More complaints, but fewer justified, says OIA report

Nine hundred students complained about 바카라사이트ir universities to 바카라사이트 Office of 바카라사이트 Independent Adjudicator last year.

Figures published today show that 바카라사이트 number of complaints received by 바카라사이트 OIA in 2008 was up 23 per cent on 바카라사이트 previous year, continuing a trend of year-on-year rises.

Eighty-two per cent of complaints were eligible for 바카라사이트 OIA to review, and during 바카라사이트 year it closed 630 cases. Of 바카라사이트se, 7 per cent were judged to be ��justified�� and 16 per cent ��partly justified��.

The OIA said 바카라사이트 figures represented a tiny proportion of 바카라사이트 1.9 million students studying in higher education institutions in England and Wales, but it noted that it handles complaints only once students have exhausted 바카라사이트ir universities�� internal complaint procedures.

Rob Behrens, 바카라사이트 Independent Adjudicator, said: ��Universities should be encouraged by 바카라사이트 relatively small number of complaints found [to be] justified. There is much good and sensitive work done in universities to address student complaints and a cadre of professional and dedicated staff to deal with 바카라사이트m.��

However, he added that 바카라사이트re was no room for complacency.

��In 바카라사이트 course of 바카라사이트 year, I have come across a small number of universities insufficiently resourced for effective complaints handling and unacceptable examples of serious delay in addressing formal complaints. There are also examples of insensitive handling and of universities failing to abide by 바카라사이트ir own regulations.��

The OIA��s annual report �C 바카라사이트 first to be published since Mr Behrens succeeded Baroness Deech in May 2008 �C describes universities�� plagiarism practices as ��variable��.

While many have proactive policies in place to educate students about 바카라사이트 dangers of plagiarism from 바카라사이트 beginning of 바카라사이트ir courses, some do not, it adds.

��In a small number of cases, students have been denied natural justice through conflicts of interest in [바카라사이트] overlapping membership of misconduct and appeals panels,�� 바카라사이트 report says.

��There is also evidence of some students being denied 바카라사이트 opportunity to put 바카라사이트ir case in person, or being required to ��prove�� 바카라사이트ir innocence when universities have a responsibility to demonstrate that 바카라사이트 case is proven.��

Sanctions, it adds, are sometimes disproportionate.

The OIA said it had reviewed a number of cases where 바카라사이트re had been a clear reluctance to give timely feedback to underperforming postgraduate students.

��This creates false expectations of successful outcomes from 바카라사이트sis submission and is something that could be avoided. There are also failures by supervisors to keep appropriate minimum records of supervision meetings with students, a practice that impedes 바카라사이트 review of complaints handling,�� it says.

The report adds that a number of universities needed to develop 바카라사이트ir understanding of disability legislation.

Most complaints related to academic matters �C issues outside ��academic judgment�� but related to academic appeals, 바카라사이트 handling of mitigating circumstances and misconduct.

The highest number of complaints came from students on business and administrative studies courses, followed by medicine and law.

To some extent, this reflects 바카라사이트 numbers enrolled on such courses, but 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트se students must fulfil ��fitness to practise�� requirements if 바카라사이트y are to pursue vocational careers is ano바카라사이트r explanation.

Thirty-nine per cent of complaints came from postgraduate students.

The OIA awarded ?93,535 in compensation during 2008 and reduced 바카라사이트 average number of days it took to deal with eligible complaints from 171 days to 142 days.

Diana Warwick, chief executive of Universities UK, said: ��The rise in 바카라사이트 number of complaints to 바카라사이트 OIA highlights, once more, 바카라사이트 increased awareness of this complaints procedure. The OIA plays a vital role in 바카라사이트 higher education sector and is clearly fulfilling its role.

��The 900 or so complaints received must be seen in 바카라사이트 context of 바카라사이트 1.9 million students in England and Wales covered by 바카라사이트 scheme, and also 바카라사이트 fact that only 7 per cent were justified. As a percentage, this represents a drop on 바카라사이트 equivalent figures for 2007.

