Academic Appeals Policy and Procedure
1. Policy
1.1 Right to Appeal
1.1.1 The appeals process is available to students of the University of Nottingham, with the exception of students who have had their registration suspended by the University, other than at their own request under the Voluntary Suspension of Registration procedure.
1.1.2 Students have the right to appeal to the Academic Appeals Committee for a review of the following decisions:
(a) Appeal against the conditions imposed on progression to the next stage of a taught course or phase of research study. This includes appeals against a requirement to take reassessments.
(b) Appeal against a decision that a student cannot progress to the next stage of a taught course or phase of research study (ie their current programme of study is terminated). This includes students not allowed to progress on their current course but who are offered transfer to another taught course or research degree (and so their registration with the University is not terminated).
(c) Appeal against a classification decision. As well as appeals against the class of Honours degree awarded, this also includes appeals against the classification of postgraduate awards and of other undergraduate awards.
(d) Appeal against a decision not to award the qualification for which a student is registered. This relates to decisions made at the end of a student's taught course or research degree; and includes appeals against decisions not to award any qualification or to award a lower qualification (eg a Postgraduate Diploma in place of a Masters degree).
(e) Appeal against a decision of a Fitness to Practise Committee or Practice Assessment Panel.
1.1.3 An appeal may only be submitted in relation to the final decision of an academic body. Appeals regarding provisional marks will not be considered.
1.1.4 Appeals will only be accepted if submitted within one calendar month of the student receiving notification of the decision they wish to appeal against (or publication of results in the case of Degree Class appeals).
1.1.5 Only written cases, made using the Appeal form and presented clearly and comprehensibly, in accordance with the requirements set out in the Appeals Procedure, will be accepted.
1.2 Grounds for Appeals
1.2.1 It is for the student to establish their case and only claims of one of the following circumstances will be considered as grounds for appeal:
(a) That parts of the documented assessment procedure were not applied and that this procedural irregularity which has disadvantaged the student was significant enough to have materially affected the decision/recommendation made, rendering it unsound.
(b) That the decision making body took a decision which no reasonable person would find comprehensible. Disagreement with the decision does not make it manifestly unreasonable. To apply this ground you must provide substantive argumentation as to why no reasonable person could have arrived at the decision that was made.
(c) That prejudice or bias on the part of one or more of the Examiners took place and can be proven (evidence must accompany the submission).
1.2.2 The following circumstances will not be considered grounds for appeal:
(a) Perceived past shortcomings in tuition, supervision or support not previously raised with the school cannot be considered as grounds for appeal. Students should use the University's Complaints procedures to address these issues as they arise.
(b) An Appeal may not be made to question the academic judgement of a School Board of Examiners or individual, and the student will not be permitted to argue the academic merits of his/her work. The student's feeling that the result unfairly reflects the merit of their work or their ability is not a ground of appeal.
(c) An Appeal may not be made against the actual mark awarded for a piece of assessed work, which is a matter of academic judgement, except where the case rests on a claim of procedural irregularity. If a student wishes to have clarification about a mark received for an individual assessment or module they are advised to contact their School or module convenor directly. Errors in calculating or recording marks on the basis of which the original decision was made cannot be submitted as grounds for appeal, unless these errors have been identified by the student and brought to the School’s attention but are not accepted by the School.
(d) Examiners have discretion to take into consideration extenuating circumstances, which are usually personal or medical. The extent of any discretion exercised by the examiners in relation to the student's extenuating circumstances is not a ground of appeal; that is, an appeal may not be based on a claim that the examiners should have made more (or any) allowance for the student's extenuating circumstances. The only ground on which an appeal may be entertained in relation to decisions about extenuating circumstances is that information properly provided by the student was not considered by the examiners at all.
2 Procedure for Appeal
2.1 Details of the procedure including the Appeal form and a list of frequently asked questions can be found on the Academic Processes webpages: www.nottingham.ac.uk/AcademicServices/CurrentStudents/AcademicAppeals.aspx. The full detail of the procedure should be read in conjunction with this Policy document and before submitting an appeal. The procedure is managed by the Secretary to the Academic Appeals Committee on behalf of the Committee on each campus. Appellants should ensure they understand the procedure relating to the relevant campus (UK, China, Malaysia) and address the appeal to the correct Secretary.
2.2 Summary of the procedure:
2.2.1 If it is clear the circumstances claimed by the student do not constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal, the case is rejected immediately. This includes instances where:
(a) the student has provided no substantial, relevant evidence of a procedural irregularity or of prejudice.
