craig25pop
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2020
I actually think something along these lines is the most likely scenario. Given that, by her own admission, Chloe was missing most of her classes due to her mental health, it's not too much of a stretch to assume she also missed a bunch of exams/assignment deadlines or completed the work to a poor standard and failed the year as a result. I've known students who failed their finals and applied for a retroactive leave of absence on mental health grounds, effectively allowing them to repeat the year where in ordinary circumstances they would have been kicked out of university. You can also apply for an interruption of studies/leave of absence if you're struggling to complete the assignments and believe you need to take time out before completing the year/semester, which might be what happened to Chloe if she only made it halfway through her first year.
Usually for a LOA/IOS, you need to provide some evidence of extenuating circumstances (e.g. a doctor's note) proving why you should be allowed to repeat the year, similar to if you need to postpone sitting exams or submit your assignments late. It's normally on health/mental health grounds, or because of personal issues like bereavement. It's entirely possible that, if Chloe simply got her "diagnosis" of DID from Pottergate and then pursued no further formal therapy during her year out (I highly doubt BetterHelp or reading about DID on Tumblr counts), the university simply didn't view that as sufficient evidence she'd been unfit to study and didn't let her return to repeat the year on that basis. Makes more sense than them finding out she had DID and not allowing her back because she was a "threat", which - if she really did have DID - probably would count as discrimination of some kind.
There is a kind of grey area here where it could be interpreted as discrimination against disabled/mentally ill students (I know in particular it can be an issue for people with rare or obvious-but-undiagnosed health issues), and I can completely see how liars and malingerers could manipulate that side of the argument to fit their narrative.
Of course, if it's true students at UEA can get kicked out/face disciplinary action for going in the campus lake, it could also be the case that Chloe got expelled on non-academic grounds if the people dealing with her case believed she was simply drunk/messing about rather than making a legitimate suicide attempt. Who knows.
There was a formative piece due on the 13th of December and at the time, UEA allowed a self-certified extension for 5 working days. This means you can extend the deadline for 5 working days without providing the evidence for the extenuating circumstance that you reported. You're only allowed self-certification once a year. Further extensions would require supoorring evidences directly sent from your GP, adviser, well-being adviser, or other authorities to the University. in this way there would be no way that you could alter the evidence before sending it to the university unless you fake an illness and your GP believes you, or you report having a crisis to the university well-being staff and then they report it to the school you are in in university.