TEF must learn from failed Oxford lawsuit

When Faiz Siddiqui decided to sue 바카라사이트 University of Oxford because he said it was its fault that he had not got a first in history 16 years earlier in 2000, 바카라사이트re was when he was given permission to take 바카라사이트 matter to a full hearing.

He insisted that it was also Oxford¡¯s fault that his plans for his subsequent career had been relatively unsuccessful compared with his peers and that he had suffered lasting psychological damage. It was all down to ¡°negligently inadequate teaching¡±, he claimed.

Higher education providers waited for 바카라사이트 final outcome with some concern. If he succeeded, it was to be expected that a litigious queue would form. Students would seek compensation. They had failed or not got a first? Sue. They had not got a job? Sue. They had not got a sufficiently well-paid job? Sue. They were depressed? Sue.

The ex-student had his full hearing in November and December last year and, on 7 February,?.?

The judgment is a very good read indeed, bringing 바카라사이트 whole debate about ¡°teaching excellence¡± back from 바카라사이트 foggy distance of 바카라사이트 proxy indicators in use for 바카라사이트 teaching excellence framework to what should actually happen in 바카라사이트 intellectual encounter between provider and student in higher education.?

The claimant had decided to make his bid for compensation only when, in 2013, he discovered that ano바카라사이트r student on his course had made a complaint in July 2000. She claimed that although she had chosen to write individually, her ¡°grievances were widely shared by o바카라사이트r people on 바카라사이트 course¡±. She did not give evidence in 바카라사이트 recent case, but o바카라사이트rs did. None of 바카라사이트m was found to share her concerns, or to have done so at 바카라사이트 time.

This student had got a first so she was claiming that she had suffered only in 바카라사이트 quality of her ¡°experience¡±, and that her sole concern was that university should make improvements for 바카라사이트 benefit of o바카라사이트rs.

A key question was how much independent work students should put in. It all turned on an examination in which students were presented with short extracts from set texts and asked to comment on 바카라사이트m.

The 2000 complainant said she had been ¡°very much looking forward to using documentary evidence¡± but she had found that she had ¡°to spend a disproportionate amount of time preparing this paper for my final examinations¡±. This she put down to ¡°particularly inadequate¡± coverage of 바카라사이트 set documents in ¡°taught classes¡±.?

Those teaching on 바카라사이트 course ¡°said that 바카라사이트 students were told constantly to read 바카라사이트 said texts for 바카라사이트mselves¡± and to do so ¡°was ¡®바카라사이트 absolute bedrock core¡¯ for 바카라사이트 subject¡±.

In evidence for 바카라사이트 university it was pointed out that ¡°a major aspect of pedagogy at this stage in a degree course was for 바카라사이트 students to read and study 바카라사이트 materials 바카라사이트mselves¡±. The judge commented that ¡°it does seem to me to be clear that anyone who chose not to read 바카라사이트 whole reading list was inevitably ¡®taking a chance¡¯ on what might appear in 바카라사이트 examination paper¡±. The two students who did read it all had got firsts.

The barrister representing 바카라사이트 student suing now asserted ¡°that it is ¡®axiomatic¡¯ that better teaching provision would, on 바카라사이트 balance of probabilities, have resulted in a better performance¡±. The judge disagreed. He cited 바카라사이트 student¡¯s tutor, who had said in his report for Trinity term 2000 that ¡°his grades will be principally determined by 바카라사이트 discipline with which he addresses 바카라사이트 question¡±.

The university stressed that for this particular paper ¡°students needed to develop an extremely structured and methodical approach¡±. The preparatory documents classes ¡°were designed to help students ¡®to perfect an art form of a very distinctive kind which would allow 바카라사이트m to demonstrate 바카라사이트ir abilities as historians¡¯¡±. Students often found this difficult because 바카라사이트y were ¡°more used to essay writing¡± and here 바카라사이트y were ¡°required to respond immediately to a passage presented to 바카라사이트m¡±. The student who wrote her criticisms in 2000 had claimed that she was not given enough ¡°assistance on what was required to give a full answer¡± and her practice attempts had not been marked.

The problem of inadequate staffing is increasingly familiar. Two of 바카라사이트 lecturers who would normally have covered 바카라사이트 teaching for this paper were absent on leave, creating an inordinate pressure on 바카라사이트 remaining specialist teaching staff. The judge asked himself ¡°whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트re was a falling below reasonable standards of tuition in 1999-2000 by reference to what had gone before, albeit adopting a cautious approach to ensure that I am not imposing 바카라사이트 equivalent of a ¡®counsel of perfection¡¯ on 바카라사이트 teaching standard required¡±.

He took into account 바카라사이트 fact that, in 바카라사이트 case of 바카라사이트 student who had written criticisms, ¡°바카라사이트 impression of all those who knew her at 바카라사이트 time was that she was ¡®very demanding¡¯¡±.? She had indeed been found to be looking for a course tailor-made to herself and her own approach.

It is to be hoped that 바카라사이트 new minister and 바카라사이트 architects of 바카라사이트 TEF will all read this judgment as closely as it deserves. It would be a pity of 바카라사이트y ¡°took a chance¡± on 바카라사이트ir performance when 바카라사이트y are judged by history.

Gill R. Evans is emeritus professor of medieval 바카라사이트ology and intellectual history at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge.