LONDON: Bright Pakistani student Rehab Asad Shaikh has launched a lawsuit against the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) seeking damages and justice after the world-renowned educational institution botched her awarding of grades after her graduation, depriving her of a clear chance to take an MPhil at Cambridge University.
Shaikh came to the UK in 2020 after graduating from Karachi Grammar School. She graduated from LSE in 2023 in Political Studies and went on to do an MA from Oxford University in Modern South Asian Studies. Oxford University was not her first choice of study: she actually wanted to study for an MPhil at Cambridge University. That’s where the problem started and it affected her life, career choices and health. Originally from Khairpur Gambat in Sindh, she now works in a senior role in a British government ministry. She believes her career choice would have been different if the LSE had not wronged her three years ago.
When Shaikh graduated from LSE in 2023, due to the UK marking and assessment boycott that year, her undergraduate thesis was assessed by a single marker rather than the usual double marking process – she was awarded a grade of 57.
She felt that the marking process had put her at a disadvantage compared to other students whose work was double-marked. She pursued all available formal avenues: 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, the LSE agreed to re-evaluate her thesis. The result was striking: Shaikh’s marks rose from 57 to 72 – a difference of 15 points.
She told Pakinomist news: “I have started legal proceedings to seek an apology from the university, an acknowledgment that they have made a mistake, that my paper was not quality assured to the standard it should have, compensation for my injury and an acknowledgment that such incidents will not happen to other students. LSE is resisting, but I will not give up until justice is done, for many students is a transcript, for many students, a number, for but for me it has become the center of a two and a half year long fight that revealed uncomfortable questions about accountability, student welfare and how universities respond when things go wrong.”
Despite the significant correction from 57 to 72, the LSE’s subsequent decisions concluded that no wrong had occurred, no liability was owed and no meaningful effect had been demonstrated. In reviewing her complaint, the institution repeatedly described the effects of the lengthy process – including stress, delays and lost opportunities – as “self-reported”, “not convincing” or “not significant”.
She told Pakinomist news that subsequently it has been a nightmare for her. She said: “After my corrected grade of 72 was issued, my transcript briefly showed that I had been awarded an academic institute award. Two hours later I was informed that this had been an error. After further correspondence, the award was reinstated, with the institute acknowledging the distress caused by the error. It highlights how easily their own emotional impact can be assessed.
Shaikh says LSE administration treated her poorly when letters from health professionals documenting anxiety and distress were characterized as largely self-reported and unconvincing.
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 when a student leaves an institution, their well-being becomes peripheral. Students invest years of their lives, significant financial resources, and emotional energy into higher education. When mistakes are made in a careful way, the manner in which those mistakes are handled is critical to how those mistakes are handled. resolution is not optional extras, they are essential to maintain confidence in the system.
Shaikh added: “The current framework makes it too easy for institutions to close ranks, rely on technicalities and overlook the lived realities of students. A 15-point change is rare. A two-and-a-half-year wait is damaging. The real question is not whether a grade was right or wrong, but whether the system is equipped to respond fairly when students seriously challenge their results – and whether they seriously challenge their good results.”
The LSE did not respond to questions.
