Why SLU got such a high rank?_question to URank

Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences

From: Elena K

Sent: 12 April 2013 13:58

To: ingemar@urank.se; stig@urank.se; thorsten@urank.se

Cc: Margareta.S@gov.se; conny.u@inpress.com

Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences

Subject: why SLU got such a high rank?

Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences

Dear Prof. L, Prof. F and Prof. N,

Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences

Recently URANK nominated Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) the third best university in Sweden. It was very surprising news, taking in account that there is an open case against SLU at the Uppsala District Court (case nr T1260-13).

Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences

Already more then one year I have been trying to get any explanations why my study resources have been withdrawn in violation with all prescribed rules. SLU refuses to explain who made the decision, what reasons did they have, why there was no discussion about the issue.

Three times I sent complaints to the Swedish Higher Educational Authorities. This authority delayed judgment for seven months and finally limited their decision to the minor issues and absolutely ignored the major points. Thus, the case was submitted for the investigation to the State Court. More details about this struggle you can find in my blog.

Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences

Even if I am not right in my claims, the fact is that SLU is unable to start any discussion and is trying either to ignore student's requests or to use all administrative resources to psychologically broke the person who dare to ask them awkward questions.

Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences

My question to you is: can the university which has the open case against it in the State Court be ranked so high?

Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences

I promise to post your answer on my blog without any reduction.

Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences

Sincerely,

Elena K

Dept. Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology,

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Uppsala, Sweden

Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences

Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences

Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish 

University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences 
From: i.lind@comhem.se [i.lind@comhem.se]

Sent: 15 April 2013 15:35

To: Elena K

Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences

Subject: Ang: why SLU got such a high rank?

Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences

Dear Elena K,

As far as we can understand from your letter you are primarily complaning about the administrative routines and forms of governance at SLU. These - by all means - very important dimensions of a university?s over-all quality are not part of our rankning.

Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences

sincerely

Ingemar Ldish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences Swedish University of agricultural sciences 

Remember the lies you told!

It does not matter how long one can lie, the truth will be revealed anyway. That is what happened with a team of SLU bureaucrats who got a task to justify by any means the illegal termination of my PhD project.

On March 25^th, the “supervisor” group informed me that all the resources were withdrawn from my PhD project, except the salaries that SLU is paying to three professors and one doctor for pretending to be my supervisors. Since by the law (Higher Educational Ordinance) the decision about withdrawing the resources from PhD studies can be done only by the rector, I wondered:

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

From: Elena K

Sent: 26 March 2013 01:05

To: Gabriella P H

Cc: Anna R

Subject: FW: Protocol from last meeting, call for supervisor meeting and new study plan

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Dear Dr. P H,

In the document that I got yesterday it is stated that resources for my studies has been withdrawn (please see the attachment). I was not informed about it. Please, can you send me a copy of the decision?

Thank you in advance.

Regards,

Elena K

Dept. Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

I got no answer, so I asked again, adding a higher bureaucrat to the mailing list:

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

From: Elena K

Sent: 27 March 2013 05:24

To: Gabriella P H

Cc: Anna R; Lena A-E

Subject: FW: Protocol from last meeting, call for supervisor meeting and new study plan

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Dear Dr. P H,

In the document that I got (please see the attachment) it is stated that resources for my studies has been withdrawn . I was not informed about it. Please, can you send me a copy of the decision?

Thank you in advance.

Regards,

Elena Kalle

Dept. Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Again no answer, so I changed the addressee to the highest level (this usually helps):

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

From: Elena K

Sent: 28 March 2013 06:30

To: Lena A-E

Cc: Rektor

Subject: FW: Protocol from last meeting, call for supervisor meeting and new study plan

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Dear Dr. A-E,

Recently I have got a document (please, see the attachment), which states that the resources from my PhD studies have been withdrawn.

I would appreciate it if you can confirm or refute this information.

