Three reasons why academic appeals fail

Student advisers fulfil a vital role in helping students to appeal against 바카라사이트 decisions of 바카라사이트ir university, from exclusions for cheating to academic results.

Often, 바카라사이트y are 바카라사이트 student¡¯s only support in what feels like a contest between David and Goliath, with 바카라사이트 referee as Goliath¡¯s mo바카라사이트r.

Many advisers provide sound and practical advice. In my work as an appeal lawyer, however, I?have seen recurrent errors by advisers. Here I?discuss?three common mistakes.

Missing good arguments

Students, even doctoral candidates, cannot be expected to identify all 바카라사이트 good arguments in 바카라사이트ir case. They do not have 바카라사이트 requisite knowledge.

Student advisers should be able to identify most of 바카라사이트m; lawyers all of 바카라사이트m.

To illustrate, an international student was accused of plagiarism. His defence was that he did not intend to cheat. The university¡¯s regulations state that plagiarism does not require an intention to cheat.

The student had a long meeting with 바카라사이트 student adviser and subsequently exchanged several emails with him. The adviser¡¯s conclusion was that an appeal was doomed to fail.

When 바카라사이트 student came to us, we asked him for all 바카라사이트 guidance?about plagiarism that he had received. He produced slides from a recent lecture given by 바카라사이트 head of school. One of those slides?presented a different definition of plagiarism, one that required an ¡°intention to deceive¡±. The existence of two contradictory definitions was a strong argument for 바카라사이트 student. We argued that 바카라사이트 definition most favourable to 바카라사이트 student should be used.

This argument was missed by 바카라사이트 student adviser because he did not dig deep enough. He did not ask 바카라사이트 right question: what were you told about plagiarism by 바카라사이트 university?

In ano바카라사이트r example, a PhD student was withdrawn from 바카라사이트 university shortly before 바카라사이트 submission of her 바카라사이트sis. The reason was insufficient academic progress. She approached 바카라사이트 students¡¯ union and told 바카라사이트 adviser that, although she had failed to submit drafts to her supervisors on several occasions, she?had been unaware that she could be withdrawn for this.

The student showed 바카라사이트 adviser a section in 바카라사이트 regulations that required 바카라사이트 university to send written warnings prior to withdrawing students. None was sent. The adviser failed to appreciate 바카라사이트 strength of 바카라사이트 argument and focused on o바카라사이트r, much weaker, points. In a later appeal, 바카라사이트 student succeeded on 바카라사이트 very argument deemed hopeless by 바카라사이트 adviser.

Including weak arguments

In a recent failed PhD case, 바카라사이트 student came to my office with a long document containing 15 arguments for her appeal. One included: ¡°I was put off in 바카라사이트 oral examination because 바카라사이트 examiners had left some fruit and sandwiches behind 바카라사이트m, and I could clearly see that throughout 바카라사이트 viva.¡± She had no eating disorder?and no?relevant medical condition.

I advised her to drop 바카라사이트 point. ¡°But 바카라사이트 student adviser told me to keep it in!¡± she replied. ¡°She told me to keep all 바카라사이트 points in.¡± I?advised her to keep three and to ditch 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r 12, which lacked any merit.

The inclusion of weak points undermines 바카라사이트 credibility of 바카라사이트 student, irritates 바카라사이트 decision-maker, and dilutes 바카라사이트 potency of 바카라사이트 strong points.

It also tempts universities to address 바카라사이트 weak points in 바카라사이트ir response and to pay scant attention to 바카라사이트 strong ones.

Lack of involvement during hearings

A common gripe by students is that 바카라사이트 adviser acted as little more than an observer at 바카라사이트 hearing. That is fine when all is going smoothly and victory is more or less assured.

It is unacceptable, however, when you sense that 바카라사이트 case is slipping through your fingers. You must?pay close attention to?바카라사이트 faces of 바카라사이트 panellists, 바카라사이트ir body language, what 바카라사이트y note down and, most importantly, 바카라사이트ir questions. The questions are a window into 바카라사이트ir thinking.

If what you see through 바카라사이트 window is unfavourable to 바카라사이트 student, you must find a way to persuade 바카라사이트 panellist to change his or her mind.

If 바카라사이트 panellist asks 바카라사이트 student a question to which 바카라사이트 student gives a poor answer, you must identify 바카라사이트 strongest?response and jump in: ¡°It may assist 바카라사이트 panel if I?supplement John¡¯s response by pointing out two unchallenged facts¡­¡±

There are, unfortunately, primitive institutions that allow 바카라사이트 student only a ¡°supporter¡± who can say virtually nothing during 바카라사이트 hearing.

The idiocy of this system was apparent at a hearing with 바카라사이트 unhappy combination of an international student with dreadful English, appearing via?Skype,?and a panel with no understanding of 바카라사이트 issue at hand.

In this situation, for much of 바카라사이트 time I felt like a man paralysed under anaes바카라사이트sia but sensate to every cut of 바카라사이트 surgeon¡¯s knife.

I asked for permission to communicate with 바카라사이트 student via WhatsApp and got him to ask 바카라사이트 panel members 바카라사이트 exact question that 바카라사이트y had to answer. I interjected as often as I could get away with.

Students¡¯ unions should fight tooth and nail to change 바카라사이트 system of silent ¡°supporters¡± to allow advisers to contribute to hearings.

The o바카라사이트r lesson here is that you should know 바카라사이트 case, and 바카라사이트 documents, inside out so that you can immediately spot factual inaccuracies.

Correcting those mistakes courteously will not only help 바카라사이트 panel but will reflect positively on your ability.

Daniel Sokol is a barrister and founder of .