UCL Academic Manual

Policy and Procedures for Barring Students from Examinations and Related Issues

Contact: Professor Mike Ewing, Dean of Students (Academic) 

Policy

The following policy and procedures cover five key areas:

1. Barring
2. Academic Insufficiency
3. Repeat Study
4. Termination of Studies
5. Suspension and Termination for Non-Attendance at Mandatory Faculty Interviews

1. BARRING

• Departmental, programme and module literature given to students at the start of the session must clearly set out the policy on barring, together with clear definitions of what will constitute “unsatisfactory performance” [UCL’s minimum requirement for engagement is 70%, but course organisers and/or departments may stipulate a higher percentage if this is appropriate].
• Wherever it is practicable for them to do so, departments must have adequate mechanisms in place for regularly recording attendance at seminars, classes, laboratory classes and tutorials, and for the submission of required coursework, etc., and for the reporting by individual teachers of any serious deficiencies to the Departmental/Degree Programme/Graduate Tutor (as appropriate), who are the designated departmental officers with overall responsibility for instigating the barring process.
• Students who are clearly falling short of any departmental requirements in any particular course(s) MUST be informed – in writing – that his/her performance is currently less than satisfactory and that, if the situation continues, he/she may be barred from the assessment of the course(s) in question, together with the consequences that this may bring with it. A copy of this letter/e-mail should be sent to the relevant Faculty Tutor/Faculty Graduate Tutor for information (and to the student’s “parent department” if that is not the department responsible for teaching the course(s) in question). Such warning MUST be given to students in sufficient time for him/her to be able to rectify the situation during the remainder of the session, i.e. no later than half-way through the course(s), or part of a course where appropriate, in question. The Faculty Tutor/Faculty Graduate Tutor (and, where relevant, the student’s “parent department”) may also decide at this point to interview the student concerned.
• If the problem persists, and if the student has been given the prior written warning detailed above, the department may then move towards barring the student. The student should first be interviewed, so that he/she has the opportunity to explain any reason there may be for underperformance. If the barring is to be implemented, they MUST then write to the student’s parent department (if that is different) informing it of the intention to bar, and the reasons for it. The parent department has the opportunity to make any relevant comments it may wish and to discuss the matter with the teaching department within one week of such notification. If both the teaching and parent departments agree to bar the student, the parent department must send a letter of notification to the student (including details of the appeals mechanism), with a copy to the teaching department, and to the parent department’s Faculty Tutor, for subsequent notification to the Examinations Section.
• The decision on barring from individual examinations/assessments ultimately rests with the relevant teaching and parent departments, and must be made on the basis of a written record of attendance, performance, etc. Any decision to bar students must be made no later than the end of the Spring Term (for undergraduates) or 4 weeks before the relevant examination/assessment (for graduate students and Affiliates, where appropriate).
• The Faculty Tutor’s/Faculty Graduate Tutor’s role will normally be to monitor any departmental decision, and to ensure that the above procedures have been adhered to. However, where a decision to bar a student from an examination will de facto result in non-progression (e.g. with regard to the overall number of units required, or units that are compulsory), the Faculty Tutor/Faculty Graduate Tutor must interview the student before confirming (or not) the final decision.
• Students have the right to appeal against the decision to bar. Such appeals must be made by the student in writing, either to the parent Faculty Tutor/Faculty Graduate Tutor or the Dean of Students (Academic), as appropriate (see below), within 7 days of the date of notification of the department’s or Faculty’s decision.
• The parent Faculty Tutor/Faculty Graduate Tutor will deal with any appeal there may be against a departmental decision where progression is not at stake within 5 working days of receipt of the written appeal.
• Appeals against a decision by the Faculty Tutor/Faculty Graduate Tutor which results in non-progression or classification difficulties for the student will be dealt with by the Dean of Students (Academic) (or by a Deputy when there may be a conflict of interests if the Dean of Students (Academic) were to consider the student’s case) within 5 working days of receipt of the written appeal.
• Should a student be dissatisfied with the outcome of his/her appeal, he/she may then go through UCL’s standard grievance procedures, but he/she must accept that a final outcome is unlikely to be reached before he/she is due to take the examination(s) in question.

