RMIT at risk after failing a course: when does it start?

Direct answer: At RMIT Vietnam the trigger is a share of your load, 50% or more, or a second fail of the same course. At RMIT Australia the page speaks of failing more than one course in a semester or teaching period, or the same course more than once. Both pages use the word "may".

Read the two campus pages side by side and the difference is plain. The RMIT Vietnam page on Academic Success Advising defines at risk students as those who "Failed 50% or more of an enrolled course load in a compulsory semester or teaching period" and/or "Failed a course a second time" (RMIT University Vietnam, n.d.-b). The Australian guidance for RMIT University says that "If you fail more than one course during a semester or teaching period, you may be identified as 'at risk'" (RMIT University, n.d.). Its repeat-fail line reads "If you fail the same course more than once".

Source: RMIT Vietnam Academic Success Advising page and RMIT Australia "Failing a course" page, both read 2026-10-31.

A fail carries other costs before any rule on RMIT at risk after failing a course applies. RMIT states "A fail does not mean your fees will be refunded", and "If you fail a core course, you will need to repeat it in order to meet your program requirements" (RMIT University, n.d.). A failed elective can be replaced with another elective.

Direct answer: With courses of equal weight, one fail out of two courses is 50% and two fails out of four is 50%, while one fail out of three is only 33.3%. RMIT's page does not say whether load is counted in courses or credit points, so ask your advisor which count applies to you.

This worked example is MAAS arithmetic, not an RMIT table. It treats every course as equal in weight, which is an assumption, because the RMIT Vietnam page gives the 50% figure without a counting method. Run your own enrolment through it before the results release, so the email never arrives as a surprise.

Source: MAAS calculation from the 50% rule on the RMIT Vietnam page, read 2026-10-31; equal course weights assumed.

The phrase "or teaching period" matters because short teaching periods outside the main semesters can hold a small load, where one fail moves the percentage a long way. The second trigger works separately: a repeat fail of the same course counts even if the rest of your load went well. That is why two students with similar transcripts can receive different emails.

Direct answer: You have 10 working days from the notification email to submit a show cause to the Program Assessment Board. The Board can let you continue or recommend exclusion for a full academic year, equal to 3 semesters, with re-admission possible after the first 2.

The timeline for RMIT at risk after failing a course comes straight from RMIT Vietnam's academic progress page (RMIT University Vietnam, n.d.-a). The page counts working days from Monday to Friday and from receipt of the email, not from the day you open it. It also warns that "Late submissions will not be accepted by the PAB and taking a Leave of Absence will not prevent the PAB from considering your case for possible exclusion".

Source: RMIT Vietnam academic progress page, read 2026-10-31.

Ten working days is about two calendar weeks, so for RMIT at risk after failing a course, read the notification date before anything else. MAAS does not prepare show cause submissions for students. Your Academic Success Advisor is the right person to ask what evidence the Board expects.

Direct answer: Not on its own. Studies of flagged students in several countries found that prediction or notification worked while the extra counselling, call or program often showed no measurable gain. What changed outcomes was a specific response, taken to completion and followed through by the student.

Plak et al. (2022) randomised 758 of 1,577 first-year students at a Dutch university into counselling supported by an early warning dashboard or counselling as usual. The system predicted risk well, yet the paper reports no evidence that it reduced dropout or improved academic performance, and the dropout coefficient was 0.048 against a baseline of 0.224. Part of the explanation: the counselling was "largely similar in nature to counselling as usual". Only 125 students (16.5%) returned the follow-up questionnaire.

Summers (2024) tested two English universities. At Nottingham Trent University, 26,667 students were randomised and 2,207 (8.2%) triggered an alert. At Sheffield Hallam University, 1,552 were randomised and 514 (33.1%) triggered one. The report states: "Neither HEP found a measurable difference in post-intervention engagement rating between at-risk students who received an email followed by a support phone call and at-risk students who received only the email" (Summers, 2024, p. 3).

Cabezas et al. (2024) compared 994 students in one challenging course who used an early alert system with 697 who did not, and report 8% fewer grades in the 3.0-3.9 interval and 11% more in the 4.0-4.9 interval. That is a comparison group, not a randomised trial.

