, and that a new outcome be determined by the Appeals Committee. This may include:

a)

the award of a degree; or

b)

the award of a higher degree classification; or

c)

discounting a failed attempt at a course or courses, or failed assessed components of it/them; or

d)

condoning a failed attempt at a course or courses, or failed components of it/them; or

e)

allowing an exceptional additional attempt at a failed course or courses, or at components of it/them.

39.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Appeals Committee's decision is final and is not subject to ratification by the relevant Sub-Board and School Board of Examiners.

40.

The Academic Registrar will convey in writing to the student the Appeals Committee's decision under Regulation 38². The student will also be sent the record of the hearing.

^{2 This letter will be a completion of procedures letter, subject to the student's right to appeal to a Pro-Director on the grounds of procedural irregularity in the handling of his/her appeal (41).} 

Alleged procedural defect during the appeals process

41.

If an Exam Sub-Board (under Regulation 12) and/or an Appeals Committee (under Regulation 38) decides not to uphold an appeal, a student may appeal to a Pro-Director on one or more of the following grounds:

41.1

that the Sub-Board or Appeals Committee was constituted in such a way that it was not impartial;

41.2

that there was a procedural breach of the procedures set out in these Regulations that affected the fairness of the Sub-Board's or Appeals Committee's decision;

41.3

that relevant fresh evidence is available that might have caused a different decision to have been made, provided the student can show that it was neither reasonable nor practicable to have presented it an earlier stage.

Any such appeal must be received by the Academic Registrar within ten working days of the date of the letter sent under Regulation 40.

42.

The Pro-Director (who will be a different Pro-Director from the one who might have previously considered the appeal under Regulation 24) will have the sole right of determining whether the student has presented sufficient grounds to warrant re-opening the matter. It will be open to the Pro-Director considering an appeal to consult the Chair of the relevant Sub-Board and/or the Chair of the Appeals Committee.

43.

The Pro-Director considering the appeal may make one of the following decisions:

43.1

that no procedural defect occurred in the consideration of the appeal and that the appeal be dismissed, or

43.2

that procedural defect did occur but that it had no material effect on the outcome of the decision, and that the appeal be dismissed; or

43.3

that a procedural defect occurred in the consideration of the appeal, rendering the decision unsafe.

44.

The Academic Registrar will convey in writing to the student the decision under Regulation 43, normally within 15 working days of the date on which the appeal was received under Regulation 41.

45.

A decision under Regulations 43.1 or 43.2 will complete the procedures open to the student for considering his/her appeal (see Regulation 47).

46.

A decision under Regulation 43.3 will result in the appeal being re-considered by either the Exam Sub-Board or the Appeals Committee (as appropriate). The Sub-Board or the Appeals Committee will be constituted in such a way as to remedy the procedural defect (for appeals based on Regulation 41.1-41.2) or to hear the relevant new evidence (for appeals based on Regulation 41.3).

Further action