University Academic Appeal - Has anyone gone through this?

[universitylife]

Has anyone gone through an academic appeal with a university in England (not sure if that may make a difference) please?

I'm just posting this on behalf of a relative. It's being considered to appeal once final results are released in the Summer on the grounds of challenging a previous mitigating circumstances decision, with such circumstances not being fully considered at the time. The university were aware of the circumstances with the student having quite severe anxiety and whilst the relevant teams had put in 'support', other university issues still went unresolved with studies being online still. The student has since had a meeting with a Doctor who has suggested that a separate reason behind the circumstances may also be neurodivergent related but this is still being looked at and is only preliminary until the other issues are addressed. This has obviously been quite a shock having not been considered before and does shine a new light on the situation before. The university union have offered advice and think this is the best route to consider but having never done this before, it feels rather daunting.

The uncertainty of raising this hasn't also been helped by the outcome from a complaint made last year, on advice of the academic complaints team. Whilst this was associated with similar circumstances, it had been recommended to go down this route first as this could be started prior to results being released. As it was a complaint and not an appeal, the complaint related to procedures as opposed to decisions made, however this was not upheld and this makes the current situation with a prospective appeal more uncertain, with concerns this may go a similar route.

It's being considered to involve a Solicitor or similar, would this be recommended? Does anyone have any advice please?

Hello, OP -

I have sat on Mitigating Circumstances and Appeals panels at an English Russell Group university.

I am unclear about the concern about a possible relationship between the unsuccessful outcome of last year's complaint and this year's potential appeal. If you are concerned that the history of the former might influence the latter, I can tell you that in my university I absolutely do not believe it would. Procedural guidance is rigorous that it should not, no background about the complaint would be provided to the new appeals panel, and it is unlikely that the complaint panel and the appeals panel would contain common members. Even if someone carried over we are less fascinated by these cases than students suppose, they blur together in memory, a year is a long time, and we have many more interesting things on our minds.

But you have been very opaque about the content of the complaint and the potential appeal, so we cannot evaluate the merits of the situation. If the content is similar and was not upheld the first time, no one on MumsNet can give you grounds for optimism this time. By the 'university union' I assume you mean the Student Union? They should be good advocates for your relative and know their way around all of this, so I would tend to trust them.

You have not been clear about the circumstances that were not considered at the time of the relevant Mit Circs petition. At my university, we would care very much about the reason these circs were not considered at the proper time. I can offer no expertise based on what you have written.

Usually a solicitor's involvement is reserved for matters of law. If one pursues an issue with an English university, it goes to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator rather than to law. (Exceptions such the recent court finding against Bristol in the suicide of Natasha Abrahart are very rare.) Occasionally people use a solicitor to help prepare a case for the OIA simply because solicitors can often write well, but the OIA explicitly states that legal assistance is not necessary when bringing a case.

I work in a university complaints team.

I have seen cases upheld where a late medical diagnosis leads to results being reviewed, but it usually requires a formal medical diagnosis rather than a suspicion of a medical condition.

We handle both complaints and academic appeals but we do not link cases or tell decision makers about other cases.

Solicitors cost a lot of money and rarely seem to improve the success of the appeal. Uni complaints and appeals processes are designed to be accessible without legal support, and sometimes solicitors send lengthy letters telling us all about case law which isn’t directly relevant. Unis generally take a robust approach to letters saying “uphold the appeal or I’ll sue”. Costs a fortune as well.

Does the Uni have a Students Union Advisory Team or similar? They are usually available to give free advice and they have lots of expertise in university procedures.

@poetryandwine @thereinmadnesslies Thank you both for your replies. I had thought a Solicitor or similar would be able to formulate the appeal given it has been quite a taxing year with communicating to the university and I think my relative may find it challenging formulating this again when we they have been through it many times since this all started.

I'm apprehensive giving too much detail on here as it is public but I wanted some advice on their behalf and appreciate it would be more helpful to be able to say whether an appeal may be likely, which is what would be beneficial to them at the moment.

@poetryandwine Yes, it is the Student's Union. They have been involved with the potential appeal.