Direct answer: The strongest signal in the open papers is completion, not enrolment. At a Midwestern United States university, students who finished the whole advising program returned to good standing more often than comparison students, while the overall program difference was not significant.

Liu et al. (2022) followed 153 students in an advising program on academic probation and 41 comparison students. Their abstract suggests the participants did better, but the full text is more careful: "A simple t-test found no statistically significant relationship between being a STAR Lite participant and returning to good academic standing after a student's first semester" (Liu et al., 2022, p. 199). About 48% of participants returned to good standing, against half of the comparison group. Students who completed all or extra components did better than the comparison group, and the authors flag an unmeasured motivation effect.

Chang et al. (2025) used a Taiwanese course-level early warning system built on 2,856 students across 64 courses (AUC 0.85). In a quasi-experiment, 22 flagged students received individual support and 26 unflagged students did not. The paper reports a pretest-to-posttest gain of 18.77 points (Cohen's d = 0.91), and 16 of the 22 flagged students (73%) reached a passing grade of 60 or more. The authors note that without randomisation this shows an association, not proof of cause.

Source: the four papers' open full texts, read 2026-10-31.

Direct answer: Four studies from outside RMIT point the same way: earlier help does better than later help. Medical students flagged early improved their score trajectory compared with those flagged late, and how 550 first-year students studied predicted their time to graduate. Read this as background, not as an RMIT rule.

What the four share is that a short gap between the first sign and the first action went with better results, so an early advisor meeting in the first stage can be worth more than a perfect plan submitted late.

Direct answer: One qualitative study recorded 13 themes in the experience of academic probation, from self-doubt to time management. Three further studies show one extra lecture lifting a pass rate from 56% to 80%, and the benefit of continuous testing peaking at 7 of 10 attempts.

The last column is the writer's reading. These samples come from several fields and countries, so they do not replace the advice of your own Academic Success Advisor.

Direct answer: Write the checkpoint into the plan before the term begins. Put one dated test of your progress around the middle of the teaching period, so you find out in time to change course. A routine built around a checkpoint gives the advisor something concrete to review.

The Taiwanese study placed its first measurement in week 6 and its posttest in week 18, which let the team separate students who were still declining from those recovering. You can borrow that structure without any special software. Ask your advisor to write a mid-period checkpoint into the plan, then arrange the weeks before it around the one skill that caused the fail: reading the marking criteria, managing deadlines, or building an argument.

For the weekly rhythm, see a weekly time management system for students. If the problem lies in written work, how to write a university essay covers structure, and the Australia first-year checklist lists the support services students often overlook.

The research above points the same way. Support helped most when students completed a specific, scheduled program, so a loose promise to "study harder" is the weakest plan you can write. For the theory behind early warning, learning analytics is a short orientation, and academic probation shows how other systems handle the same problem. Chang et al. (2025) is open access at doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101321.

Does one failed course always put me at risk at RMIT?
No. At RMIT Vietnam the load rule needs 50% or more of your enrolled courses, or a second fail of the same course. A single fail in a larger load usually stays below that line.

Is the rule the same at RMIT Australia and RMIT Vietnam?
The pages differ in wording. Australia speaks of more than one failed course in a semester or teaching period, Vietnam of half the load. Both also cover repeated fails, so follow your own campus page.

Do I still get a refund for a failed course?
No. RMIT states that a fail does not return fees. You may be able to apply for remission or removal of debt in special circumstances if you meet the criteria.

Can I keep studying while the Board decides?
Yes. RMIT Vietnam says you can continue in your enrolled courses while waiting, and the outcome usually comes within 21 days of the deadline.

Who explains the improvement plan to me?
An Academic Success Advisor. Book through the Student Academic Success team, which works Monday to Friday and answers at sas@rmit.edu.vn.

Will tutoring remove my at risk status?
No. Tutoring helps you build a routine and understand your course material, but status follows RMIT's progress rules and results. Treat any tutor as a study aid, not as a way to change an outcome.

