The decision from Swedish Higher Educational Authority on my case

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