All the policies should be available on the universities webpages and the student union will be the best to advise/ help fill in the appeal as they should know the policies.

I think it would be helpful to have opinions based on the circumstances.

They have anxiety and associated challenges, which the university have been aware of throughout their studies. This has sadly fluctuated and has been supported by relevant medical evidence when necessary. There were difficulties in the university organising the associated support through Covid, this wasn’t resolved on the start of the academic year.
They were without access to support worker and the online learning presented a challenge, for example listening to lectures without subtitles or captions, significantly longer lectures than scheduled or the length they should have been. The School were aware but no action was taken. Monthly meetings were arranged at the start of the year, with a number of senior academics present, without a supporting member for my relative. The ongoing issues relating to online learning were raised each time but just prior to Christmas when a decision on them continuing studying that year was due to be referred, they took leave and it was agreed the modules would be continued on their return without penalty the following year.

Fast forward to last year, they returned but were advised meetings would need to continue as a ‘check in’, this time without all the academics. They were advised in September of ‘changes’ to mitigating circumstances and applications for extensions could only be granted “if they are really necessary”, the academic then asked my relative “to repeat that all back to me so I can make sure you understand”. The Union advised they had not heard of any changes to the policies and only the method to apply. Shortly after this, the university systems were not accessible due to a fault and my relative was without access. Missed live sessions, lectures, all access to links etc. Numerous emails were sent, told they would investigate it but only on my relative’s attempt was access to some material restored. Full access came back days later but this set them back and caused significant increase in work due to missed tutorials, assignment briefs and lecture access was intermittent for months. This was raised at these subsequent meetings but no support offered. It caused a relapse in their wellbeing and we’d arranged GP support but given the wait time, even privately, we have been waiting since then.

The mitigating circumstances in the initial application were as a result of lost access and subsequent exacerbation of existing anxiety and associated challenges. It was already significant to warrant support from the university team but that support had been a challenge to navigate without the access to university systems. Even a member of university staff tried to help with access and saw for themselves what the issues were and advised to contact the School/Chair of the mitigating circumstances panel to explain the situation, which was done. A corroborating and independent evidence was provided but this was declined as an extension had been given previously. The extension has been given but the seminars relating to the assignment for example, during the loss of access, meant it was always playing catch up. The faculty was contacted and they were advised to reraise with the School, which they did but this was looked into at the start of exam season and the decision remained. It was then the complaints team became involved and advised this would be the best method given the urgency of a decision prior to the Summer. They advised if this was upheld, an academic appeal being granted would be more likely. They also suggested additional consideration applied for given the ongoing exam and current medical advice.

The second mitigating circumstances decision was approved for some modules but not all, as an extension been granted between the deadline and the end of exam period, further approval could not be given. It between the start of exams and the end, the same period were another module exam had been granted for a further sitting.
Private support was also accessed and supporting documentation provided, only now following 8 months on a waiting list, have they been seen. It was here that they advise additional support is needed before a return and the possibility of additional diagnosis. The university were aware of the wait time in the second mitigating circumstances meeting.
The complaint team also considered this outcome in the existing complaint. The outcome decision took two months longer than protocol stated. Emails were confidently advising that it would be completed when possible, the Union advised stating a final date, which was done but still no outcome. Only on referral to the OiA and an email from them did the university give an outcome. The impact of the past few months have contributed to a significant decline in their wellbeing and it is still counting with uncertainty. If the modules remain with the current decision, there’s a potential for 40% of the current year grade to be capped at 40% which is very stressful and it is hard for us to watch.

We seem to have a consensus that 1) the history of the old complaint will not affect a new appeal and 2) an advisory team in the Student Union, if it exists, is the best source of help for any appeal.

A risk we haven’t mentioned with solicitors, that I have seen, is that they may encourage you to proceed with a weak case. Good ones use language beautifully and, as @thereinmadnesslies indicated, may threaten to sue. Do remember that if you choose that route you will be going through the OIA. The role of the courts is almost exclusively to enforce the OIA’s opinions on unis when required, but the unis have a high rate of success with the OIA.