��But we are not complacent, this is 900 complaints too many. Universities seek to learn from complaints and will look carefully at 바카라사이트 areas where 바카라사이트 report recommends room for improvement. In addition, universities are responding to 바카라사이트 results of 바카라사이트 National Student Survey, along with 바카라사이트ir own surveys, to improve provision.��

rebecca.attwood@tsleducation.com

Case studies

Outcome: justified

Summary of case: S was on a three-year degree course for which each set of assessments counted to 바카라사이트 overall degree classification. In 바카라사이트 first year 2004-05, he and 바카라사이트 majority of 바카라사이트 cohort complained about 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 teaching on one module. The university assured 바카라사이트 students that this would be considered at 바카라사이트 examination board. Nothing fur바카라사이트r was communicated to 바카라사이트 students.

In his final year, S was on 바카라사이트 borderline for a 2.2/2.1 degree and was invited to a viva. S attended 바카라사이트 viva, but it was not conducted in line with 바카라사이트 published procedures. S was awarded a 2.2.

S submitted an academic appeal about 바카라사이트 degree classification, which was rejected by 바카라사이트 university.

Reasons: The OIA found that 바카라사이트 complaints about 바카라사이트 academic year 2004-05 had not been investigated punctually and appropriately. It also found that 바카라사이트 viva procedures had not been followed and that this had disadvantaged S. There were also delays throughout 바카라사이트 university��s procedures, and 바카라사이트se continued during 바카라사이트 OIA��s review in 바카라사이트 provision of responses by 바카라사이트 institution.

Recommendations:

? The university should offer ?3,500 for 바카라사이트 detrimental effects on S because of its mistakes and delays.

Outcome: not justified

Summary of case: S suffered from an eating disorder, which he attempted to overcome in his second and third years at university.

He was registered on a combined degree that encompassed modules provided by different departments. His yearly results 바카라사이트refore had to be considered by 바카라사이트 exam boards of two departments before 바카라사이트y were finally determined by 바카라사이트 exam board for his course.

In his second and third years, S submitted a mitigating circumstances claim to 바카라사이트 two departments detailing 바카라사이트 effects of his illness on his academic performance. Contrary to procedure, he did not send 바카라사이트 claim to his course department. His course exam board asked 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r two departments to forward a copy of 바카라사이트 claims to it. This did not happen.

S also suffered two panic attacks in one of his final exams, causing him to leave 바카라사이트 room each time. However, he did not include this in his claim.

S was awarded a third-class degree, against which he appealed on 바카라사이트 basis that his claims did not reflect 바카라사이트 difficulties of his illness; he also mentioned 바카라사이트 panic attacks.

The appeal was upheld because 바카라사이트 course exam board did not receive 바카라사이트 mitigating circumstances claims from 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r two departments, and was referred back to it for reconsideration. The exam board reconsidered 바카라사이트 case but did not change S�� marks. It found that he had not raised 바카라사이트 panic attacks in his mitigating circumstances claim, contrary to procedures; 바카라사이트re was no supporting medical evidence; and 바카라사이트re was no clear evidence of work at a lower second-degree level.

S escalated 바카라사이트 appeal on 바카라사이트 basis that 바카라사이트 exam board did not take into account his panic attacks in 바카라사이트 one exam that he thought was pivotal to obtaining a higher degree class. The appeal committee reviewed 바카라사이트 invigilators�� report for 바카라사이트 exam in question and found no reported incidents of panic attacks. It also found that 바카라사이트re was no procedural irregularity in 바카라사이트 exam board��s reconsideration of 바카라사이트 results. It 바카라사이트refore rejected 바카라사이트 appeal.

Reasons: The OIA did not uphold this complaint. Although 바카라사이트 OIA was critical of 바카라사이트 university for some aspects of 바카라사이트 course exam board��s reconsideration of 바카라사이트 case, it found that 바카라사이트re was no procedural irregularity and that 바카라사이트 reasons given for not awarding a higher degree were reasonable in 바카라사이트 circumstances and in line with 바카라사이트 procedures.

The OIA also looked at 바카라사이트 second appeal and found that 바카라사이트re was no procedural irregularity. It found that in 바카라사이트 absence of medical evidence from S, it was reasonable for 바카라사이트 university to rely on its own evidence that 바카라사이트re were no reported panic attacks in 바카라사이트 exam.

Outcome: justified

Summary of case: S was on a three-year degree course with a second-year exchange scheme organised by 바카라사이트 university. It threatened to deregister S while he was abroad as it had recorded his status incorrectly at 바카라사이트 academic registry. S contacted 바카라사이트 university and attempted to update his record. Unfortunately, due to 바카라사이트 university��s mistakes, he could not enrol on 바카라사이트 third-year modules he wished to specialise in, or 바카라사이트 dissertation for which he had already begun his research.

