APPEAL/SECOND REVIEW FOR ACCA OBU

I also failed my rap in period 36. Can i appeal now. Is it too late. I never knew we could appeal as well.

This is what ACCA replied when I asked the same question.

“You must appeal within 60 days of the release of your results at the very latest, although we would normally expect to receive appeals sooner than this. The time taken to answer appeals can vary. However, the sooner we receive an appeal, then the earlier you should receive a response as appeals are generally answered based on the order in which they were received.

If you want your results to be reviewed, please email acca@brookes.ac.uk with details of the grounds on which you are appealing. You should try and be as specific as possible. It’s useful to quote the marker’s feedback and then detail why you disagree with a particular point and give examples of how your project meets the pass grade criteria. We will then pass this on to an academic member of the team to review your RAP.

Please note that students have to pass all nine sections of the assessment criteria before a degree can be awarded. Please also note that an appeal cannot be considered on grounds of academic judgement. However, an appeal can be considered for technical reasons. Technical reasons can include the marking criteria being misinterpreted, or that an uploaded element of the work has been missed by the marker. “

Can anyone give me the list of documents(hard copies) that OBU will send via mail?How many days will it take approximately after the result date to receive the documents?

Dear Farzana

There us a slight but common misunderstanding here in terms of the interpretation of the feedback sheet. Overall you have failed on Professional and Technical skills -which covers 4 aspects (if you look at your sheet you should see that the first 4 criteria are numbered). The particular criterion you were considered not to have met was number 3 – Evaluation of information, analysis and conclusions.

Most of the comments in this box were probably made by the first marker. All fails are reviewed and any comments put in anywhere in an unnumbered box would have been added by the Moderator (senior marker) who reviewed the work, (though they might have added to those in box 3 instead and left it empty)

Criterion 3 is the most common reason for a fail and is often because students tell the reader what has gone on but not really explained, analysed and evaluated the underlying implication or reasons that account for the facts they are relaying.

hi,

I received my feedback for period 37 submission and the maker has failed me on 2 categories, info gathering and evaluation & analysis.
The reason given in the feedback is that I have not used shareholder ratios in my analysis and weakness section of SWOT is brief. most of my colleagues have submitted same projects but have passed.

I need help on preparing my appeal so that i do not annoy or use inappropriate comments for the process.
can you guide me through the process. @gillianm @trephena

Dear @gillianM,
Obu sent me a form to fill in regarding the appeal for a second review.

The form has 3 sections.
1.summary of the main points
2.desired outcome
3.evidence.

Kindly give details of the main points i should include in the above sections.

One of the appeal officer said that i am just disagreeing with the academic judgement; however i displayed markers feedback followed by my views where i stated that there is enough analysis, providing examples etc…

hi @farzana,

when did you send the email and how long did OBU take to reply to your email?

I have also sent the email but have not received any reply yet.

Dear @GillianM – OBU Registered Mentor,

I appealed OBU a week ago to reconsider my SLS as I was awarded fail in the SLS by the university and tonight I received an email of the Appeal Officer in which it was stated that the assessment criteria was applied correctly, however, I am still eligible to appeal OBU formally for second review of SLS.

The comments of the marker regarding my SLS in the feedback sheet were,

“The purpose of this statement is to demonstrate reflection, identifying your strengths and weaknesses, reflecting on how you overcame those weaknesses. Your answer to question 1 was more of a description of the process than any reflection. You begin answering question 2 by talking about your main research objective which is a personal goal rather
than a research objective.”

On the contrary, all weaknesses and ways of using my strengths were already embodied in the SLS. Moreover, there wasn’t any discussion of personal goal in the SLS and merely financial aspects of topic 8 were accounted for. I quoted almost 20 weaknesses in the appeal email together with my strengths for overcoming them, however, still the appeal officer says that

“I understand that you are unhappy with your RAP result. Please be assured that this has been thoroughly considered by your marker and has been verified by the University’s moderation process, and I have also reviewed the work on your request. I find that the feedback was appropriate, and designed to assist you to re-submit successfully.

For your re-submission, I would advise you to think about how, for instance, you might do things differently on another occasion, the strengths you identified, and how they helped you, your weaknesses, and how you overcame them. Also, how you felt about working on the RAP and working with your mentor; did you have any problems you didn’t expect?”

Kindly advise me that under which criteria I can appeal OBU for awarding me pass in the SLS? Moreover, I referred the SLS exemplars given on the OBU website for drafting my SLS and the weaknesses coupled with the ways of overcoming those weaknesses were far more than the weaknesses entailed in the SLS exemplars.