Regards,

Elena K

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

After this came the answer:

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

From: Christer B

Sent: 28 March 2013 14:14

To: Elena K

Cc: Jan S; Nils H; Johan M; Marianne C; Martin W; Lena A-E; Gabriella P H; Pär F

Subject: SV: Protocol from last meeting, call for supervisor meeting and new study plan

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Dear Elena K

The faculty agrees with the statements made by the supervisor group in the ISP concerning the direct financing of the project since the financial situation does not allow any additional direct costs. However, there has been no formal decision to withdraw resources and the supervisor group still provides guidance to you as a PhD student.

Sincerely

Christer B

/chairman of FUN at the NL-faculty/

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

I really like communicating with this particular bureaucrat: his style is the essence of bureaucracy – lies in verbal flourishes. So, I kept the ball rolling:

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

From: Elena K

Sent: 28 March 2013 16:13

To: Christer B

Cc: Jan S; Nils H; Johan M; Marianne C; Martin W; Lena A-E; Gabriella P H; Pär F; Rektor

Subject: resources for PhD study

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Dear Mr B,

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Thank you for the reply. However, it is difficult to understand what do you mean. Since it is an important question, I would appreciate it if you provide me with more details:

1. What does resources for PhD education usually include?

2. Which part of this resources has been withdrawn from my studies? Please, provide me with a copy of the decision.

3. Which part of the resources is left?

Thank you in advance. 

Regards, Elena KSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of cultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

And look what surprise come now!

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

From: Christer B

Sent: 28 March 2013 17:41

To: Elena K

Cc: Jan S; Nils H; Johan M; Marianne C; Martin W; Lena A-E; Gabriella P H; Pär F; Rektor

Subject: Ang.: resources for PhD study

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Dear Elena K

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

1. Salary or stipend plus some (highly variable) amount covering consumables.

2. None.

3. According to the new study plan there are no resources left beside the supervision provided by the supervisors.

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Sincerely

Christer B

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Wait a second! For more than a year this bureaucratic gang was talking that stipend or salary is not a study resource! That is why they could take my salary without any formal decision. It does not call “withdrawing” they said. And now Mr. B. just gave away the show! Well, these things became more interesting, so I asked:

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

From: Elena K

Sent: 28 March 2013 17:59

To: Christer B

Cc: Jan S; Nils H; Johan M; Marianne C; Martin W; Lena A-E; Gabriella P H; Pär F; Rektor

Subject: RE: Ang.: resources for PhD study

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Dear Mr B,

I apologize for bothering you, but you need to understand that this question is important for me. Please, can you write more clear, what do these points mean? In the first message you wrote "The faculty agrees with the statements made by the supervisor group in the ISP concerning the direct financing of the project since the financial situation does not allow any additional direct costs." where do these resource belong to? When they were withdrawn?

Regards,

Elena

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Probably, at that moment he already has got cuffs and kicks from the chief of the gang, for not remembering the lie they all agreed to say, so he became very discreet:

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

From: Christer B

Sent: 28 March 2013 18:10

To: Elena K

Cc: Jan S; Nils H; Johan M; Marianne C; Martin W; Lena A-E; Gabriella P H; Pär F; Rektor

Subject: Ang.: resources for PhD study

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Dear Elena K

No financial resources have been withdrawn. Resources in the form of supervision is offered.

Sincerely

Christer B

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

But I was not ready to stop the conversation when it came to such an interesting point! Not yet!

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

From: Elena K

Sent: 28 March 2013 18:18

To: Christer B

Cc: Jan S; Nils H; Johan M; Marianne C; Martin W; Lena A-E; Gabriella P H; Pär F; Rektor

Subject: RE: Ang.: resources for PhD study

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Dear Mr B,

I apologize for bothering you, but you need to understand that this question is important for me. Please, can you write more clear, what do the points, that you listed in your previous mail means (citation):

"1. Salary or stipend plus some (highly variable) amount covering consumables.

