The
initial breaking of the rules by my former supervisor was not stopped
at the Department level, nor at the University level. Moreover, in
attempt to hide the first foul SLU administration went on breaking
even more rules. For half a year I was trying to initiate a dialog or
at least to get some explanations from the University, but all my
attempts were ignored. Seeing the lack of justice at my University, I
wrote to the Swedish Agency of Higher Education, Högskoleverket (now
called the Swedish Higher Educational Authority). My case was under
investigations there for six months. Twice SLU sent its comments on
my complaints and I was given opportunity to answer. The procedure
itself seems to be appropriate. To support their statement SLU
presented only two letters that my former supervisor sent to me
during all these years. I thought that the numerous evidence and
documents that I have presented would more than overweight these two
letters. However, they did not.
Below
is the reply from the Swedish Agency of Higher Education,
Högskoleverket (translated by Google; original file in Swedish will come soon):
Notification
In
a complaint lodged at the Higher Education June 29, 2012, Elena K
complained about how the Department of Forest Mycology and Pathology,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) has handled her
situation as a graduate student. She states including following.
She
has worked at the department since 2005 in disputed forms. First,
in January 2010, she has achieved status as a graduate student. In
January 2012 it stopped payment of her salary, which means that she
can not finish her PhD project. She has not received any warning
or explanation for her studies has been canceled just months before
the defense. The last time that her research has evaluated was
in January 2010. There have been no assessments of her work ever
since. She claims to not have been properly treated because she
was throughout his time at the department received very little help
from his supervisor.She has not received any help with
statistics. The biggest problem she had when she started writing
her dissertation. Since September 2009, she began sending parts
of their work to the supervisor and tried to get some feedback from
him, but she has never received any response. In June 2010, she
sent the supervisor a full draft of the first article. During
the following one and a half years, he found no time to read it. In
late 2011, she completed her dissertation and sent to the supervisor
again with the same result. Finally, she was forced to turn to
outside experts and ask for feedback. She has made contact with
the Faculty of SLU but the Board has not done anything to solve her
problems. Her research career is very important to her why she
continued. She has requested a change of supervisor. Faculty
Board organized a meeting on 27 april 2012, but it has not happened
anything after that.
Elena
K believes that SLU has not followed its own local rules regarding
supervision, monitoring of the individual study plan and study. She
would therefore like to Higher Education examines SLU's actions.
Opinion
of SLU
SLU
has stated the following.
Elena
K was adopted as a licentiate June 21, 2007 and as a graduate student
in fall 2009. She has been employed at SLU as a PhD full time
between 1 August 2007 and 31 January 2012. She has thus been
employed as a graduate student for longer than specified as the
maximum time under Chapter 5. 7 § 3 paragraph of Higher
Education. The reason for the additional extension of the period
of employment that occurred was to give her a good chance to finish
their studies. Elena K, however, has not been able to complete
their studies as expected. SLU has not found that there was
reason to give her additional doctoral studentship. In his
written confided Elena K that she did not receive adequate
supervision. Her supervisor had planned mentoring opportunities
on nine occasions in 2011. Elena K has not submitted the agreed
articles or thesis abstract. For their support in their
education, she has also had two assistant supervisors. In
addition, the department's deputy head and been available for
support. According to the supervisor, Elena K never complained
guidance during her time as an employee. Elena K has declined
help with statistical questions. During Christmas 2011 onwards
gave the supervisor comments to her manuscript. Unfortunately,
finding he was that none of the recommendations made during the
half-time seminar had been respected and comprehensive technical and
linguistic revision was necessary. During March and April 2012,
he gave additional comments that were rejected by Elena K.He has
continued to process and comment on her manuscript. The
manuscript has never been fully or definitively. In connection
with these comments, he has unfortunately had to point out serious
substantive flaws. These deficiencies have since never been
fixed. For three-quarters-examination of her work, she refused
to take part in this. She has a great extent also refused to
participate in other vulnerable meetings. Elena K has thus
largely failed to fulfill its obligations under the individual study
plan including by failing to comply with the requirements stated
in the mid-term review. SLU has not stopped Elena K
studies. Elena K retains its supervisory resources and still
have the opportunity to, as usual obtain a doctorate. Question
care ledarbyte has arisen and is being processed.
Further
correspondence
Elena
K maintains what she has previously stated and added, including that
she had not received any information which has helped her ambiguous
status.She was used as cheap labor since 2005. Her research has
been formulated first in October 2008.
