I am sharing this anonymously to avoid potential academic or professional repercussions. This account reflects institutional policies and their practical impact on students.
During the pandemic, the University of Plymouth allowed multiple self-certified extenuating circumstance requests per year. Once COVID-19 was deemed no longer a significant issue, this was reverted to pre-pandemic limits, allowing only one self-certified request per academic year.
I raised concerns that, despite the return to normal daily life, NHS capacity had not recovered. In practice, obtaining GP appointments or medical documentation often involved months-long waiting periods. The university’s response was that this was no longer its responsibility, as the global health crisis was considered over. The only alternative offered was evidence of a long-term medical condition, despite many students remaining on NHS waiting lists for diagnosis.
The university consistently cited the need to prevent misuse of extenuating circumstance policies. While this concern is understandable, the policy was applied uniformly, with no provision for case-by-case assessment. No middle ground was offered between unrestricted self-certification and strict evidentiary requirements.
As a result, the policy treated all students as equally likely to misuse the system, functioning as a collective restriction that disproportionately affected those with legitimate, time-sensitive difficulties. It is unclear why preventing misuse could not have been balanced with proportional individual assessment.
I am aware of cases where this led to serious academic consequences. For example, one student was required to repeat a year because they could not obtain their grandparent’s death certificate in time to justify a missed examination.
This is Part 1 of my experience.