2. None.

3. According to the new study plan there are no resources left beside the supervision provided by the supervisors." (end of citation)

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

In the first message you wrote "The faculty agrees with the statements made by the supervisor group in the ISP concerning the direct financing of the project since the financial situation does not allow any additional direct costs." to which group do these resource belong to? How much were they? What was a mechanism of their ending?

Regards,

Elena

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

…..........

After this my mail box was shut down for few days (too late! I copied all mails already). So, when the access was restored we continued:

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

From: Elena K

Sent: 02 April 2013 13:39

To: Christer B

Cc: Jan S; Nils H; Johan M; Marianne C; Martin W; Lena A-E; Gabriella P H; Pär F; Rektor

Subject: RE: Ang.: resources for PhD study

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Dear Mr B,

I apologize for bothering you, but you need to understand that this question is important for me. Please, can you write more clear, what do the points, that you listed in your previous mail means (citation):

"1. Salary or stipend plus some (highly variable) amount covering consumables.

2. None.

3. According to the new study plan there are no resources left beside the supervision provided by the supervisors." (end of citation)

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

In the first message you wrote "The faculty agrees with the statements made by the supervisor group in the ISP concerning the direct financing of the project since the financial situation does not allow any additional direct costs." to which group do these resource belong to? How much were they? May I see the documents about the origin and the amount of the resources that were allocated for my PhD studies? What was a mechanism of their ending?

Regards,

Elena

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

From: Christer B

Sent: 02 April 2013 21:37

To: Elena K

Cc: Jan S; Nils H; Johan M; Marianne C; Martin W; Lena A-E; Gabriella P H; Pär F; Rektor

Subject: RE: Ang.: resources for PhD study

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Dear Elena Kalle

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

To get more detailed answers to your questions you need to meet with your supervisors.

I have tried to be as clear as I possibly can in my answers.

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Sincerely

Christer B

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Well, this was a moment for final comments:

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

From: Elena K

Sent: 03 April 2013 06:24

To: Christer B

Cc: Jan S; Nils H; Johan M; Marianne C; Martin W; Lena A-E; Gabriella P H; Pär F; Rektor

Subject: RE: Ang.: resources for PhD study

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Dear Mr. B,

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

1. You refuse to provide me with information regarding my own studies. You act against the Swedish law.

2. I still do not have a supervisor. The group of the people appointed as my supervisors is illegal, because the appointment was done in conflict with prescribed rules and, as a result, the biased persons were selected. Surely, people, who are participating in this performance understand that they are involved in the act of psychological violence against me.

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Sincerely,

Elena K

Dept Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Uppsala, Sweden

Summary. The salary is a study recourse. This study resource was withdrawn from my PhD against the law.

Higher Education Ordinance; Chapter 6, Section 30 : Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

If a doctoral student substantially neglects his or her undertakings in the individual study plan, the vice-chancellor shall decide that the doctoral student is no longer entitled to supervision and other study resources. Before such a decision is made, the doctoral student and the supervisors shall be given an opportunity to make representations. The case shall be considered on the basis of their reports and any other records available. The assessment shall take into account whether the higher education institution has fulfilled its own undertakings in the individual study plan. A written record of the decision shall be made, which is to include reasons for the decision.

Resources may not be withdrawn for any period in which the third-cycle student has been appointed to a doctoral studentship or is receiving a doctoral grant. Ordinance (2010:1064).

Swedish University of Agricultural Science University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural ScienSwedish University of Agricultural ScienceceSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesSwedish University of Agricultural ScienceSwedish University of Agricultural Science

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish Universit

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.

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

SLU was consistent in breaking the rules

The rules that govern educational process at the Swedish University ofAgricultural Sciences seem to be just and provide a lot of support to a PhD student. If SLU would have followed these rules, the problem with my PhD studies would have never arisen; and even if it would, the solution would be found at once on the level of Department. Why SLU was so consistent in breaking the rules I still cannot explain.