SLU
has admitted that the last formally established individual study plan
is from 2010 and added such following. According to data
from the prefect, a process of the individual study plan. As for
mentoring is the former principal supervisor is still the main
supervisor but a new supervisory group under addition. Elena K
is informed of this work. On the issue of the 75% follow-up
reminded the supervisor Elena K 18 May 2011 on the progress of her
study. The email also clearly shows the supervisor's serious
concern for the development of Elena K work. The supervisor
never received any reply to the email or issue. Of the submitted
first complete draft manuscript of 22 december 2011, as Elena K've
attached the notification, it is clear that it was far from complete
at this time. It lacked even figures and references. As
stated in the by Elena K submitted email correspondence of April 3,
2012, she refused to accept the supervisor's proposal on scientific
solutions. On the question of support for the statistical
processing has been such to Elena K available as evidenced by
the attached email from July to August 2009th SLU reiterates
that any interruption of Elena K doctoral studies do not
exist. However, it is the University's obligation in a situation
like this, when more than five years have passed from the time of
admission and required results are still absent, that the university
is looking at and preparing for a situation where a termination of
mentoring no longer may be avoided. The situation is still not
so bad and there is a constructive effort to get Elena K educational
situation work better. For this to be successful, of course, a
strong performance even from her side. SLU can not take
responsibility for her supply situation.
Elena
K argues the following. The claim that her individual study plan
is under audit is incorrect. On a professor's request, she gave
a description of the current state of the project. Neither the
department or faculty board has taken no further action in the
matter. In the case of a new supervisory group, she has been
informed that such an appointment for her. She has not been able
to accept some of the proposed candidates. She has had its own
proposals with people who have shown interest in her research. She
believes that the way to appoint a supervisor for her breach of the
University's own rules. Under these rules, including a
researcher from another university appointed principal supervisor at
SLU. She has not declined statistics help. It was her
supervisor who probably have considered the cost of the type of
consultation for high. Even otherwise, he has tried to minimize
the costs of her research. Unlike other students, she has not
had access to modern technology which has influenced her research in
a negative way.
University
Chancellor Office of Assessment
National
Agency mission to oversee universities and colleges since 1 January
2013 has been taken over by the University Chancellor Board. Elena
K's case has thus been transferred to the ministry.
Board's
oversight of colleges and universities, the review of higher
education institutions follow the rules applicable to their
activities and of students and other individuals of legal certainty
in relation to higher education are met. Board can not consider
or change institutions' decisions. Board can not have comments
on the assessment of a student's or doctoral student achievements
such as a supervisor does and does not assess the quality of
counseling. Normally investigating office to events that
occurred more than two years prior notice and do not investigate
Elena K's assertion that she has worked in unexplained forms between
2005 and October 2008.
University
Chancellor Board has taken note of the Guidelines for
postgraduate studies in the Faculty of Natural Resources and
Agricultural Sciences , which has been in force until 1
January 2013. Subsequently, the rector of SLU decided
university-wide guidelines for postgraduate studies. The
transitional provisions shows that the university-wide guidelines
applicable to those admitted to postgraduate studies from 1 January
2013. Board therefore assumes that faculty guidelines have been
applicable to Elena K education.
Study
Of
Chapter 7. 36 § Higher Education shows that college may
postgraduate studies only admit applicants who are employed as
graduate or granted a stipend.School may admit an applicant who has
any form of studies, if the university believes that funding can be
secured throughout the program and that the applicant can devote so
much of their training that can be completed in four years for the
licentiate degree and eight years in the case of a PhD.
Of
Chapter 5. 7 § third and fourth paragraphs of Higher Education
states that a person may be employed as a graduate student for a
maximum of eight years.The total employment may not be longer than
the equivalent doctoral studies full-time for four years. The
total employment may be extended if there are special reasons. Such
grounds may leave due to illness, leave for military service or work
for trade unions and student organizations, parental leave.
The
investigation shows that Elena K has been employed as a full-time
student for a total of four and a half years. SLU say they have
found no reason to further extend the total period of employment for
Elena K.
University
Chancellor Board can conclude the following. The provision in
the Higher Education of the maximum employment of students aims to
limit the time students must have employment to four years. By
giving examples of what may be special reasons, the government has
sought to restrict the institutions' ability to extend the total
period of employment. Nothing has come of the investigation that
Elena K has had similar specific reasons as exemplified in the
provision.
