A New Zealand university is being compelled to reimburse a doctoral student $8,000 in fees after she failed a required research methodology paper, effectively ending her enrollment in the program. The case, heard by the Disputes Tribunal, highlights a growing debate surrounding the level of “pastoral care” universities provide to students, particularly those navigating complex personal circumstances alongside demanding academic workloads.
The student, whose name and the university’s identity have been suppressed by the tribunal, had successfully completed her master’s degree at the same institution before enrolling in the doctoral program. Acceptance into the program hinged on achieving at least a B grade in the research methodology paper. When she failed to meet that benchmark, her enrollment was cancelled and the $8,000 fee forfeited.
The student argued before the tribunal that the university’s support systems were inadequate, citing the impact of attending multiple tangihanga (traditional Māori funerals) and maintaining employment on her studies. She claimed these factors contributed significantly to her inability to pass the crucial paper. While she initially sought a full reimbursement of fees, an apology, re-enrollment in the doctoral program, and an additional $30,000 in compensation, the tribunal ultimately ruled only in favor of the fee refund.
The university countered that the student had been given ample opportunity to succeed, but ultimately did not meet the academic requirements. This argument, however, failed to sway Tribunal Referee Gordon Meyer, who found a critical flaw in the university’s approach to student wellbeing.
Meyer’s ruling centered on the university’s own code of conduct, which he found lacked a clear definition of “pastoral care.” More significantly, he noted the absence of a dedicated office or specialist service to provide such care. “Oddly, I can find no definition of the term ‘pastoral care’ in the code,” Meyer stated in his decision. He further elaborated that the university’s failure to establish a formal pastoral care office represented a key shortcoming.
The referee drew a comparison to his own university experience, recalling a dedicated space staffed by specialists in various fields. He argued that the university had a responsibility to direct students facing challenges to a trained professional, rather than relying on course instructors – who also held the power to assess and potentially terminate enrollment – for support. “With an obligation such as that set out in the code, I would have expected a learner such as [the woman] would be directed to a formal specialist service to ensure she was being provided with the level of care required in the code before her enrolment was terminated,” Meyer wrote.
In a striking move, Meyer even resorted to consulting Google to define pastoral care, arriving at a definition encompassing “the provision of emotional, mental, and physical support to ensure the holistic welfare of individuals.” He concluded that the university’s primary failing was not providing access to a trained specialist in the student’s field of study.
Meyer acknowledged that he wasn’t advocating for a prominently labeled “Pastoral Care” office, but rather a dedicated department staffed by appropriately trained and experienced individuals. He emphasized the importance of avoiding potential conflicts of interest that arise when course instructors are also responsible for student counseling and enrollment decisions. “That would avoid the circumstance arising where the learner is being counselled by the very people who deliver the course of study and set the standards – and make the recommendation to terminal enrolment. It avoids possible perceptions of conflicts of interest.”
While the tribunal found the student entitled to a refund of her $8,000 fees, it lacked the authority to compel the university to issue an apology or reinstate her to the doctoral program. The ruling, however, serves as a pointed critique of the university’s student support infrastructure and raises broader questions about the responsibilities of higher education institutions to address the holistic needs of their students.
The case arrives at a time of increasing scrutiny of university practices. A Facebook post highlighted concerns regarding the University of Auckland’s Sen course, noting it had cost taxpayers approximately $14 million in subsidies and received overwhelmingly negative student feedback, with some students being forced to drop out. While not directly related to this specific case, it underscores a growing sentiment of dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the New Zealand university system.
This ruling may prompt other universities in New Zealand – and potentially internationally – to re-evaluate their pastoral care provisions and ensure they are adequately supporting students facing both academic and personal challenges. The emphasis on avoiding conflicts of interest in counseling and the need for dedicated specialist services are likely to be key takeaways for institutions seeking to strengthen their student wellbeing programs.
