Source · SPSO (Scottish Public Services Ombudsman)

University of Aberdeen

SPSO (Scottish Public Services Ombudsman) Not Upheld Reference 201101385 Sector Education Category academic appeal; exam results; degree classification Decided 01 December 2011

View The University of Aberdeen scorecard

Full decision

Summary

The university awarded Mr C a third class honours degree. When he reviewed his marks, he found that in three of the courses he had achieved a common assessment score of 11. He understood that, if he had achieved a mark of 12 in any of the courses, he would have been awarded a 2:2 degree overall. Mr C drew this to the attention of his subject department, and it was discovered Mr C should have been treated as a ‘borderline’ student, and had his course papers reviewed by an external examiner.

Mr C appealed through the university appeals process. The university corrected the procedural irregularity and arranged for Mr C’s work to be reviewed by an external examiner. Mr C also felt that, as a borderline student, he should have the opportunity to be invited for viva (an oral examination). The external examiner, however, confirmed that Mr C’s work demonstrated a third class performance, and said that Mr C was not eligible for viva. Mr C went to the final stage of appeal and requested a hearing, but this was refused on the grounds that his appeal was based on academic merit rather than other mitigating or extenuating circumstances.

Although the Ombudsman cannot consider matters of academic judgment (such as the level of degree awarded) we reviewed whether the university followed its procedures correctly, and whether it had returned Mr C to the position in which he would have been but for the error occurring. We found that the university did so, that the review by the external examiner was appropriate and sufficient, and that Mr C did not meet the criteria set to be invited for viva. We did not uphold his complaint, although we did recommend that the university apologise to him for their initial failure to correctly follow their procedure, as there was no evidence that they apologised during the appeals process.

Recommendation We recommended that the university: • provide Mr C with a full apology for initially failing to follow the examination procedure correctly.

Related reading

View Decision Report 201101385 as a PDF (19.89 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

View original on SPSO (Scottish Publ… website

Other decisions involving University of Aberdeen

Reference Date Summary Outcome
201703195 01 Oct 2018 Ms C complained that the university failed to provide reasonable supervision and monitoring during her full-time PhD course. Ms C … Upheld
201604681 01 May 2017 Ms C complained that the university failed to follow the correct procedures when assessing her exam. She was also unhappy … Partly Upheld
201508572 01 Feb 2017 Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A. Mr A had previously submitted an academic appeal to the University of … Partly Upheld
201501382 01 Dec 2015 Miss C started a part-time distance learning masters degree course at the university. Within a few weeks she found that … Not Upheld
201403588 01 Aug 2015 In the fourth year of his Masters degree, Mr C's dissertation was found to contain work taken from other sources … Not Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation