Policies
Grounds for appeal
The grounds for appeal are given in the Regulations.
Significant mitigating circumstances
- There are circumstances that materially affected your performance, for which supporting evidence exists,
- these were not known to the Board of Examiners or other academic body at the time its decision was taken, and
- it was not reasonably practicable for you to make them known to your department before the decision.
Students are expected use the Mitigating Circumstances Procedure to tell their School about any circumstances affecting their studies at the time they occur. When this has not been done and these circumstances are raised in an appeal, it is important to explain why you were unable to inform your School when the circumstances were happening. Choosing not to share information at the expected time is normally not considered a sufficient reason for raising mitigating circumstances in an appeal.
The Mitigating Circumstances Policy provides more detail on the kinds of circumstances that can be accepted. Some circumstances that the Policy states are not accepted include financial hardship or undertaking paid work, submitting the wrong assessment in error or missing/misreading information.
New diagnosis of disability
- There is evidence of a disability, or learning difference as defined by the Equality Act 2010 which was not available in time for Reasonable Adjustments to be made for assessments.
This ground supports students who discover, after completing an assessment, that they have a disability or learning difference which impacted an earlier performance.
You must demonstrate why it was not possible to arrange reasonable adjustments prior to the assessment in question.
Please note that this ground cannot be used to apply reasonable adjustments retrospectively or to revisit assessments from previous years or levels of study. While an appeal may result in a decision being reviewed, progression and award requirements set out in Senate Regulations and programme specifications cannot be overridden, and individual marks cannot be changed.
Procedural irregularities
- There were procedural irregularities in the conduct of examination or assessment procedures of such a nature as to create a reasonable possibility that the result may have been different if it had not occurred.
Procedural irregularity refers to errors in the way an exam or assessment process was carried out, where approved regulations, policies or procedures were not followed correctly. Examples may include correct marking and moderation processes not being followed; or a late penalty being applied when the University received the assessment submission on time.
Procedural irregularity does not include simply disagreeing with the mark awarded or believing that you should have achieved a higher mark. This is known as challenging academic judgement and is not permitted under the Academic Appeals process. An appeal may be made where there is evidence that the assessment process was conducted incorrectly, but it cannot be based solely on disagreement with the academic judgement of the marker(s). Appeals made on this basis will not be considered.
Prejudice or bias
- There is evidence of prejudice or bias or lack of proper assessment on the part of one or more of the examiners.
Challenging academic judgement is not permitted
Prejudice or bias on the part of an examiner may result in unfairness. This may not be deliberate and could arise unintentionally. However, marking and moderation processes are designed to ensure consistency and minimise the risk of personal opinions being able to influence an assessment.
It is also important to note that treating everyone fairly doesn’t always mean treating everyone the same. For example, students with disabilities may be entitled to Reasonable Adjustments, which are considered on an individual basis and may differ between students.
You must provide evidence to support any claim of prejudice, bias or improper assessment. A belief that an assessment was unfair is not sufficient on its own.
You should also note that the University operates systems of double or second marking, or moderation to ensure that there are adequate checks on the accuracy and appropriateness of marking and to help prevent prejudice and bias. Marks are awarded to a student’s work on the basis of the academic judgement of the examiners in conjunction with an agreed assessment criteria relevant to the assignment in question. Programmes are overseen by external examiners appointed from other institutions to ensure the University’s academic standards. Therefore you cannot ask for an item of assessment to be ‘re-marked’ or 'checked' if you disagree with the examiners’ judgement as this would be deemed challenging academic judgement. Students who wish to challenge an assessment related decision should be aware that Boards of Examiners do not have the authority to change marks for individual students and a successful appeal will not lead to a change of mark. If you have concerns about an individual mark awarded to you, you should in the first instance follow up with your School or Department and ask whether further feedback or clarification is available.
You may not appeal if your results are not as good as you had hoped or worse than you believe you deserve. Appeals which simply challenge the academic judgement of internal or external examiners or Boards of Examiners are not permitted.