If your main worry is how to put together a cogent case and your relative needs more help than the SU can offer, I would seek out a specialist in a non legalistic approach to constructing appeals documents. You want to present the facts in a positive manner. As @therein implies, if the threat of legal action generates any reaction at all within the panel, it is one of annoyance.

@poetryandwine Thank you. I think there's an underlying nervousness to making the appeal, they don't know whether to feel positive about doing so, whilst the Union have said they are inclined to look at making the appeal but that it would need to address that the school did not do enough to mitigate the issues that occurred for them, which is daunting. We also don't want to pursue it if it is a weak case, would you suggest this may be?

I certainly don't want to make threats or anything similar, I just don't think they can write an appeal they feel confident in so a non legalistic approach might be the answer. I've had a brief google but can only see similar advice for others, is there a search term or organisations you might be any to point me in the direction of please?

Sometimes charities will draft an appeal or support a student with a particular disability to appeal, eg the RNIB will submit appeals on behalf of a visually impaired student.

What outcome are you seeking? It sounds like your main concern is the marks, so I can see why you are being advised to make an academic appeal. It’s unlikely that an academic appeal will lead to marks being raised - it’s really hard to say ‘if this student had better support he would have got 70 not 40’. What is more likely as a remedy for an upheld academic appeal is the chance to re-sit, or to have certain papers disregarded.

The Union have also advised that the current wait time could be several months, some have been waiting a year for a decision but if the modules remained capped, as it could be up to 4, this may contribute to them deciding to leave all together. They'd rather do that before the academic year starts again, especially if the appeal sounds weak from the outset.

It would be for the decision of mitigating circumstances to be challenged and the opportunity for a first attempt I believe. At the moment I understand this to be a final attempt and capped at 40.

The student has since had a meeting with a Doctor who has suggested that a separate reason behind the circumstances may also be neurodivergent related but this is still being looked at and is only preliminary until the other issues are addressed. This has obviously been quite a shock having not been considered before and does shine a new light on the situation before.

I've only read your OP - but wanted to comment on this bit of it. This is the tricky bit. It's actually quite difficult to deal with a case with a request for retrospective mitigation. The question to be asked "Why hasn't the student mentioned this before?" is a reasonable one.

It means that there was no possibility of putting in place "reasonable adjustments" as we're required to under the DDA. And it is very difficult to determine how the student's grades might have been affected.

Most mitigations are either
a) unusual circumstance/one off eg illness while doing an exam; hearing about parent' divorce the night before an exam; ie something that is quite specific to a particular assessment

or

b) long-term or chronic illness/disability. Most of the time, reasonable adjustments are out in place, and then work is marked as normal. The aim is to try to provide a "level playing field" for the student's whole degree. Then assessment by assessment mitigations are not given (that would be double-dipping).

So your student would need to provide pretty rock-solid evidence of the impact - specific - of their chronic illness/disability.

The problem is, that to an outsider, it could look like the student has realised their marks aren't what they think they should be, so after the event, they're bringing in some reasons to get their marks put up. I'm not saying this is the case, but it could look like it.

The other thing about mitigation is that in the case of a) - specific occasion for mitigation - most Exam Bards/Mitigation committees make quite specific and precise decisions about grades, based on looking at, say, a student's performance up to that assessment and if there's no difference in the class mark, they will usually determine that there's no case for increasing the grade of the assessment for which mitigation is requested.

I'd agree with my colleagues that Mitigations and Appeals committees don't see previous materials unless relevant. The mitigations committees and exam boards at my place don't even see names; all we see are student ID numbers, so we are making decisions on runs of marks, and official documentation, which has been anonymised.

It sounds as though the decision to take a leave of absence for the period of only online learning was a good one. But the drawback is that during that time, students are not students any more.

To me it sounds as though the university has been trying to assist the student, but the general overload during and after the pandemic has meant that things have been slowed down. I can attest to that happening at my place in all areas - we have fewer staff, many on sick leave, and so on.

And the university can't replace the NHS or other services beyond the university, so the delay in counselling and diagnosis is adding to delays. As academics and administrative staff dealing with students, we don't and cannot (should not) make clinical decisions; we rely on our clinical colleagues for this.