(b) the procedural irregularity claimed by the student clearly could not have affected the decision against which the appeal is being made to an extent that would have led to a different decision.
(c) no substantive reasons have been provided for regarding the decision as manifestly unreasonable.
2.2.2. Where it is believed that there may be grounds, a response from the decision making body (School, Quality & Standards Committee, Fitness to Practise Committee/Practise Assessment Panel) is requested. In the case of International Campus students a joint response by the School/Division is expected. In the case of joint honours students, the relevant Schools should consult as to who will make the written response and appear before the Committee if requested.
2.2.3 If the decision making body decides to make a revised recommendation, the case will be referred to the Head of Student Administration or equivalent to action.
2.2.4 If the decision making body makes no change to its original decision, the decision making body’s written response to the student’s appeal will be sent to the student for their comment. The case, including any such comment made by the student, will then be referred to a staff member of the Academic Appeals Committee.
2.2.5 Once a member of the Academic Appeals Committee has been personally involved in the student’s case whether at any stage of the appeal process or in circumstances relating to the subject of the appeal, they will take no further part in the appeal process.
2.2.6 If the staff member of the Academic Appeals Committee believes that the case is insufficient and therefore bound to fail a hearing of the Committee, the appeal will be rejected.
2.2.7 Where a case is rejected, the reasons for the decision will be conveyed by letter to the student and, where appropriate, other parties. This will not prevent the student from submitting a revised case within one calendar month of receiving notification of the outcome of their appeal if s/he has new evidence to make known.
2.2.8 If it is clear to the staff member of the Academic Appeals Committee that the decision of the School is one that would not have been endorsed on behalf of Quality & Standards Committee (QSC) had the full circumstances been known prior to the appeal, the matter may be considered by a member of QSC to determine whether the acceptance on QSC’s behalf of the School’s recommendation should be reversed and the School required to reconsider its decision. Where the School is required to reconsider the decision but decides not to change its original recommendation, the Chair of QSC will consider the case and may either uphold the School’s recommendation or dismiss it and substitute a different decision on behalf of QSC. Where a revised recommendation is received it will be referred to the Head of Student Administration or equivalent to action.
2.2.9 If 2.2.8 does not apply, but the member of the Academic Appeals Committee believes that grounds for an appeal may be established, the case will be heard by a panel.
2.2.10 The Panel will comprise three members; two of which will be staff members of the Academic Appeals Committee. The third will be a student delegate nominated by the Students’ Union or where no student delegate is available, a third staff member of the Academic Appeals Committee.
2.2.11 Panel members, the student and the representative of the decision making body will all have access to the same documentary and verbal evidence. An exceptional arrangement may be made at the discretion of the Chair, if a student wishes to request that additional evidence be made available to the Panel only (eg properly certified medical evidence that the student felt unable to share with the School).
2.2.12 A panel of the Academic Appeals Committee acts with the full delegated authority of Senate. It has the power to:
(a) Require members of staff of the University to make written submissions, attend, give evidence, and answer questions
(b) Review the recommendation of the Examiners or the Quality & Standards Committee
(c) If the panel is satisfied that any of the grounds specified in section 1.2 have been established (whether or not a ground originally specified by the student), it may:
1. require that the recommendation be reconsidered in the light of the Panel’s findings;
2. (in a Research Degree Appeal only) require that new Examiners be appointed.
In the case of (c) 1, the panel may apply one of the following courses of action:
i. refer the case back to the decision making body to reconsider. Where there has been a procedural irregularity, the nature of the irregularity should be made clear and the decision making body required to repeat the decision making process without the irregularity. Where a revised recommendation is made as a result it will be referred to the Head of Student Administration or equivalent to action.
ii. refer the case to the Chair of QSC with a revised recommendation in cases where the panel believes that there are good reasons not to refer the case back to the decision making body, eg where there has been a claim of prejudice with respect to the original decision making body.
d) Otherwise, the Committee will confirm the decision. The student and decision making body will be notified of the decision.
3 Further steps
3.1 A Student who has had their appeal rejected at this or an earlier stage can request a completion of procedures letter and put their case to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA). For more information see http://www.oiahe.org.uk
3.2 Students who consider that there has been a procedural irregularity which has disadvantaged the student in the manner in which the appeal process has been conducted may write to the Deputy Director (Academic Administration) of the Academic Services Division. Such requests should be sent within 30 days of the student being notified of the decision.