Summary
Miss C was unhappy with the honours classification of her degree. She complained to us about the university's handling of her academic appeal.
The classification decision was a matter of academic judgement for the university, which could be challenged using the academic appeals process and was not in our jurisdiction. However, we noted that evidence provided by the university indicated Miss C's degree classification was based on her overall academic performance, and was not affected by administrative issues she raised.
We found that the university dealt with Miss C's appeal in line with their regulations. There was evidence that Miss C's appeal submission was considered carefully and the relevant university sub-committee reached a view on it, as they were entitled to. We understood why Miss C disagreed with the outcome reached by the sub-committee, but there was no evidence to dispute that outcome, and her disagreement was not evidence of maladministration. In the absence of maladministration, we could not question the merits of the university's decision. We did not uphold Miss C's complaint.
Amendment - 5 July 2017 When it was originally published on 24 May 2017 this summary incorrectly stated "The classification decision was a matter of academic judgement for the university, which could be challenged using the academic appeals process and was not in our jurisdiction" This should have read "The classification decision was a matter of academic judgement for the university. This cannot be challenged using the academic appeals process and was not in our jurisdiction."
SPSO apologises for this typographical error and for any confusion caused.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201603727 as a PDF () Updated: March 13, 2018