LONDON: Bright Pakistani student Rehab Asad Shaikh has initiated a legal case against the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), seeking compensation and justice after the world-famous educational establishment wronged her in awarding marks after her graduation, depriving her of a clear chance to do MPhil at Cambridge University.
Shaikh came to the UK in 2020 after graduating from Karachi Grammar School. She passed her graduation from LSE in 2023 in policy studies and went on to do a Master’s from Oxford University in Modern South Asian Studies. Oxford University was not her first choice to study: she wanted to actually study for an MPhil at Cambridge University. That’s where the problem started, impacting her life, career choices and health. Originally from Khairpur Gambat in Sindh, she now works in a senior role in a UK government ministry. She thinks her career choices would be different if LSE had not wronged her three years ago.
When Shaikh graduated from the LSE in 2023, due to the UK-wide Marking and Assessment Boycott that year, her undergraduate dissertation was assessed by a single marker rather than the usual double-marking process – she was awarded a mark of 57.
She believed the marking process had disadvantaged her compared to other students whose work was double-marked. She pursued every formal route available: internal academic appeals, complaints procedures, and ultimately escalation to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) – the external body that reviews complaints about UK higher education providers. After more than two years, LSE agreed to re-mark her dissertation. The outcome was striking: Shaikh’s marks increased from 57 to 72 — a 15-point difference.
She told Geo News: “I have started legal action seeking an apology from the university, a recognition that they made an error, that my paper wasn’t quality assured to the standard it should have, compensation for my harm and a recognition that such incidents won’t happen to other students. The LSE is resisting, but I will not give up till justice is done. For many students, for them, a dissertation mark is just a number on a transcript, but for me it has become the centre of a two-and-a-half-year struggle that exposed uncomfortable questions about accountability, student welfare, and how universities respond when things go wrong.”
Despite the significant correction from 57 to 72, LSE’s subsequent decisions concluded that no fault had occurred, no responsibility was owed, and no meaningful impact had been demonstrated. In reviewing her complaint, the institution repeatedly described the effects of the prolonged process — including stress, delays, and lost opportunities — as “self-reported”, “not compelling”, or “not material”.
She told Geo News that what followed has been a nightmare for her. She said: “After my corrected mark of 72 was issued, my transcript briefly showed that I had been awarded a departmental academic prize. Two hours later, I was informed this had been an error. Following further correspondence, the prize was reinstated, with the department acknowledging the distress caused by the mistake. It highlights how easily emotional impact can be minimised when institutions assess their own actions.
Shaikh says the LSE administration treated her badly when letters from healthcare professionals documenting anxiety and distress were characterised as largely self-reported and not persuasive.
She said, “My case is not unique. Since speaking publicly, I have heard from numerous students who describe similar experiences: long delays, opaque processes, and a sense that once a student leaves an institution, their welfare becomes peripheral. Students invest years of their lives, significant financial resources, and emotional energy into higher education. When mistakes happen, the way those mistakes are handled matters deeply. Transparency, empathy, and timely resolution are not optional extras; they are essential to maintaining confidence in the system.
Shaikh added: “The current frameworks make it too easy for institutions to close ranks, rely on technicalities, and overlook the lived realities of students. A 15-point mark change is rare. A two-and-a-half-year wait is damaging. The real issue is not whether one mark was right or wrong, but whether the system is equipped to respond fairly when students challenge outcomes — and whether it takes their wellbeing seriously when they do.”
LSE didn’t respond to questions.