High Educational Ordinance and the Guidelines for research education in the Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences states that:

A research student shall be employed. The PhD position is a full-time post

Nevertheless, my employment was canceled during the period of my PhD studies, a few months before the thesis were ready! I am still registered as a PhD student and SLU requires me to attend meetings, to update study plan, to analyze data and to write manuscripts without providing conditions for these activities. My PhD project started at October 2008. Despite the absence of supervision, I planned to complete my work in a due time – October 2012. Unpredicted canceling of employment on January 2012, ruined all these plans and even put under question defense of the thesis.

I didn't find in the rules any mention that employment can be canceled during educational period:

Even if the resource shall be withdrawn the special procedure must take place

My employment was terminated without any notice and without explanations. No inquires took place.

Department must 'ensure good environment' and a supervisor shall 'provide support' in and 'continuously monitor' the development of the studies

My part of informing a supervisor about the development of studies was performed well: during the period of October 31, 2005 - December 24, 2011 I sent to my supervisor more than 60 letters with files, which contained the description of experiments, research plans, abstracts, posters and presentations for conferences, as well as raw data, result of analysis, and, finally, article manuscripts; about 40 letters with request for help with statistic and explanations of the problem with data analysis; about 60 letters with proposals on different matters or reports about technical problems. I got answers on about dozen of my letters; and when I did, it was a promise to have a meeting. During all the time of my studies my former supervisor never looked at my lab notebook, never discussed the raw data, and never provided feedback on the results.

Department must ensure that follow-ups of the study plan take place

The project that became my PhD work started at October 2008. The only follow-up of my studies happened on January 2010 and was counted both as an admission to PhD and as a half-time seminar. The 75% follow-up never took place and my questions why it happened so were ignored.

In case of any problem detected the Head of the Department should take an action

Since January 2012 only two meeting were held, both on my calls and only after addressing a request to the SLU top executives. The Head of the Department didn't initiate a single meeting.

Student has rights to change a supervisor and a process must be transparent and unbiased

I reported about the problems with inadequate supervision of my PhD project to the Head of the Department on January 24th 2012 and to the NL Faculty on April 17th 2012. The new supervisors were appointed only on October 18th 2012 with a lag in nine months from the first report.

The new supervisors were appointed without preliminary discussion of the candidates and persons with conflicting interests were imposed.

My request for unbiased supervisors got in reply an outright lies

From: Jan S   Sent: 19 October 2012 18:21   To: Elena K ; Christer B   Cc: Rimvydas V; Marianne C; Martin W; Johan M; Nils H; Lennart J; Pär F; Björn A; Anna A  Subject: RE: Ang.: Supervisior group

Dear Elena,

 It will not be possible to have a main supervisor from another department.

 Best regards,

Professor Jan S

Uppsala Biocenter
Department of Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology
Swedish University of Agricultural sciences
Box 7026, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden

The Head of the Department claimed it despite that the rules says:

Conclusions

It became obvious that Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences does not have a proper mechanism of auto-control and I wonder, who will put an end to lawlessness. 

For half a year I was trying to find justice inside SLU, when it didn't work, I sent complaints to the Swedish Agency of Higher Education (Högskoleverket) and few months later to the Equality Ombudsman (Diskrimineringsombudsmannen, DO). The Swedish Agency of Higher Education did not make its verdict yet. The reply from DO will be discussed in the next post.

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

 

Too little science in my new "supervisor" group

Since October 2012 the administration of Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU is forcing me to accept a new group of supervisors. This group is not legitimate, because it was appointed in conflict with all prescribed rules. Anyway, new supervisors constantly gather for meetings and produce protocols. Reading these protocols makes me feel sorry for SLU administration: it so difficult to find smart people for a hatchet job. A true scientist would not take this job, and a fake scientist lacks accuracy and diligence to do it well. One of the first protocols that I got from the new “supervisor” group demonstrated it very clear.

