Click on the scenario title to read these example case studies.
Lily, a second‑year student, received a mark of 65 for an essay on SALC20300. She was disappointed because she had worked hard, usually achieved higher marks, and disagreed with the feedback that her argument needed further development. Before submitting the essay, she asked her uncle, an academic at another institution, for informal feedback, and he believed the work was worth over 70.
Lily appeal's based on:
Ground B (Procedural irregularity), arguing that the marker did not apply the marking criteria correctly. She points to her higher marks in other units and her uncle’s opinion as evidence that her work should have received a higher grade. She asks for the essay to be remarked.
The Appeals Panel does not uphold the appeal.
The Panel confirms that the essay was subject to internal and external moderation and that no concerns were raised during this process. University quality assurance procedures were correctly followed. The Panel also notes that Lily is challenging the academic judgement of the marker, which is not permitted.
The Panel cannot:
Remarks are only permitted in very exceptional circumstances, and because moderation processes were followed, Lily’s case does not meet this threshold. If she had mitigating circumstances that affected her performance, she would need to submit a Stage 2 appeal with supporting evidence.
Henry, a first‑year student, failed a 20‑credit course (SALC10020) with a mark of 27. He scored 54 on the essay (50%) but received 0 for the exam (50%) after being absent due to a flare‑up of a health condition. He did not submit mitigating circumstances at the time. The Exam Board scheduled a resit exam in August.
Henry appeals under Ground A (mitigating circumstances), providing a doctor's letter that shows he was unwell at the time of the exam and explaining why he did not apply for mitigation earlier.
The Appeals Panel upholds the appeal. Henry’s August resit is changed to an uncapped first sit, meaning he can take the exam again without the resit cap affecting his mark.
The appeal does not remove the need for Henry to complete the exam altogether. His unit mark (27) is a fail that cannot be compensated, so further assessment is required for him to pass. The Panel cannot override degree regulation progression rules -- they can only adjust the attempt type to support Henry in completing the unit.
Jane, a second‑year student, failed 100 credits. She experienced the bereavement of a parent in Semester 1 and, as a result, developed depression that significantly affected her studies and attendance in Semester 2. She did not submit mitigating circumstances because she did not realise she could and struggled to seek support.
At the May/June Exam Board, Jane was excluded, as she was not eligible for resits (regulations only allow up to 80 credits of resits) and the Board was unaware of her circumstances.
Jane appeals under Ground A (circumstances affecting performance), providing evidence of her bereavement and ongoing mental health difficulties.
The Appeals Panel upholds the appeal. They accept that Jane’s circumstances had a substantial impact on her studies and offer her a repeat of her second year.
Tuition fees apply for a repeat year, and Jane is advised to check with her funding provider to confirm eligibility for an additional year of financial support.
Jane cannot be allowed to progress to her final year, as progression rules in the degree regulations cannot be overridden.
Although first‑sit opportunities could be considered in some cases, Jane’s profile (failure of 100 credits) would create an unmanageable workload in August. Given her low attendance and significant difficulties, the Panel decides a full repeat year in attendance is the most appropriate and supportive option.
Edward, a final‑year student, was awarded a 2:1. During the year, he experienced illness and stayed in regular contact with Student Support. He received mitigating circumstances in the form of extensions and waived late penalties.
His final average was 68.2, placing him in the boundary zone for potential uplift to a First. He believed he should have been considered for a higher classification.
Edward appeals based on:
The Appeals Panel does not uphold the appeal on either ground.
The Panel cannot:
Sahir, a PGT student, failed his dissertation with a mark of 45. He had not submitted any mitigating circumstances. The Exam Board therefore offered him two options:
Sahir appeal's based on:
Ground D (Unsatisfactory supervision or training), claiming that his supervisor did not provide sufficient support or meet with him regularly. He requests that his dissertation be awarded a pass mark and that he be granted the Master’s degree.
The Appeals Panel does not uphold the appeal.
The Panel confirms that the supervisor offered the standard number of supervision meetings in line with programme requirements. Sahir failed to attend some of these meetings and did not respond when the supervisor attempted to contact him about his absences. The Panel notes that he also received feedback on a draft chapter. As reasonable supervision was provided, and Sahir did not explain why he could not engage with it, the ground is not upheld.
The Panel cannot:
If Sahir had mitigating circumstances affecting his engagement or performance, he would need to submit a Stage 2 appeal with supporting evidence.
(University Switchboard)
+44 (0) 161 306 6000
The University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester
M13 9PL
