Appealing Fair Consistent and Objective to IAP after SRP

[Woobywoo]

Hi - no it doesn’t mention extenuating circumstances relating to moderation. Just all cases at 119 and 120, and 118 with HT recs as I said. Plus SR panels had the discretion to refer any they were not sure of. So I guess that is the catch all. The link provided by Etienne refers to criteria for moderation from a previous year not this year. In previous years scores of 112+ with 1.1 etc went to moderation.

I agree with you this doesn’t seem fair but will await others views before incorporating this point into an appeal. Good luck by the way! We are in a similar boat and feel your pain!

Etienne - shall I send the Letter mentioned above to the appeals box so you can see it /copy and paste into this thread or use it if helpful? It is a pdf so I can’t post it here. It does not contain anything personal.

Woobywoo

[Etienne]

Etienne - shall I send the Letter mentioned above to the appeals box

Many thanks!

The criteria for moderation referral have clearly tightened over the years.

I've never heard of extenuating circumstances being included in the criteria for referral, which I can probably understand because ext. circumstances range from the incredibly weak to the extremely serious, so a subjective judgement would have to be made about which ones count. How can this be done fairly, and consistently and objectively?

The problem is - the review itself does take account of extenuating circumstances, and SRP members seem required to make subjective judgements.

I expect this is not a point worth pursuing but just interested to know your view.

I wouldn't make it part of your case, but I would consider using it as a question for the group hearing.
What is the real motive in tightening the criteria for referral?
Has it by chance anything to do with moderators' workload?

[baloo]

Thanks to all for your comments and support. Every time I think my case is ready to send, I keep making changes! I need to nail it this week

I did have in there that we felt the case should have gone for moderation if they were questioning the evidence as no further explanation was given. Are you advising we don't say this in writing at all?

It's so hard to know what to include and what not to. We have tried to put our full case in writing and were going for doing a short speech at the hearing. Could putting everything in writing go against us. I feel very conscious in the choice of words/phrases being used, I feel like I am making a legal representation and every word will be scrutinised and writing one wrong word could be detrimental!! I'm even conscious of my grammar, scared of how the teacher will mark it!!

Regards,

Baloo

[Etienne]

Are you advising we don't say this in writing at all?

As I said, I think it would be better to ask it as a question at the hearing. There are probably stronger points to be made.

It might depend, though, on how many other FCO points there are that you want to make, and how strong they are.

Could putting everything in writing go against us.

No, because you are meant to try and include all your main arguments with regard to academic ability and reasons for wanting a place.

even conscious of my grammar

Don't worry about this - I've never heard of a panel being concerned about an appellant's grammar!