At half-time my PhD project has “received praise from the external evaluator for the choice of fundamental biological questions to be investigated, as well as for the elegant systems which has been developed”. It was also obvious that obtained material would be more than enough for a PhD project. My new “supervisors” could not argue with this, instead, they said that the method that I used is outdated. They argued that it might be a problem to publish the results, and my work cannot be recommended for a PhD degree. Unfortunately for them, the statistics of the recently published articles shows that the method is not outdated (see comments below). Plus I did not have any alternative, because there were no other methods available at the Department at the time when I designed experiments and later I was never offered the opportunity to use new and expensive methods. When my new “supervisor” was caught in this attempt to discredit my research, he immediately stepped back, saying that he was misunderstood. Later, he was trying to pretend, that it was just a “scientific discussion”.

Below are my comments on a protocol from supervisor meeting and a response from a “principal supervisor” to these comments:

Why put DGGE method to death?

Comments on protocol from supervisor meeting for Elena K. 2012-12-03

I stated before and continue to insist that I nether recognize nor accept the supervisor group appointed for me by SLU administration in violation of the prescribed procedure. Particularly, I strongly oppose Mr. H and Ms. C candidacies, because I consider them biased toward my research.

Nevertheless, I would like to comment the protocol from supervisor meeting from 2012-12-03, signed by Mr. H and Ms. C, because the authors provided me with an opportunity to demonstrate their preconceptions.

Part I. DGGE is an adequate and not outdated method for microbial ecology

In the protocol from Mr. H and Ms. C there was no discussion about the scientific questions and the results of my projects. The main point of the comments was that DGGE method, used in my studies, is outdated . To make the discussion understandable for scientists from other fields of biology, a short introduction of our routine is necessary.

The subjects of studies in microbial ecology are microbial communities. Native microbial communities consist of many microbial species. Because we do not have detection systems that allow us to study microbial communities directly, the first step in each experiment is to amplify the signals from every group of microbes. This is done with polymerase chain reaction (PCR). So, PCR is simply the method to increase the signal up to detectable level.

The second step is to detect the amplified signal. For this there exist several methods. At our Department cloning-sequencing, T-RFLP, DGGE and NGS were/are used. Since, first two methods are already abandoned by our Department, I will compare the last two.

I. DGGE is about 100 times cheaper than NGS

Table 1. Cost of detection methods

Method of detection	abbreviation	Cost for 96 samples (plate)
Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis	DGGE	~750 SEK
Next Generation Sequensing	NGS	~100 000 SEK

2. DGGE is the only detection method that is left in the Department

DGGE is performed in home. NGS means buying a service. Next Generation Sequencing in spite that it sounds very impressive, on practice means that PCR is done at home and then products are packed into envelopes and sent to a company, which actually does sequencing. Results come as a huge dataset and processed with algorithm on an autopilot mode.

SLU is supposed to teach students and provide environment for them to master methods and techniques. It should be both, basic and advanced methods, because:

1. advanced methods does not always substitute basic ones
2. there are many students from the countries, where expensive techniques are not available

So, the main task of teaching unit should be preservation and improvement of basic methods and accommodation of new techniques that can be performed in home.

In spite of this, currently at our Department students can learn only DNA extraction and PCR. In seven years that I spent at the Department I could not master any new technology, which would make me more competitive at the work market after PhD. Even to study DGGE I went to the other laboratory, because there was no expert at home. No need to say that a student, in order to master a new method, needs supervision of an expert and a possibility to consult one on every day basis. Short-term visits to other labs do not provide necessary conditions to learn new methods.

In spite that DGGE currently stays the only one detection method available in home, there were constant and strong efforts to put it to death. The possible reasons for killing DGGE method are provided in the next paragraphs.

3. DGGE leaves no space for fraud and data manipulation

DGGE, as a method of detection, is absolutely intolerable to bad quality of PCR. If investigator gets bad PCR it is visible on a gel (examples are provided below). So, DGGE demands high accuracy of previous steps and leaves no space for fraud, since reviewers can easily request for original pictures of the gels.