Elena
K alleges that SLU has not followed its own local rules on their
studies. She relied on the Faculty Board guidelines which show
that an institution is responsible for raising the necessary
financing for the funding that the Department expected the admission
of a student disappears, for the studies to be carried out. This
applies provided that the student meets the commitments specified in
the study plan. In Elena K's case, however, it is not a question
of funding that disappeared without SLU has found that she has
exhausted its Study. This SLU's local rule does not apply in the
case.
Supervision
and monitoring of the individual study plan
According
to Chapter 6. 28 § Higher Education Ordinance (1993:100), it
should be assigned to each graduate at least two supervisors. One
of them is designated as the main supervisor. The student is
entitled to supervision during training as long as no president under
§ 30 same chapter decides otherwise. A student who requests it
to change supervisor.
Of
Chapter 6. 30 § Higher Education shows the conditions under
which the Vice-Chancellor shall decide that the student no longer
have the right to guidance and other educational resources. It
states among other things that such a decision should be taken
on a graduate student in significant breach of its obligations under
the individual study plan. The assessment shall take into
account whether the university has fulfilled its own obligations
under the individual study plan.
In
Chapter 6. 29 § Higher Education provides for the individual
study plan. The legal scope out how the syllabus will be decided
and that it should include the university and the student's
commitments and a schedule for the student's education. It also
states that the individual study plan must be monitored regularly,
and after consultation with the student and his or her supervisor
changed by the college to the extent needed. The training period
may only be extended if there are special reasons for it. Such
grounds may leave due to illness, leave for military service or work
for trade unions and student organizations, parental leave.
Prior
to January 1, 2011 set in the then Chapter 6. 36 § Higher
Education to the individual study plan would be monitored by the
Faculty Board at least once every year. The provision on the
obligation to follow up on individual study plans at least once per
year has been changed to the obligation to regularly monitor the
curriculum. As the reason for the change was reported that
detailed rules on such study should be significantly reduced
(see Government Bill 2009/10: 149Academia in time - greater
freedom for universities and colleges , p 82).
According
to the Faculty Board guidelines would follow up of individual study
done by annual revisions. The student would continuously keep
supervisors informed about the progress of the studies if necessary,
to correct the curriculum. Following the guidelines is also
observed. "At follow-up, when 75% of the net study
consumed, it should be specifically assessed on the thesis can be
completed within the remaining years until graduation. Head of
Department or his delegate and the supervisor decides on the approval
of follow-up. (...) In cases where studies are not considered to
be in phase with the individual curriculum prefect responsible to
immediately convene a consultative meeting with the department head,
supervisor, student, department manager and graduate faculty of
postgraduate studies. At this meeting, the reasons why the
studies were not proceeded according to plans identified and a plan
be developed for the study to be completed by graduate on time. "
University
Chancellor Board notes that a regular monitoring of the individual
study plan to take timely and appropriate measures. Faculty
Board has substantiated the national provisions by in its guidelines
require annual follow-up, three-quarter briefings and a consultation
of the case studies are not expected to be in phase with the study
plan to develop a plan of action for the studies to be completed with
a degree in the prescribed time. Board believes that the Faculty
Board guidelines are a great addition to the provisions of the Higher
Education. These guidelines also provide a good basis to
determine whether the student or the university breached its
obligations under the individual study plan and decide on withdrawal
of tutoring and other educational resources under Chapter 6. 30
§ Higher Education.
It
has appeared on the subject of the latest follow-up of the individual
curriculum took place in January 2010. It can thus be concluded
that the faculty's own local rules on annual follow-up was not
followed. SLU has declared Elena K refused to participate in
three quarter completed and largely also refused to participate in
other vulnerable meetings. SLU argues that Elena K largely
failed to fulfill its obligations under the individual study plan. No
such consultation as required by the Faculty guidelines appears not
to have been held. SLU can not escape criticism for failing to
comply with their own local rules.
The
investigation shows that Elena Donald and SLU have different
perceptions of supervisor support during her training and what is
required for her to finish her education. A student under the
Higher Education the right to change supervisor and it is the
university's job to ensure that the student gets a functioning tutor
support. The student has no right to demand that a particular
person be appointed to be supervisor. University Chancellor Board
assumes that SLU revises Elena K individual study and take the
necessary measures.
With
these partial criticisms matter is concluded.
On
behalf of the Office of University Chancellor
Christian
S
Counsel
Teresa
E
Administration Lawyer