If you want a second pair of eyes on a recovery plan, MAAS invites you to plan a study routine with a subject tutor through our university subject tutoring service. Sessions are one-to-one, and you do your own coursework. The service sets no grade target and makes no promise about results. If the fit with your tutor is wrong, you can ask for a different expert.

• A weekly time management system for students: a week-by-week structure you can attach to an improvement plan.
• How to write a university essay: the structure to check first when feedback says your argument was unclear.

• Al-Alawi, L., Al Shaqsi, J., Tarhini, A., & Al-Busaidi, A. S. (2023). Using Machine Learning to Predict Factors Affecting Academic Performance: The Case of College Students on Academic Probation. Education and Information Technologies, 28(10), 12407–12432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11700-0
• Bengesai, A. V., Paideya, V., Naidoo, P., & Mkhonza, S. (2022). Student Perceptions on Their Transition Experiences at a South African University Offering a First-Year Experience Programme. Journal of Student Affairs in Africa, 10(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.24085/jsaa.v10i2.4084
• Cabezas, F., Burgos, L., Darrigol, J., & Zúñiga, M. (2024). Implementation of an early alert system in quizzes of a high complexity subject in higher education: Improvement of student performance and teacher perception. Education and Information Technologies, 29(15), 19321-19341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12610-5
• Chang, Y.-H., Chen, F.-C., & Lee, C.-I. (2025). Developing an early warning system with personalized interventions to enhance academic outcomes for at-risk students in Taiwanese higher education. Education Sciences, 15(10), Article 1321. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101321
• Espinosa, D., Escandallo, J., & Muegna, K. J. (2023). Transition to Academic Probation: A Phenomenological Inquiry. Online Submission, 4(2), 98–105. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED630413
• Gonzalez, V. (2022). The Cost of Academic Dismissal and Attrition from Students on Academic Probation. New Directions for Higher Education, 2022(198), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20444
• Haarala-Muhonen, A., Ruohoniemi, M., Parpala, A., Komulainen, E., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2017). How Do the Different Study Profiles of First-Year Students Predict Their Study Success, Study Progress and the Completion of Degrees?. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 74(6), 949–962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0087-8
• Johansson, E., Kanapathippillai, S., Khan, A., & Dellaportas, S. (2023). Formative assessment in accounting: student perceptions and implications of continuous assessment. Accounting Education, 32(6), 597–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2022.2091411
• Landoll, R. R., Bennion, L. D., Maranich, A. M., Hemmer, P. A., Torre, D., Schreiber-Gregory, D. N., Durning, S. J., & Dong, T. (2022). Extending Growth Curves: A Trajectory Monitoring Approach to Identification and Interventions in Struggling Medical Student Learners. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 27(3), 645–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-022-10109-7
• Liu, C., Bruner, J., & Ammigan, R. (2022). Success Training for Academic Resiliency: An advising intervention program for undergraduate students on probation. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 11(2), 189-209. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1374843.pdf
• Plak, S., Cornelisz, I., Meeter, M., & van Klaveren, C. (2022). Early warning systems for more effective student counselling in higher education: Evidence from a Dutch field experiment. Higher Education Quarterly, 76(1), 131-152. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12298
• RMIT University. (n.d.). Failing a course. https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/my-course/assessment-results/results-grades/failing-a-course
• RMIT University Vietnam. (n.d.-a). Academic progress. https://www.rmit.edu.vn/students/my-studies/assessment-and-results/academic-progress
• RMIT University Vietnam. (n.d.-b). Academic Success Advising. https://www.rmit.edu.vn/students/support/student-academic-success/academic-success-advising
• Summers, R. (2024). Project report: Using learning analytics to prompt student support interventions: Findings from two randomised controlled trials. TASO. https://cdn.taso.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024_TASO_Impact-student-support-interventions-learning-analytics.pdf
• Tan, E., & Carnegie, S. (2022). 'It's Not Plagiarism, It's a Bad Use of Power Phrasing': Assessment of Home and International Student (Mis)understandings of Citation Practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(3), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1844779

This article is part of the MAAS Journal series for students. MAAS is an academic support partner: experts guide students through each stage of their own work, and we do not complete assessed work on a student's behalf.