Academic Appeals

Extenuating circumstances (ECs) are normally short-term, unforeseen, and unpreventable events that significantly impact your ability to study or complete an assessment or examination. See the published list of valid extenuating circumstances.

You can apply for ECs 14 working days before an assessment to request a deadline extension or deferral. Or you can report ECs to your department no later than 7 days after the assessment deadline or examination.

While students are able self-certify when making an extenuating circumstances application, appeals based on ECs must be substantiated with evidence.

If you are appealing under the category of ECs, you must demonstrate and evidence the following:

• You were unable to engage with the extenuating circumstances procedure at the time of your assessment for reasons beyond your control
• Your performance in an assessment was affected by a valid extenuating circumstance

Ongoing medical issues and physical or mental disabilities are generally not considered to be valid extenuating circumstances. They may be considered if students are able to demonstrate that there was an acute flare-up, or new symptoms, which affected your ability to perform in assessments or engage with the normal EC procedure.

Students with impairments that have a substantial and long-term negative impact on their ability to study and/or to engage with assessments should seek support and reasonable adjustments to assessment through the Disability and Inclusion Service.

Goldsmiths’ assessment procedures are designed to minimise the potential for bias in the assessment process and to ensure the integrity and fairness of the marking system.

If you believe that your academic assessment or progression has been adversely affected by prejudice or bias, you have the right to appeal under this ground.

To support your appeal, you must provide clear and compelling evidence that demonstrates how the prejudice or bias influenced the decision. This can include specific instances of discriminatory remarks, actions, or patterns of behaviour by your examiner(s) that directly impacted your performance or evaluation.

Ensure that your evidence is well-documented and may include written communications, witness statements, or other relevant documents. It is important that you detail the nature of the bias or prejudice, who was involved, and how it affected the academic decision.

While you may be disappointed with a mark, unless you have further supporting evidence of bias or prejudice you may not have valid grounds for appeal.

Errors in the assessment process can occur, such as mistakes when a mark is input into the student record system or submitted work being overlooked.

Sometimes, an error is self-evident and can often be resolved without a formal appeal. Contacting your tutor or School Hub is often the best first step, as these issues can usually be resolved directly.

If you believe that there was an administrative error in the way an examination or assessment was conducted, or if there has been a procedural irregularity, you may be eligible to submit an academic appeal.

If you are unable to resolve the issue after contacting your tutor or School Hub, you should submit a Stage One appeal form and explain the nature of the problem. Appeals which are based on the ground of administrative error or procedural irregularity should also be supported with evidence.

If you believe you did your best in an assessment and fulfilled the marking criteria but received a mark which is lower than you expected, this does not entitle you submit an appeal.

Appeals must demonstrate that Goldsmiths’ assessment procedures were either not followed properly, or that the appellant’s performance in an assessment was compromised by circumstances beyond their control which they could not communicate to the College at the time.

Appeals based on a student’s assessment of their own work, or on assessments by individuals other than their designated examiners, are considered to be challenging 'academic judgement'.

Any appeals which are based on a challenge of academic judgement will be dismissed as invalid.

Appeals cannot be based on extenuating circumstances which have already been considered in relation to an assessment.

If you submitted an extenuating circumstances application at the time of your assessment and the application was successful then your extenuating circumstances cannot be used again to make an academic appeal.

If your extenuating circumstances application was considered and rejected then you also cannot submit an appeal using the same information.

If you have new evidence which you were unable to provide at the time of your extenuating circumstance application then you may submit an appeal.

You must be able to demonstrate:

• This information/evidence could not have been brought to light when you submitted your application
• Your extenuating circumstance falls under one of the acceptable categories of extenuating circumstances

Students are able self-certify when making an extenuating circumstances application, appeals which are based on the category of extenuating circumstances must be substantiated with evidence.

Appeals can’t be made to extend the maximum period of registration. The maximum period of study for taught students at Goldsmiths is the duration of the programme of study plus two years (Regulations for Taught Students, 3.5.2).

The maximum registration period starts when a student enrols onto a programme and all years including interrupted years are counted towards the maximum. Periods of interruption taken during 2019/20 and 2020/21are not counted towards the maximum.

If you intend to appeal an assessment but have also reached the end of your maximum period of registration, you will need confirmation that the department’s request is confirmed and you have received an extension before any changes to your record can be made as the result of an academic appeal.

If it seems that you will not receive this approval before the deadline to submit an appeal, then you should submit a Stage One appeal form and note in the form that you have made an application to extend your maximum registration period and the decision is pending. If accepted, your appeal will be placed on hold until the decision is confirmed.

Extending your period of registration

If you have failed to complete all of the assessments contributing to your award and have reached the end of your maximum period of registration as a student at Goldsmiths, then you should contact your department directly and seek approval to have your maximum period of registration extended.

You must be able to demonstrate that there are severe mitigating circumstances which have prevented you from completing your programme within the registration period and that you are able to complete your programme with an extension. If your department supports an extension to the maximum period of registration then they will submit a request to extend the maximum registration on your behalf to the Registry Operations team.

Appeals may not be based on a student’s dissatisfaction with teaching, supervision, feedback or any other aspect of course delivery.

If you are dissatisfied with the delivery of your course or with feedback that you have received for an assessment, then, if you are unable to resolve your issues informally with your department or tutor, you should submit a formal complaint.

How to submit a formal complaint

A student cannot challenge academic judgement. An examiner may disagree with your viewpoint, argument or interpretation of evidence – affecting the mark awarded - but this is a matter of academic judgement. The design, structure and wording of exam questions are also matters of academic judgement.

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) provides a useful explanation of how academic judgement is defined under the Higher Education Act (2004):

Academic judgment is a judgment that is made about a matter where only the opinion of an academic expert is sufficient.

A decision about assessment, a degree classification, fitness to practise, research methodology, or course content or outcomes will normally involve academic judgment.