No justice even on the level of Swedish Higher Education Authority

I was very disappointed with a decision on my case made by the SwedishHigher Education Authority: the statements from SLU administration were trusted in absence of documentary proofs; some of my statements were misinterpreted and others were not even taken into consideration.

The Swedish Higher Education Authority based their judgment on the unconfirmed information

The letter below was presented by SLU as a proof that my supervisor was concerned about my studies:

From: Roger F

Sent: 18 May 2011 10:52

To: Elena K

Subject: Meeting

Dear Helen

We need to have a meeting soon. The problem is that I will be away in Poland next week except for Friday and then I will be away at two conferences until 9th of June.

Katta spoke with me and showed me that you have a LOT of things stored that need to be reduced dramatically before the move. This is primarily about cultures but also a lot of other things that will need to be disposed of since you will not have so much space in the new building. Then we also need to talk about your research plan and the manuscripts that must be submitted during the summer. We need to make a timetable for meetings and when different jobs will be finished since time is really running out for you now. Would you have time to meet me either today, tomorrow or Friday between 16 and 17.00?

All the best - Roger

_______________________________

Prof. Roger F

Uppsala BioCenter

Dept. Forest Mycology & Pathology

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Box 7026

SE-750 07, Uppsala, SWEDEN

The letter above was the only sign of concern that my former supervisor indicated during the whole period of my studies. I have sent my manuscripts to him 16 (sixteen!) times before he wrote this letter on May 2011. All the originals files were presented to the Swedish Higher Educational Authority as a proof. I have never received any feedback from my supervisor on these materials. Nevertheless, the Swedish Higher Educational Authority was convinced by this single letter that my supervisor was concerned about my studies!

The second letter presented by SLU aimed to confirm both that my former supervisor provided adequate supervision during my PhD and that I refused the help from statistician:

From: Roger F

Sent: 13 July 2009 09:39

To: Lennart N.

Subject: möte idag

Hej Lennart

Vi kommer att ha ett möte kl. 15.00 idag och lovade sklika några detaljer I förväg.

Vi kör DGGE (denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis) för att skilja och identifiera microorganismer associerade med olika växter. Vi vill konstatera att de olika bakteriesamhällen associerade med olika växtsorter skiljer sig från varandra. Vi har konstruerat en matris med noller och ettor för att representera förekomsten av band på olika ställe I en gel, och sedan, efter normalisering, kört PCA med ett program som heter Unscrambler.

Jag har själv installerat JMP men inte hunnit använda det.

Jag bifogar tre filer – en gelbild, en excelfil med alla data (output från et gelananalysprogram “Total Lab” - nollerna läggs till inom Unscrambler) och resultaten från PCA analysen.

Vi ses kl. 15.00

med vänligna hälsningar – Roger

These were the only two documents presented by SLU administration to support their statements. No proofs were presented for the statements that I refused to participate in meetings and follow-ups, no proofs that I “largely failed to fulfill obligations under the individual study plan”. Only these two letters!

The Swedish Higher Education Authority misinterpreted my statement on the appointment of a new supervisory group.

Its decision says that the student has no right to demand that a particular person be appointed to be a supervisor. However, I never demanded such things! Instead, I stated that a procedure of appointing of a new supervisor group was done in conflict with prescribed rules. As a result, the biased supervisors were appointed. While being appointed they inhibited any further progress of my studies, particularly by demanding an impossible job. If new supervisors would really wish to help me, they could at least provide a feedback to my manuscript sent to them in November 2012. However, I haven't got a single word or comment from anybody!

The Swedish Higher Education Authority didn't comment on the fact that new supervisors were appointed after 9 month from my first request for a new supervisor.

The Swedish Higher Education Authority gave no comments to the fact that my salary was never paid in accordance with active SACO agreement. It means that I never was appointed as a PhD student or I was considerably underpaid during all the years.