In case of NGS, samples sent for sequencing do not pass proper quality control. Later, results arrive from company in electronic format (google can give examples of data from NGS on request). If there is no strict control for PCR quality BEFORE sending samples for sequencing, then there is a lot of possibility for incorrect results.

To illustrate this, I would like to show some results from my experiments.

Why there is a need for quality control?

Before starting to study natural communities I tested how the approach works on artificial simple community that consist of 4 bacterial species. So, if there are 4 species in the test tube, should be 4 different PCR signals and 4 bands on the gel (fig. 1)

However, polymerases (enzymes that perform PCR) that are in routine use at our Department were unable to amplify mixed template correctly (fig. 2A and 2b). Although there were only 4 bacterial species in a test tube, outcome results showed complex communities consisted of more then 20-50 species! So, being suitable for other purposes these polymerases cannot be used to study communities. After testing several options I found BioTaq polymerase that (in combination with certain primers) was suitable for routine use (fig 2 c).

Fig 2. What can happen when unsuitable polymerase is used for community analysis!

(Remember that it should be only 4 bands in mixed community and a single band for each individual species!)

1-3, 8-10, 15-17, 22-24, 29-31 – mixed community (3 replications); 4-7, 11-14, 18-21, 25-28, 32-36 – individual species A,B,C and D

(To whom it may concern) primer sets that were tested 1-7 – Muy1f-Muy2r; 8-14 – Eb246-1406R; 15-21 - EubB(27F)-U926R; 22-28 – EubB(27F)-U1510; 29-35 – BrunkBac 41-61-EubA(1522R)

a. DreamTaq polymerase

b. Phusion polymerase

100. 
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     с. BioTaq polymerase (in positions 22-28 PCR correctly reflected what was in test tubes)
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     So, for bacterial communities I managed to find suitable conditions, but...
     
     
     There is no way to study fungal communities with existing approaches!
     
     
     With fungal communities situation is worse. I did not find any PCR conditions that correctly reflected composition of artificial community consisted of 4 fungal species. It is not even possible to get only one band from single fungal species (fig 3). The prerequisite for community analysis is that each species gives single distinct signal. However, no difficulties were reported from other researchers from the department, who use NGS as a detection method.
     At least it remains very questionable approach to send samples for expensive sequencing without testing for PCR quality, and DGGE is a method of choice for such test.
     
     
     Fig 3. Fungal community never went fine!
     Amplification of artificial community consisted of 4 fungal species (named A,B, C, and D) under different conditions (the best outcome I managed to get)
     Mix A B C D Mix A B C D Mix A B C D Mix A B C D Mix A B C D Mix A B C D Mix A B C D
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     If PCR would work correctly then DGGE would be method of choice for studying fungal communities, since DGGE can easily resolve 60-70 bands and fungal community rarely exceeds this level of complexity (especially, when DNA is extracted from small (0.5 g) amount of soil). The main problem for studying fungal communities is inability of existing approaches to provide correct signal amplification from native communities. Before this problem would be solved none of the detection systems can compensate this drawback. However, NGS can easily hide it.
     
     
     
     
     3. DGGE is not that abandoned as it was presented!
     
     
     I never judge method by how fancy it is, but for modish persons there is some information below.
     Search in Scopus gave 842 hits for “denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis” published in 2012 with impact factor of journals (checked just on the first page) being:
     Clinical microbiological review 16.129
     ISME journal 7.375
     Bioresource technology 5.352
     PLoS ONE 4.351
     International Journal of Food Microbiology 3.847
     Environmental Microbiology 3.829
     FEMS Microbiology Ecology 3.408
     Molecular Ecology Resources 3.062
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     Conclusions:
     1. DGGE is 100 times less expensive detection method that NGS.
     2. It can be done in home. It can be used at least to check the quality of samples before proceeding with expensive analysis
     3. The high resolution that NGS provides is not necessary for analysis of fungal communities, but this method provides good cover for errors.
        