I really wonder that what kind of weaknesses the marker wanted me to incorporate in my SLS when already bulk of weaknesses, way more than the weaknesses and strengths given in the SLS exemplars, related to the point of time when my work wasn’t reviewed by the mentor are self-evident in the SLS and the way I overcame them with the suggestions of mentor were already present in it. Obtrusively, there was no space to discuss my personal weaknesses and all weaknesses I discussed were solely related to RAP.

Kindly help me with making my appeal successful.

I have to agree that some of the exemplars for the RAP fir the SLS are of a poor quality. When framing your appeal you need to point this out and state that you have done an assessment of your own strengths and weaknesses, citing examples of this from your work. Ask the point blank question – can they indicate the merits of the exemplar over your own work and that you want a second opinion.

If you are still not happy address your issues to student disputes.

Dear@GillianM
I need your guidance on the following matter please

I recevied my feedback for P38 and i need to go for appeal as they failed me only in one thing that i chose the wrong comparator. My feedback stated
*2. Application of Accountancy/Business Models Fail
J&P is not a relevant and effective comparator/benchmark. This should have been
apparent from your initial ratio analysis. You should find another more successful
comparator which is not relying on the sale of its land and building to rescue itself.*

As my main organisation was seimens which also turned profitable after years of being in loss by selling its land and building. I chose the comparator who was also trying to turn profitable by the same method. Also these 2 organisations were taken by many students in p37 and they passed.

I passed in everything else. How do i appeal for this?

Hello Gillian,

I have received my feedback for period 38 (after sending an email to OBU). I wish to appeal and would be very thankful for any advice or tips on the appeal process that you can give me.

I did topic 17 and researched Carillion for a whole year.

I was failed in the research report and the SLS and was given a pass for graduate skills. In the research report, I was failed in four areas – understanding of models, application of models, evaluation, and presentation of project findings.

Can you imagine that under application of models, the marker stated that Carillion was ‘an inappropriate choice of company’ and further advised that for resubmission I should choose a different organisation? The research report feedback is as follows:

Research Report
Technical and Professional Skills
1. Understanding of Accountancy/Business Models Fail
You haven’t applied your business models in sufficient depth to demonstrate
understanding. The inclusion of the COSO model doesn’t add any value as it is the UK
Code which the company has to comply with.
2. Application of Accountancy/Business Models Fail
Carillion is an inappropriate choice of company as the weaknesses in corporate
governance weren’t sufficiently evident before the collapse for there to be a response from
management. Your application of the UK code is very superficial and doesn’t identify
sufficient evidence of non-compliance that can explain the collapse or how improved CG
could have prevented the collapse. The evaluations of leadership effectiveness and board
structure and functioning in both the Table and in 3.3.1. are very brief and superficial.
3. Evaluation of Information, Analysis And Conclusions Fail
Whilst it easy with hindsight to see the causes of the company collapse there is limited
evidence of poor CG that would have justified an intervention by shareholders. The
financial ratio analysis doesn’t reveal significant differences between Balfour Beaty and
Carillion
4. Presentation of Project Findings Fail
There is repetition in your presentation, e.g between the tabulated evaluation of
compliance with the UK CG Code and the later narrative evaluation.
Overall Technical and Professional Skills Fail

Research Report overall assessment Fail
For your resubmission your are advised to choose an organisation which has recognised
the weaknesses in its corporate governance and has taken action to remedy them. Two or
three business models should be adequate for an in depth analysis and focus more on CG
rather than financial analysis.

Gillian, I disagree with the marker’s feedback. I actually did more critical evaluation and analysis of models than financial analysis. I have to say that I am disappointed in OBU. Thanks for your help.

@1331 although I can only handle any appeals that involve students I have mentored if you email me via my website I will keep you posted of any significant developments.

As I have pointed out to the Powers that Be that unless there is faith in the fairness of the RAP assessment system there is little point in having it at all. At the moment for Topic 17 it is a lottery – your fate depends on who assesses your work as the assessment criteria are not being applied consistently, fairly and appropriately. If you are unlucky and end up in the hands of a brutal marker you stand no chance as they seem to be looking for ‘reasons to fail’ whereas a decent and fair marker will assess your work on its merits.

All of my students who did Carillion passed except one (he is still waiting for his feedback so I await this with interest to see if he has been told that Carillion was ‘unsuitable’). Any system that has movable goal-posts like this is deplorable – Carillion is the ‘Enron of the UK’ and of course it is appropriate!

I do believe the Programme Lead is fair and reasonable, soI trust that in the end common sense will prevail….. However it does beg the question – What planet was your marker on??