In this section

Any student at the University can make an Academic Appeal against a decision of an academic body, such as the Board of Examiners. You can appeal under any/all of the following grounds:

  • - There was an error in the decision making process
  • - There was a procedural irregularity
  • - There was a bias or perception of bias in the decision-making process

You cannot appeal under what is called 'academic judgement'. Academic judgement decisions are things like if you disagree with your assessors on the quality of your work, the adequacy of feedback, the criteria being applied to mark the work (rather than the administrative marking process) and the actions taken as a result of a Mitigating Circumstances notice to examiners. Pages four and five of the Universities Academic Appeals Student Guidance has some helpful examples.

Stage One - Local Resolution

How do I do a Stage One Appeal?

If you think there's a decision you need to challenge, its best to do this as soon as possible as there's strict deadlines. Firstly, you are expected to approach your department to discuss your concerns with an appropriate member of staff. You shouldn't approach the assessors directly, but instead we'd recommend either your departmental administrator, or subject tutor/course director. They can tell you factual information about the decision making process, for example by:

  • - Providing mark and comment sheets (where available)
  • - Confirming whether all marks/results were taken into consideration
  • - Confirm how the marks were considered in accordance with the exam conventions
  • - Whether your paper was marked according to the SpLD Inclusive Marking Guidelines when it ought to have been
  • - Informing you on the procedures used to review your MCE (such as what impact level it was awarded and the consideration given in the Board meeting minutes)
  • - Explaining what is a borderline candidate and whether you met the criteria
  • - Explaining why you did not meet their criteria to be awarded a higher classification

If an error has been identified, then your department will be able to resolve it for you. If they are unwilling to do so (for example, because they disagree with you that there has been an error), you'd need to escalate this with the Proctors via the Stage Two process.

You need proof that you have tried to resolve it with your department before you go to the Proctors, such as an email confirmation. If you haven't heard back from your email and you are getting close to twenty working days after your result was released, then you should prepare to escalate to Stage Two instead. You might have submitted a Subject Access Request or Freedom of Information request to support your appeal, which is likely to take longer than the 20 working days timescale. For an appeal to be accepted once you've gotten the outcome of these, then you should ensure you submit the appeal in an reasonable timeframe from when you got the SAR/FOI request and that the SAR/FOI provides clear evidence that supports your appeal.

Stage Two - Proctors

If you are unhappy with the outcome of Stage One (or didn't get a response) then you can escalate this to a formal stage two appeal. This needs to be done within 20 working days of the date of your final result being released. The University's working days are Monday-Friday excluding bank holiday and university closure days.

You should submit this via the form, ideally digitally (you can use a digital/typed signature too). You can find a copy of the form here: https://www.proctors.ox.ac.uk/forms. Here's some guidance on how to fill it out:

Section 1: About you

This is factual information as to your current academic situation. Status on course refers to whether you are currently studying, suspended or completed your course. If you are a non-matriculated student, you can write non-matriculated in the 'course' section. Ensure you have included an alternative email to your university email in case your university IT account closes down before your appeal is able to be concluded, as all communication with you will be done via email.

Section 2: Appeal Summary

What decision are you appealing? For example, final decision of the exam board for xyz module or final classification award of the exam board of mitigating circumstances classification decision.

Which body or person made the decision? Most likely the Examination Board.

When was the decision made? Give the date the Exam Board met

When were you notified of the decision? Give the date you were informed of the Exam board's decision

If your appeal is about a decision which you were notified about over 20 working days ago, please confirm your reason for lateness. If you are within the time period, you can leave this blank or write n/a. If you are not submitting your appeal in the deadline give a brief explanation e.g. you were waiting to hear back from a Subject Access Request or you were in hospital. You should attach evidence of whatever your reason for lateness to the appeal.

What grounds are you appealing under? Select which ground you are appealing under. You can appeal under multiple grounds, should you feel more than one applies.

Are there any time-critical factors that the Proctors should be aware of? [max 150 words]. Explain any reasons why the Proctors may need to consider your appeal as a priority, for example if this is impacting your ability to progress into the next year of your studies.

Section 3: Appeal Details- Stage One

What steps have you taken to resolve the appeal informally at a local level? Explain in chronological order: the date, the action you took, who you spoke to and the outcome from that communication. Speaking with us in the SU doesn't count as a step of this process, so you don't need to include it in there. If you had these conversations via email, then you should attach a copy of these emails to the appeals form as evidence.

Section 3: Appeal Details- Stage Two

What are the key points of your appeal? Explain under the ground(s) of appeal you selected in the appeal summary, your reason for your appeal. You can write up to 700 words in each section, so be clear and concise yet polite in your explanation. Ideally, use the parts the proctors have laid out as sub-headings to help direct the Proctors to your point. Here's some specific guidance for each of the grounds:

  • Error in Decision Making

This ground is used when you believe that whilst the process was followed correctly, the actual decision that was made within that process was made in error. You need to be really careful to not challenge academic judgement in this appeal ground, as explained above. The Proctors are seeking to understand:

(i) What error was made - explain clearly what error you are challenging. For example, did they incorrectly classify your MCE?

