Financial Support for Post Graduate Study

Summary

The requester asked for the rationale behind granting postgraduate financial support to students with degree classifications below 2:1, citing potential discrimination. The Department of Education, Sport and Culture responded that the information is not held and the request constitutes a question rather than a request for existing records.

Key Facts

• The authority stated it does not hold the specific information requested regarding the grounds for decisions.
• The request was characterized as a question requiring new work rather than a request for existing information.
• The response references ICO Decision Notice DN 2025-02 to justify the refusal.
• The requester cited a previous case from 2019 involving a disabled student who was refused support.
• The authority noted that less than 5 individuals with a 2.2 or lower classification received support since 2020 in a previous request.

Data Disclosed

• 2026-02-11
• 2026-03-10
• 5300321
• 5181521
• 2020
• 2019
• 2.2
• 2:1
• DN 2025-02
• Top 10

Exemptions Cited

• Information not held
• Request constitutes a question rather than a request for information

Original Request

In FOI request 5181521, it was noted that "less than 5" individuals whose undergraduate degree classification was a 2.2 or lower, had received financial support for tuition fees since 2020.

While I appreciate further information about these individuals cannot be provided, I would like to know on what grounds the decision was made to provide them with financial support despite not holding a 2:1 or higher classification of undergraduate degree.

In 2019, the Department of Education, Sport & Culture refused support to an individual with disabilities despite evidence the decision was disability discrimination and the student had evidence from the university that they were at a 2:1 level, hence why they had been offered a place as a postgraduate student. Further to this, it was a Top 10 acclaimed university, the credibility of which was apparent.

Why was this individual declined support but others in an apparently same situation have been granted it?

I would like definitive rationale as to why these students, despite being few, were given support when they did not meet the stringent, unbending and frankly discriminatory thresholds of only providing post graduate support with those with a 2:1 or higher, regardless of any extenuating circumstances.