One thing you could do is to read the UNiversity's regulations for undergraduate degrees. They should be published somewhere on the university website. They can be different for each intake year cohort, so make sure you read the correct ones. It's these regulations that colleagues will be using in your student's case. So it is very useful (essential) for you/your student to read them.

And it could help us to advise anonymously if yo could be clearer about: a) what the initial problem was - late work? failed work? un-submitted work?
b) what your student hopes to achieve in the complaints process?

It would be for the decision of mitigating circumstances to be challenged and the opportunity for a first attempt I believe. At the moment I understand this to be a final attempt and capped at 40.

Ahhh! That's helpful to know.

I would advise that it might be useful for your student to write a timeline of the events. Your posts are a bit mind-boggling, and I think hard to follow for anyone to advise. I'm not suggesting you publish that timeline here of course!

Just that then the process for determining first sit, or referral (rather than deferral) might be clearer to everyone. What did the student understand was told to them? What information was available on the course Virtual learning environment, website, or otherwise distributed/published module outline or course handbook? It is the student's responsibility to read & digest these ... What processes for an extension application were made?

And so on. Just try to get it clear, step by step. bEcause that might be the way to see where the lapse in procedure and/or communication has happened.

Is there already a formal note on the student's file about reasonable accommodations for officially diagnosed condition (the anxiety?). What are the accommodations/adjusted suggested in that?

(At my place they call it an 'individual learning document' and we have to sign that we've read them & taken them into account for any students we teach in modules we convene)

The idea is that if accommodations/adjustments are implemented throughout the degree, there are no further mitigations for the same illness/problem/disability.

@GoodThinkingMax The retrospective circumstances are a potential if the diagnosis is given, that can only occur after medical support with the escalation of the existing problem. They have stated in the initial diagnosis that this current situation of the medical needs have been as a direct result of the current situation.
The previous diagnosis was singular, as opposed to dual now regardless of the other potential. More than likely to be option b that you mention. This however was given to the university and so they were aware of this at the time and prior to this. I understand adjustments were made, including extensions if needed but the access issues had impacted this. The adjustments state access to rooms but the rooms didn't have the software required and they were advised to use normal computers. The reason for the room use was because of the facilities they offered to students in similar situations.
It was the escalation of the existing diagnosis due to this situation that wasn't known prior to the mitigating circumstances application, on both occasions. This progressed however more significantly by the second application. The second mitigating circumstances application was declined for a couple of modules that required assessments that weren't exams because an extension was granted prior. Yet the extension period was in the same week that impacted examinations, the examinations were approved for first attempts but not the assessments for other modules.

I should have perhaps made a clearer, sorry, I'm just aware I want honest opinions for them but I can't list it all in the post as I might be here a while! The applications were made prior to results, the work either could not be completed or was completed on the understanding of an application being made to the School to have the penalty adjusted. It was the penalty for late work not being adjusted or the first attempt not being given for missed assessments by the mitigating circumstances committee that is being challenged. They would like first attempts for the missed assignments or penalties to be removed. I think the priority is for first attempts.

The adjustments relate to support in person, to diary organise etc and to have access to lectures in advance etc. This hasn't always been the case, some lectures were pre-recorded from previous years - not always playing via the university software, not available until on the day and only some used captions. The use of specialist rooms was available but as above, the software wasn't available. To us, it has been more the impact of the situation on the previous diagnosis and the escalation to now be more than what was previously made clear to the university. Supporting documentation states this has been as a result of the delayed outcome of the complaint, difficulties in communication and challenges in managing all this whilst doing university work!

They are not in final year but are considering whether to continue at the university if the penalties of capped attempts remain in place considering the impact to overall grades this will have but also the impact this has on their mental health. Given a decision is likely not to be given until next academic year or possibly later, time is not on their side and it is difficult to know whether it is possible.

I should also add that there’s been no communication from the student complaints team since the complaint response, some information in the response was factually incorrect and this was raised but no reply was given, even from the Head of the team, despite further emails being sent. I understand the union have advised non reply to emails is now the norm by the team. If it had been the other way round, my relative would have been said to be uncooperative. It’s all very disappointing in my opinion.

