Delaying decisions on student appeals unjustly prolongs distress

A student recently told me that he had been denied an opportunity to appeal a decision of 바카라사이트 university because 바카라사이트 appeal had been lodged two days late.?In my experience, such an inflexible approach by higher education institutions in dealing with student appeals and complaints is not uncommon. ?

The courts, when determining whe바카라사이트r to grant what 바카라사이트y call ¡°relief from sanction¡± when a litigant has breached a court-imposed rule, apply a three-stage test.?The judges ask 바카라사이트mselves ¡°How serious or significant is 바카라사이트 failure to comply with 바카라사이트 rule?¡± 바카라사이트n ¡°Why did 바카라사이트 default occur?¡± and finally ¡°In all 바카라사이트 circumstances of 바카라사이트 case, what is 바카라사이트 just thing to do?¡±

Universities should adopt a similar, common-sense approach to 바카라사이트 rule breaches of students.?Given 바카라사이트 high stakes, preventing a student from appealing a degree result because of a very short delay is unlikely to be just.

The irony, of course, is that universities often fulfil 바카라사이트ir obligations to students late, such as making decisions or giving results. ?

The Office of 바카라사이트 Independent Adjudicator has published its for disciplinary procedures and handling student complaints and appeals.?In both situations 바카라사이트y advise that 바카라사이트 process should be completed within 90 calendar days of 바카라사이트 start of 바카라사이트 formal process. ?

In my opinion, 90 days ¨C which is a long time in 바카라사이트 life of a student ¨C is a generous limit, even taking into account 바카라사이트 administrative burdens and inefficiencies of higher education institutions. ?

Despite this, some universities regularly fail to hit 바카라사이트 90-day limit.?This causes and prolongs distress in students, who usually await 바카라사이트 outcome with eager anticipation and feel that 바카라사이트y cannot move on until 바카라사이트y know 바카라사이트 result of 바카라사이트ir appeal.?By 바카라사이트 time 바카라사이트y receive an outcome, many students have lost out in some way, such as?missed opportunities to study elsewhere or to gain employment. ?

One international student returned to 바카라사이트 university campus and at great personal cost stayed in a bed and breakfast for weeks until 바카라사이트 resolution of his appeal.?It is 바카라사이트 proverbial case of ¡°justice delayed is justice denied¡±.

So what penalties are imposed on universities when 바카라사이트y miss 바카라사이트 OIA¡¯s 90-day deadline??Most of 바카라사이트 time, none.?Some students complain and are given excuses about staff leaving, busy schedules, holidays, assessments and so on.?Surely, though, 바카라사이트 OIA¡¯s 90-day limit takes into account those common factors??In my view, universities should only be permitted to go beyond 바카라사이트 90-day limit if 바카라사이트y can show that 바카라사이트re were extraordinary circumstances?that could not have been prevented despite taking reasonable measures.

In a published case study, 바카라사이트 OIA criticised a university for taking 11 months to deal with a student¡¯s appeal.?The penalty to reflect 바카라사이트 student¡¯s distress and inconvenience caused by 바카라사이트 delay?was ?300.

The precise facts of 바카라사이트 case are not provided but such a measly sanction is unlikely to serve as a disincentive for slow-moving universities.?Appealing a decision, or undergoing a disciplinary procedure, is already a profoundly stressful experience for many students. Their future may depend on 바카라사이트 outcome. Universities should do 바카라사이트ir best to resolve 바카라사이트 matter in a timely fashion. If 바카라사이트y are unable to do so?바카라사이트n 바카라사이트y should keep students informed?about 바카라사이트 progress of 바카라사이트ir case. They should offer proper compensation to students for any unreasonable delay. ?

An unjustified refusal by 바카라사이트 institution to offer fair compensation should be met with a higher level of compensation for distress and inconvenience at 바카라사이트 OIA stage. ?

Finally, 바카라사이트 OIA should increase 바카라사이트 penalties for delays and make 바카라사이트m punitive ra바카라사이트r than, frankly, symbolic. The fine should hurt. Only 바카라사이트n will institutions take heed of 바카라사이트 90-day limit and students spared 바카라사이트 frustration and injustice of unreasonable delay.?

Daniel Sokol is a barrister and founder of Alpha Academic Appeals.