Reserving judgement: doctors v doctors of philosophy

I find this article depressing, not least because it indicates that firms of lawyers are now specialising in academic appeals. Sokol calls the decision in David's case 'wrong' and 'illogical'; it is neither. David seems to have experienced tooth pain on the day his extended essay was due in. If this was a lengthy piece of work, surely, it would have been completed well before the due date, or might have been awarded an extension. In the case of the exam, most universities now have a 'fit to sit' policy, whereby, if a student presents at the exam, they are doing so on the basis that they are fully fit, and cannot claim extenuating circumstances after the event. We are all fully aware of, and sympathetic to the fact that severe pain will affect performance. David would have had the choice of getting a medical certificate which would have been considered by the exam board, and would presumably have earned him a first sitting later in the year, with no penalty. when he had recovered. University regulations are deigned to accommodate unforeseen circumstances. I'm sure Sokol has his client's best interests at heart, but to assume that these circumstances merit an automatic 'upgrade' to a 2.1 is what seems illogical to me. By what warrant is he making that assumption ? If, as the university states, David was performing at a 2.2 standard, then they are justified in assuming that the tooth pain has not affected his work to the extent he is claiming. Exam boards, in my experience, go out of their way not to disadvantage students, and a number of factors are taken into account when determining degree classifications. Ill health does not automatically result in the award of a higher grade, although that might have been the outcome sought by David and Sokol. David, though, is undeterred by evidence, policy or fairness. He is the exception to any regulation. His sense of injustice takes him to the very last step in the legal process. Most of the time he will secure his wish because institutions will know that he is fuelled by self righteousness. We have all met David, and we know he will always behave this way. His future colleagues will loathe him.