The second mitigating circumstances application was declined for a couple of modules that required assessments that weren't exams because an extension was granted prior.

An extension is a mitigation.

I'm confused by "access" you mention - was this a matter of your student's wifi failing, or computer failing?

But I think you and your student need to sit down and do a factual timeline - your explanations here tend to be emotionally charged & defensive - of course they are! But university decisions will be done by the book - the regulations I mention above, so do go looking for those.

Universities (the staff doing these sorts of things) have to balance the specific situation & personality of the individual student against the regulations for all students. So while it's very personal for you, the determination of an appeal will be much more disinterested.

I wouldn't employ a solicitor on this - from what you say, I think it's not at all clear that there was a mistake in procedure. Students cannot appeal academic judgements of their work; they can only appeal the processes of their assessment. The university gave mitigations; they cannot be expected to have anticipated this later diagnosis!

But do assist the student in lodging an appeal. From what you say it may be that what the student wants - a deferred exam as a first attempt - is a reasonable outcome.

Of course, the bigger issue is the chronic illness/disability, and universities can only adjust for this sort of thing so far. There's a point at which sometimes students need to tae some time out to get better (or well enough to cope with the exigencies of final year study, in particular).

Apologies it’s long, I have insomnia and a child attached so it may be incoherent.

University procedures are very rigid and how
you or the student feels about it all is somewhat irrelevant. You’ve been given some good advice here on a very mixed up description of circumstances. First thing to do is create a timeline of fact.

Bullet point the problems your child has encountered without any emotions or feelings being involved. You need to forget at this stage what you feel is unfair and look only at the objective facts. This is really hard to do but it will offer you some clarity.
Consider
What has happened ? make it as simple & factual as possible

What has not happened that was supposed
to happen? Keep it to fact not opinion

What support was offered based on existing diagnoses?

What support was Actually received? (Now this is likely the route that can get you most flexibility BUT universities close ranks and the disability service will side with the university
so you need to be knee deep in Their rules and regulations.)

You cannot rely on later diagnoses until your child has received it formally and the university has been informed with appropriate evidence. That your child may be ND is sadly irrelevant on any procedure or exam to date, they can only adjust for what they have been given evidence of at the time. That said, if the existing adjustments for their known diagnosis (of anxiety?) has been ignored - and in reality the differences between adjustments for ND and other conditions such as mental ill health are minimal - then you may be able toapproach from the angle
of failure to make appropriate adjustments but it’s not you who gets to decide what is appropriate or what has failed . Being ND doesn’t really change the kinds of adjustments the student receives sadly. It’s mostly a check box exercise Of existing things the uni can do rather than an individually tailored plan(although it ought to be the latter). If your child already received disability support and adjustments and they weren’t out in place and actioned, be asking why not? But also remember that sadly the university expects and relies on the student to be mature and capable enough to highlight at the time this hasn’t been happening, not months after the event.

You need to access the formal appeals procedure and look at what your grounds are. I’m struggling right now to see where it would fall under any of the appeals grounds that any of my institutions allow students to rely upon.

Disagreeing with grades or not having done as well as your child feels they should in assessments aren’t usually grounds for appeal. Markers can only grade on what is in front of them, regardless of how well they know your child can work. It usually has to be that there was an error in the procedure.

Even good cause only prolongs the time until
you sit exams/assessments.

If, even prior to results being released, your child panics and starts to blame stuff happening at Christmas, it’s generally too late to raise it as an issue after spring/summer assessment. Problems such as you describe with access to online learning need to be addressed immediately. How much of the learning was online this year anyway? was the university at fault for lack of access or was the student expected to do more? Computers are generally dotted all over campus so if one isn’t working the others will be. If the backend of the system was down and inaccessible by all then the entire year have the same problem and they should join together to put in a complaint. Two weeks or so of intermittent digital access should not put someone so far behind that it would take them from a good pass to a fail because there’s time to catch up and a two week extension would be considered appropriate mitigation for that issue to allow them to do so.