(ii) The effect of the error - explain what impact the error had on you, for example, by them not accepting your MCE did you not have your classification re-considered?

(iii) Which assessment(s) the error relates to - which assessments were impacted?

(iv) The evidence that supports this - direct the Proctors to specific pieces of evidence which prove this (for example, write: see annex C) and explain how the evidence proves this. This might be evidence you have gotten from stage one or from a subject access request.

(v) The impact you have faced as a result of this

What has been the impact on you? For example, by not being considered as a borderline candidate you have not gotten the higher classification.
 

  • Procedural Irregularity

This ground is used when you believe that either your college or University have failed to follow a process properly. The Proctors are seeking to understand:

(i) What error was made - explain clearly which university policy or regulation you believe has not been followed correctly. It's helpful to be as specific as possible, by quoting specific parts of university policy.

(ii) The effect of the irregularity - explain what impact this irregularity had on your assessment. Here, the Proctors are seeking to clarify that the irregularity had sufficient impact on your assessment that the decision should be re-visited. Therefore, you need to demonstrate it is more than minimal or trivial.

(iii) Which assessment(s) the irregularity relates to - which assessments were impacted?

(iv) The evidence that supports this - direct the Proctors to specific pieces of evidence which prove this (for example, write: see annex C) and explain how the evidence proves this. This might be evidence you have gotten from stage one or from a subject access request.

(v) The impact you have faced as a result of this - what has the impact been on you? For example, by not following that process correctly, you have not been considered for a higher classification.

  • Bias or Perception of Bias 

This ground is used where you believe there was the potential for bias - either intentional or unintentional in the decision making. According to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, bias is: "a tendency to treat one person or group, thing or point of view more or less favourably than another, especially in a way that is considered to be unfair". The Proctors are seeking to understand:

(i) Which examiner(s) you consider to have shown bias/perception of bias against you - list whom you are concerned has been biased against you

(ii) The reasons/evidence why you believe this to be the case - give any reasoning as to why you think there might be bias, or the reasonable perception of bias. For example, have you previously submitted a complaint against your examiner? Have you previously or currently had a relationship with them which was not declared and therefore mitigated in the Student/Staff Relationships Policy? Have they got a evidenced history of being discriminatory towards a group to which you are a part of?

(iii) Which assessment(s) this relates to - which assessments were impacted?

(iv) The impact you have faced as a result of this what has the impact been on you? For example, had the person who is biased against you not been involved in determining your grade, you would have gotten a more favourable outcome.

  • Evidence

What evidence are you submitting as part of your appeal?

Evidence is really important, as the Proctors will only determine your appeal outcome based on the statement and evidence you put forward. They won't do any investigation themselves to find additional evidence to support your appeal.

For each piece of evidence, you should rename it as the Annex number it is, and a brief description. E.g. Annex A, email from DGS. On the form, for each piece of evidence you are providing you should give a brief description, explain who authored it (e.g. yourself, your doctor, your DGS), the date it was created and how it is relevant to your appeal. For example, does it prove that you attempted stage one resolution? Does it show a process wasn't followed correctly?

To make it as easy as possible for the Proctors to understand the relevance of each of your pieces of evidence, in your main statement when you are explaining something which is evidence, you should write (see: annex xyz).

If you have more than five pieces of evidence, then you can add additional rows. However, be careful to ensure that every piece of evidence is complete, relevant and proportionate. Therefore, be concise in what you are presenting whilst ensuring the whole picture is showcased.

  • Outcome

What outcome would you like to see as a result of the appeal?

Whilst the Proctors cannot guarantee any particular outcome, it is helpful for them to have an understanding of what would feel like a good outcome for you. It's important to note that the Proctors cannot change you outcome themselves, they are only able to make recommendations to the Board. For example, if they find that your MCE wasn't properly considered or that your mark wasn't marked according to the SpLD Inclusive Marking Guidelines, they can recommend your exam board re-consider the MCE or re-consider the paper based on the guidelines.

Section 5: Declaration & Submit

Have a read through each of the statements, and check you agree with them all. Then, sign (its ok to just write your name in the box) and date it.

 

You can submit your appeal by emailing it, alongside your correctly formatted evidence to casework@proctors.ox.ac.uk. They will confirm they've received it within five working days of this date, and aim to get back to you with an outcome within 30 working days.

Stage 3: Proctors Review

If you are unhappy with the outcome of your academic appeal, you can request a review of this decision if you meet the grounds.

Academic Appeal Review 

Stage 4: OIA

If you are unhappy with the outcome of your appeal review, you can request a review of the Universities final decision by the external adjudicator the OIA. 

OIA Review 

 

If you have a question not answered by the above or would like your draft appeal/evidence checked over by a member of our team, then read our Advice Agreement and Contact Us and we'd be happy to help.