2. ACADEMIC INSUFFICIENCY

• This occurs when a student’s overall performance is deemed to be unsatisfactory by the department, either with regard to attendance or production of required work, or both, and as such it is neither realistic nor viable for him/her to continue with his/her studies for the remainder of the session.
• All such cases must be referred by departments to the Faculty Tutor/ Faculty Graduate Tutor for a final decision. The expected outcome will be that the student’s studies are suspended (for up to one year, as appropriate), and that he/she must repeat the year of study in which the insufficiency occurred.
• Should a student wish to appeal against this decision, he/she may do so using the UCL’s standard grievance procedures.

3. REPEAT STUDY

• Students who fall into any of the above two categories may expect to be permitted to have repeat study (full-time or part-time, as appropriate, and, depending on the individual circumstances, either for the whole or just part of a session). It is only in this way that students can make good their previous “insufficiency”.
• It is expected that such repeat study will be in the immediately following session. It is likely that repeat study will be taken alongside and in addition to the standard courses a student is expected to take in a given year and will not exceed the equivalent of one course unit in an undergraduate programme.
• If a department does not wish to offer repeat study to a student, it must provide good, well-documented grounds for not doing so. In such circumstances, the department must make its recommendation to the Faculty Tutor/Faculty Graduate Tutor, and it is the Faculty that reaches the final decision and informs the student of it in writing, together with the reasons for the decision. Should the decision be that repeat study is not available to the student, this in effect prevents the student from ever completing the relevant course (which may affect progression – see below).
• Should a student wish to appeal against the Faculty’s decision, he/she may do so by writing to the Dean of Students (Academic) within 7 days of the date of notification of the Faculty’s decision.
• The appeal will be dealt with by the Dean of Students (Academic) (or by a Deputy when there may be a conflict of interests if the Dean of Students (Academic) were to consider the student’s case) within 5 working days of receipt of the written appeal.
• Should the Dean of Students' (Academic) (or her/his Deputy’s) decision effectively result in a student not being allowed to progress with their programme of study (e.g. no repeat study permitted, and the course is compulsory), the student may appeal against it using UCL’s standard grievance procedures.

4. TERMINATION OF STUDIES

• A student’s registration may also be terminated on the grounds of academic insufficiency, as set out in the current UCL Regulations for Management; in such cases, the academic insufficiency must be deemed to be irretrievable.
• For any student whose studies are to be terminated in this way, it is essential that he/she has previously been referred by the Department to the Faculty Tutor/Faculty Graduate Tutor for a formal interview and written warning that their studies are at risk of being terminated should the insufficiency continue.
• Should the insufficiency continue, or any conditions that were made at the above interview for the continuation of the student’s studies not have been met, the student must be interviewed again by the Faculty and issued with formal written notification of the termination and the reasons for it.
• Only the Faculty Tutor/Faculty Graduate Tutor is empowered to terminate a student’s registration on the grounds of academic insufficiency.
• Should a student wish to appeal against this decision, he/she may do so using UCL’s standard grievance procedures.

5. SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION FOR NON-ATTENDANCE AT MANDATORY FACULTY INTERVIEWS

• Should any student not attend a mandatory Faculty interview (e.g. an end-of-term interview arranged to discuss poor academic performance), he/she will be written to by the Faculty Tutor/Faculty Graduate Tutor informing him/her that if he/she fails to make, and keep, an alternative appointment by a specified deadline his/her registration will be automatically suspended.
• When such a suspension has to be invoked, the student must be sent a formal letter by the Faculty confirming the suspension, and warning him/her that his/her studies will be terminated should he/she not attend for interview by a specified deadline.
• When such a termination has to be invoked, the Faculty must write a further letter to the student informing him/her of this, together with their right to appeal against the decision.
• Should a student wish to appeal against this final decision, he/she may do so using UCL’s standard grievance procedures.

 January 2012

---