Whilst universities are entitled to maintain genuine academic and professional standards, they cannot avoid their duties under the Equality Act simply by describing an assessment requirement as a competence standard when the issue is really about the method of assessment.
If you are seeking reasonable adjustments at university, it is important to understand one key distinction: universities can typically dictate what you must be able to demonstrate, but not necessarily how you are required to demonstrate it. That distinction can be central in cases involving disability discrimination at university, student disability rights at university and disputes about university reasonable adjustments law.
What is a competence standard?
A competence standard is a requirement that goes to the heart of the ability, knowledge or skill a student must show. It is about the standard itself, not automatically the format used to test whether a student meets it. So, for example, a university may be entitled to require a student to demonstrate legal reasoning, clinical judgement or another core professional skill. However, that does not always mean it can insist that the skill must be demonstrated in only one format, such as a timed exam or a particular assessment setting, if another approach would test the same competence fairly.
That is where many disputes arise. In practice, universities sometimes blur the line between the competence standard and the assessment method. In my experience, that is often the point at which the university’s position becomes vulnerable to challenge. If the institution is really protecting a genuine professional or academic standard, it may be entitled to refuse a proposed change. However, if it is simply insisting on a particular process because that is how the course is usually run, the refusal may be much harder to justify.
When should a student be concerned?
If you feel you are facing unfair treatment at university because of your disability, there are some common warning signs that suggest the university may not have approached the issue properly. For example:
- You are refused extra time in exams at university because of disability, even though speed is not itself the skill being assessed.
- The university insists on one assessment format, even though another option could test the same knowledge or ability.
- The explanation of the competence standard is vague, broad or only appears after you raise a complaint.
- The university says professional or regulatory rules prevent any adjustment, without properly considering whether a fair alternative is still possible.
None of those points automatically means the university has acted unlawfully. However, they may indicate that the institution has confused the standard itself with the way that standard is being assessed. In cases involving university-refused reasonable adjustments, that distinction is often crucial.
Why the difference between “what” and “how” matters
The legal question is often not whether standards should exist. The real issue is whether the university has properly considered whether you can meet that standard in another, fairer way. The law allows universities to preserve the integrity of their degrees and professional qualifications, but the protection given to competence standards is narrower than students may be led to believe. Where the issue is really about timing, format or process, rather than the substance of what you are being asked to show, the duty to make reasonable adjustments at university may still apply.
In practical terms, that means a university should be able to explain clearly:
- what the competence standard is;
- why it is necessary;
- and why the adjustment you are asking for would genuinely alter that standard, rather than simply change the method used to assess it.
If the university cannot do that convincingly, it may struggle to justify the refusal.
Professional rules do not always end the discussion
Students are sometimes told that nothing can be changed because of professional body requirements or external regulation. Sometimes that explanation is valid, but not always. The fact that a course is professionally regulated does not automatically mean that no adjustment is possible. The university still needs to consider whether there is another way for you to demonstrate the same level of competence without lowering the required standard. A rigid or overly cautious interpretation of professional requirements is not the same thing as a lawful refusal.
This is particularly important in courses leading to regulated professions, such as medicine, law, or accountancy, where students may already feel under pressure. In those cases, clear legal analysis is important. A university cannot simply rely on general statements about standards and assume that ends the issue. It should be able to show evidence, reasoning and a proper consideration of alternatives.
What I advise students to focus on
When I advise students on reasonable adjustments university disputes, I usually suggest focusing on a small number of practical questions. These often get to the heart of whether the decision is lawful:
- Has the university clearly identified the competence standard?
- Is the issue really about the method of assessment rather than the standard itself?
- Has the university properly considered alternative ways for you to demonstrate the same knowledge or skill?
- Is the refusal supported by evidence and clear reasoning, rather than broad assertions?
These points can make the difference between a reasonable refusal and a decision that may amount to disability discrimination at university.
Will the university ever be entitled to refuse?
Yes, sometimes it will. If the course requires core clinical safety standards, or if a professional regulator requires a minimum level of competence that cannot be compromised, the university may be entitled to refuse a change that would undermine those essential requirements. However, that does not mean every refusal is lawful. The law protects genuine competence standards. It does not give universities a blanket right to insist on rigid processes where another fair method would still allow you to meet the same standard.
That is why it is so important not to take the phrase “competence standard” at face value in every situation. In many cases, the label sounds stronger than the legal position actually is.
The key point for students
The key point is that your university can demand you meet the necessary standard, but it cannot automatically insist that you meet it in only one particular way if a reasonable alternative exists. For students dealing with Equality Act university student issues, that distinction often lies at the centre of whether they have been treated fairly and lawfully.
If you are being denied support, it is worth looking carefully at whether the university is genuinely protecting an academic or professional standard, or whether it is relying on the language of competence standards to defend an assessment method that could and should be adapted.
Need legal advice about reasonable adjustments, disability discrimination or unfair treatment at university?
If you have been told that a “competence standard” prevents support that you believe is reasonable, it may help to get specialist legal advice at an early stage. I advise students on a wide range of university issues, including reasonable adjustments, disability discrimination, fitness to practise concerns, disciplinary proceedings, academic appeals and student complaints.
We offer a fixed fee online consultation with a specialist education lawyer who supports students on a variety of issues encountered at university. If you would like clear advice on your position and the options available to you, contact us to book a fixed fee online consultation.