University procedures are often as complex, if not more so than actual law. Something being unfair doesn’t come into it. You need to become familiar with their procedures and university court documents. Understand if and where your issue is addressed and refer to it directly.

You may, if you feel there has been an error in the way your child has been assessed request to repeat the year as new or to be reassessed as a first sitting in the resit diet but nothing you have said so far suggests you have a case for that.

I disagree that students unions aren’t best placed to help because they can hold a lot of power and in larger institutions, I only have experience of Russell group so I’m talking from that angle, they often have access to professional support where it’s too much for sabbatical officers alone.

I don’t think you want to go down the lawyer route yet. I don’t think you have enough of a case. The biggest issue is that it needs
to be the student and not the parent who is making all the moves to try to solve the problem. Maybe now isn’t the right time for the student and dropping out to return at a more appropriate time when diagnoses are settled and the pandemic is history is the most appropriate course of action.

I’ve seen highly capable students take on universities and win only to drop out because of the stress of the appeal/complaint. Pick your battles wisely.

Brava @StinkyWizzleteets That is excellent advice. Really wonderful clarity.

And I agree that sometimes university just isn’t the right place or at the right time in someone’s life. The fact is - and it feels harsh to say- there is only so much we can adjust. The work is still the work, and needs to be done, illness or disability notwithstanding.

I agree that the later medical diagnosis is unlikely to be considered retrospectively for coursework resits in the way. I would focus on the lack of access but this is confusing. Usually if there was a mitigating circumstance that impacts a coursework submission there is a route to flag this either shortly before or after the submission is due. Was this done and then rejected due to the fact the student had already had an extension and not submitted? Has anyone clarified WHY the student lost module access? Was it a issue for the whole
cohort or just this student? Was it to do with their own personal IT issues or were they actually removed from the sites?

It sounds to me like it would be in the student’s best interest to at least take a year off to focus on their mental health. Even if you win this appeal do you honestly think the student can successfully complete a 2nd/3rd attempt?
The student doesn’t seem capable, at this point in their life of coping with the demands of university. Sometimes a break is needed and sometimes universities will enforce this if they deem it necessary.
The student needs to find a way to manage this situation themselves as when they complete this course, they will encounter similar situations in the workplace.
I’m sorry if this sounds harsh but it sounds like the battle you are facing will not improve the student’s well-being.

Just to add that the second diagnosis might not be the answer to everything. Eg if a student already has a diagnosis that gets them extra time and study skills support, and then they receive a second diagnosis that also requires extra time and study skills support, then it might be deemed that the reasonable adjustments have already been made for diagnosis 2 and so an appeal may not be successful.

I agree with the poster above that the onus is placed on the student to speak up if reasonable adjustments are not being made or if they are not adequate.

Hi again OP,

You have had lots of excellent advice during my absence. I would only say to one PP that I don’t think anyone has expressed doubt about approaching the Student Union for help.

I disagree with the statement that the Disability Service will necessarily side with the uni. Very occasionally my School fell short in accommodating a student registered with this office and at Mit Circs panels we were criticised for it. This in itself would be a reason to apply mitigation. But the examples were few, well documented, and relatively small.

Is your relative registered with the Student Disability Service, whatever it may be called? One of their jobs at my (Russell Gp) uni is to send reps to each Mit Circs panel to make sure their students are treated properly. The large majority of the time this benefits the student, or has no impact.

Concerning part of the puzzle I agree with @GoodThinkingMax that extensions constitute a mitigation. That some extended into the Reading period before exams, if I understand correctly, is an expectable source of stress for someone with an anxiety disorder. People will sympathise. But I don’t think a panel would see it as something to be mitigated: it is the result of a request. The student should appreciate that the only alternative is to submit the work earlier.

Did the student have a support person assigned before COVID and if so was this arrangement disrupted by COVID? There I think you do have something tangible. The Student Union and/or Disabilty Service are best placed to tell you how significant that is.