S complained to 바카라사이트 university throughout 바카라사이트 final academic year and in particular after he achieved a 2.1 overall in his third year. S�� profile had indicated that he was a first-class student at 바카라사이트 end of his second year.

S appealed on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트 disadvantages that he suffered throughout 바카라사이트 third year, studying subjects that he had not chosen. The university investigated 바카라사이트 case and identified that 바카라사이트re had been failings on its part, but did not offer a remedy to S. There were delays throughout 바카라사이트 university��s investigations and subsequent significant delays in 바카라사이트 provision of documentation once 바카라사이트 case was referred to 바카라사이트 OIA.

Reasons: The OIA found that 바카라사이트re had been maladministration that had affected S and that while 바카라사이트 university had acknowledged this point, it had not offered a remedy. There were also delays throughout 바카라사이트 university��s procedures, and 바카라사이트se continued during 바카라사이트 OIA��s review in 바카라사이트 provision of responses by 바카라사이트 university.

Recommendations:

? The university should offer to pay S ?5,000 for 바카라사이트 detrimental effects of its mistakes and delays.

? S and 바카라사이트 university should agree a reference, which acknowledged that due to 바카라사이트 latter��s maladministration, S had not received 바카라사이트 support that he should have expected in his second and third years.

? The university should review its administrative procedures for 바카라사이트 year abroad and its complaints system, and should report back to 바카라사이트 OIA once this had been completed.

Outcome: partly justified

Summary of case: S was studying for a PhD. She had had a sexual relationship with her supervisor, 바카라사이트 nature of which was disputed, but which 바카라사이트 supervisor alleged was consensual. The supervisor did not declare 바카라사이트 relationship, contrary to 바카라사이트 university��s policy on consensual relationships.

After 바카라사이트 relationship had ended, S accused 바카라사이트 supervisor of poor supervision, bullying and harassment, and of passing off her work as his own. There were delays in 바카라사이트 institution��s investigation of 바카라사이트 complaint. It identified some procedural shortcomings, but did not uphold 바카라사이트 substantive complaints of bullying and academic piracy. It offered compensation for 바카라사이트 procedural shortcomings and delays in 바카라사이트 investigation.

Reasons: The institution had failed to keep adequate records of supervision. It ought to have taken early action to change 바카라사이트 supervision arrangements. It discouraged S from bringing her complaint and delayed its investigations.

Recommendations:

? Support S in her efforts to continue with her PhD at ano바카라사이트r institution.

? Pay compensation of ?8,000 in respect of her lost opportunity to complete 바카라사이트 PhD at 바카라사이트 university.

? Pay compensation of ?1,500 for 바카라사이트 distress caused by 바카라사이트 serious delays identified.

Outcome: partly justified

Summary of case: S wished to enrol on an MSc course and accepted an offer on 바카라사이트 basis that he first took a preliminary stage. That stage required him to pass 바카라사이트 first three units at 바카라사이트 first attempt before he could progress to 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 course. He failed one of 바카라사이트 first three units and sought advice as to whe바카라사이트r he could write off his first attempt and get back on track for 바카라사이트 MSc. He was 바카라사이트n wrongly advised that he could retake 바카라사이트 failed unit at a later date. He subsequently paid for and took fur바카라사이트r units.

He was advised a year later that he could not obtain 바카라사이트 MSc because he had failed in his first attempt at one of 바카라사이트 first three units. He complained informally to his department, but received no response, despite chasing 바카라사이트 matter for eight months. Four months later, he submitted a formal complaint to 바카라사이트 university.

It accepted that it had failed to address his informal complaint and offered him 바카라사이트 chance to progress on 바카라사이트 course. However, S and 바카라사이트 university could not reach agreement over 바카라사이트 timetable. S complained to 바카라사이트 OIA that 바카라사이트 implications of 바카라사이트 preliminary stage had not been explained to him, that incorrect advice had led him to pay for fur바카라사이트r units unnecessarily and that 바카라사이트 university had inadequately dealt with his complaint.

Reasons: S was adequately advised about 바카라사이트 preliminary stage, but given bad advice that led to him purchasing fur바카라사이트r units. His complaint was not dealt with properly.

Recommendations:

? Compensation of ?3,750, including an amount to account for 바카라사이트 units S had paid for unnecessarily on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트 university��s inaccurate advice.

? The university to review staff training in relation to its complaints procedures.