LONDON: Brilliant Pakistani student Rehab Asad Shaikh has launched 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 by awarding her grades after her graduation, depriving her of a clear opportunity to do a Master’s degree in Philosophy at Cambridge University.
Shaikh arrived in the UK in 2020 after graduating from Karachi Grammar School. She graduated from LSE in 2023 in policy studies and completed an MA from Oxford University in Modern South Asian Studies. The University of Oxford was not his first choice to study: he actually wanted to study for a master’s degree in Philosophy at the University of Cambridge. That’s where the problem began, affecting his life, his career choices, and his health. Originally from Khairpur Gambat in Sindh, she now works in a senior position in a UK government ministry. She believes her career choices would be different if the LSE had not disadvantaged her three years ago.
When Shaikh graduated from the LSE in 2023, due to the UK-wide marking and assessment boycott that year, his university thesis was assessed by a single assessor rather than the usual double marking process: he was awarded a grade of 57.
She believed that the grading process had put her at a disadvantage compared to other students whose work was double graded. It followed all available formal routes: internal academic appeals, complaints procedures and ultimately referral 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 comment on his thesis again. The result was surprising: Shaikh’s grades increased from 57 to 72, a difference of 15 points.
she said Geographic news: “I have taken legal action seeking an apology from the university, an acknowledgment that they made a mistake, that my work was not quality assured at the level it should be, compensation for my harm and an acknowledgment that such incidents will not happen to other students. The LSE is resisting, but I will not give up until justice is done. For many students, a thesis grade is just a number on a transcript, but for me it has become the center of a two-and-a-half-year struggle that exposed uncomfortable questions about accountability, student well-being, and how universities respond when things go wrong.”
Despite the significant correction from 57 to 72, subsequent LSE decisions concluded that no fault had occurred, no liability was owed and no significant impact had been demonstrated. In reviewing her complaint, the institution repeatedly described the effects of the prolonged process (including stress, delays, and missed opportunities) as “self-reported,” “not compelling,” or “not material.”
she said Geographic news that what followed has been a nightmare for her. She said: “After my corrected grade of 72 was issued, my academic record briefly showed that I had been awarded a departmental academic award. Two hours later, I was informed that it had been an error. Following further correspondence, the award was reinstated, with the department acknowledging the distress caused by the error. “This highlights how easily the emotional impact can be minimized when institutions evaluate their own actions.
Shaikh says she was treated poorly by the LSE administration when letters from health professionals documenting anxiety and distress were characterized as largely self-reported and unpersuasive.
She said: “My case is not unique. Since speaking publicly, I have heard numerous students describe similar experiences: long delays, opaque processes, and the feeling that once 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 errors occur, how those errors are handled is deeply important. Transparency, empathy, and timely resolution are not optional extras; they are essential to maintaining trust in the system.
Shaikh added: “Current frameworks make it too easy for institutions to close ranks, rely on technicalities and ignore the lived realities of students. A 15-point grade change is rare. A two-and-a-half-year wait is detrimental. The real issue is not whether a grade was right or wrong, but whether the system is equipped to respond fairly when students challenge the results, and whether it takes their well-being seriously when they do so.”
LSE did not respond to questions.