I agree with PPs that the relevance of a second diagnosis is unclear. We can’t know how the uni would react to the long time lag, even understanding the long wait lists. As @StinkyWizzleteets says, at a practical level the compensations for ND traits and anxiety disorders tend to overlap. I am certainly not implying that your relative’s case would necessarily follow this pattern, but it is a thin reed on which to build a case.

The equipment failures are an interesting matter. It seems that the impact should have been widely experienced, albeit felt more deeply by students with MH issues. Staff as well as students struggled with COVID. Without excusing what sound like some genuine failures, remedies like putting up last year’s lectures may be perceived as reasonable if the academic was ill. Lack of captioning could also be down to lack of capacity amongst IT staff. None of this excuses the impact on your relative. This is why, if these issues are still relevant, you need a careful and factual timeline.

However I don’t quite understand the missed live lectures and seminars. Usually the schedule of events is disseminated over various platforms to make it as accessible as possible for students, most especially on their phones and tablets. If I may say so gently, your talk of private MH care and possible solicitor involvement suggests that you, like many of us, can afford such items. Does your relative lack them? I am wondering whether they were so overwhelmed that they missed these events through their own fault - by failing to check - rather than a failure of uni equipment. This could suggest that you might need a more factual version of events.

It also leads me, like some PPs, to wonder if perhaps your relative is seriously overwhelmed right now. Sadly a large number of our undergraduates are. The single biggest mistake one sees, year on year, is students clinging on by the skin of their teeth in the face of MH problems. Then either a crisis in the final year actually means they fail, or they end up with a lower degree classification than they could have achieved and they didn’t have much fun in the process.

It is much, much better to take some time out and sort yourself, whether that is physically or mentally. Then come back and finish strong, or start anew somewhere else.

TL;DR: It does sound like the uni has fallen short in its treatment of your relative. I haven’t forgotten that you’ve been to the OIA and won. I also think some aspects of the situation have gotten muddled. But if the SU is supportive of the appeal and you have the stamina to make a factual one, I would do it.

PS I did a search on ‘help with academic appeals’. Found one private company, several solicitors, an article in the G (who are usually very sound on education) and links to every uni in the land. I would probably start with the G and read the advice from a few good unis

I put an appeal in a couple of years ago. The only reason you could appeal is if you found administrative errors in the module (I found three) my appeal was upheld but it is VERY unusual that it was. Retrospective reasons just won't go anywhere I'm afraid.

The single biggest mistake one sees, year on year, is students clinging on by the skin of their teeth in the face of MH problems.

This!

I have had to deal with students who - due to cumulative absences caused by mental illness - only undertook and completed 50% of the coursework and attendance. But still felt they had done the degree to the best of their abilities. sadly, sometimes "best of their abilities" is not enough. You can't mitigate your way out of doing the work, and you don't get a degree for being ill. What you do is take time out to recover your health (physical or mental) or find ways of coping and participating as fully as possible.

I think it's really unfortunate that the life-timing of a university degree is at the point in young people's lives that's sometimes called the "second adolescence." That age of 19/20/21 - when technically you're an adult, but you are still very much finding your way can be an amazing time to do the intense thinking that a university degree requires.

But it can also be possibly the worst time to do a degree - a few years in the workplace in maybe quite an undemanding role can be really helpful.

Students like these cause academics some anguish (well, they do me, anyway). We can see the potential and the intelligence, but we can also see how the student is self-sabotaging. It's not the job of university to sort out students' personal or health issues; we are not therapy, but often distressed students cling to doing their degree, as the thing which keeps them going and makes them feel like their lives are worthwhile. This is immensely difficult, as often that very thinking stops them from actually doing the degree ... This is where, as PP have said, mitigations can only do so much. A university course and a department can't "fix" underlying health issues; we can only work around them.

If I ruled the world, gap year/s would be compulsory. Give students the chance to step off the educational treadmill and just breathe. I see so many 1st years enter my Department, bright, enthusiastic, really lovely people, but would up so so tightly to succeed - but at what, they're not often so sure of. I'm a great believer in physical activity or work being a good thing for young people in this second adolescence - getting into your body, into nature, working with animals, or children, or getting into hard physical work ... embodiment as a way of trying to heal the mind/body split that often trammels those of us in the West.