        
        
        
     
     
     Part II. Advisers forgot what they said earlier, but “we have all moves written down”
     
     
     In their protocol Mr. H and Ms. C said:
     
     
     
     
     
     When I started my experiments in 2008, there was only two method of detection in use at the Department: T-RFLP and DGGE. So, counting on what there was available I designed experiments for which knowing names of each individual microbial species was not necessary for answering the questions. Nevertheless, I was ready to master any new method. However, when NGS became available at the Department I have never ever been offered an opportunity to use it.

     At my half time I have been recommended to cut bands form DGG gel, extract again DNA from each band, do PCR for each individual band separately and send product for sequencing to find out the name of the species. Here is a document:

     
     

     

     
     

Each band on DGGE is 0.1-0.3 mm thick (like a hair) and 3-4 mm wide. The distance between two adjacent bands is 0.3-3 mm. One sample produced from 30 to 60 bands and one experiment contains 124 samples to analyze. In addition these gels are very prone to cracking. If I should follow the advice given by Mr. H on my half-time seminar, all together I need to cut (doing it wearing a protection and under UV light!) and analyze from 3720 to 7440 bands . When I pointed out that such work would take at least a year, I was given an advice to cut at least “some of the bands”. On my question what should be criteria to select bands for analysis there was no answer provided...*

_______________________________________________

*Once upon a time rabbits became very tired of being bulled. They came for advice to old and wise owl and said: “O, owl! Please, teach us what we should do! We are so tired of being bulled by everyone in the forest!” Owl thought for a while and said:” Rabbits, you need to become hedgehogs!” Rabbits jumped away very happy, but after a while came back and asked owl again: “Owl, but HOW can we became hedgehogs?” Owl looked at them and said:” How should I know? I am not a tactician, I am a STRATEGIST!!!”

Part III. Even IF I would be able to follow Mr. H advice, does it worth to do?

After silver staining PCR is impossible. Other stains do not provide good resolution.

Gels after DGGE analysis are stained with silver. After silver staining DNA is not suitable for PCR (faint bands, fully developed), so it cannot be amplified for sequencing. SYBR green can be used to stain gel in order to be able to use DNA from band as template for PCR, but SYBR green is at least 5-10 times less sensitive and thus, reduce the value of analysis, which I need to perform to answer the main questions of the experiments.

Aiming to identify microorganism only by part of one gene – is overambitious and not scientific.

Even complete 16S rDNA or ITS region sequences are not enough for species identification. And identification is the first step BEFORE microorganism can be correctly classified. Sequences that are used for microbial community studies are far too short to provide reliable information for organism identification. Serious scientist discussed whether it is possible to identify species correctly even knowing sequences of several genes. Thus, sequencing alone does not provide correct information on taxonomy of microorganisms and therefor is useless.

More, Nesseria meningitidis and N. gonorrheae on the basic of their genomic and even metabolic properties would have been considered conspecific, however everyone knows the differences...

Do we have control of how many sequences are only the results of a polymerase mistakes?

Polymerases that are routinely used for community analysis usually do not have proof-reading activity. It means they do considerable number of mistakes when copy original sequence from bacteria or fungi. In manuals, the rate of mistakes that polymerase does is given for optimal conditions, however, environmental samples:

1. have damaged DNA
2. contain many impurities
3. often need PCR enhancers

And all these factors can alter polymerase behavior and increase the rate of mistakes. This is one of the possible causes for increase in the number of bands, compared with expected number after amplification with DreamTaq polymerase (fig. 2a).

Even if the name of microbe would be found and even if it would be correct how much information it gives about function?

The same microbial species can perform different functions in different communities, or under different environmental conditions (temperature, pH, availability of nutrients, etc).

This list can be continued...

Part IV. Conclusions.

Concluding all above mentioned, I state that:

1. My experiments were designed according the tools that were at my disposal at that time
2. I have never been offered an opportunity to apply NGS (if I would be offered now I will do it!)
3. Recommendations given to me by Mr. H and Ms. C I consider as non-scientific approach and not worth doing

Uppsala, January 7^th, 2013 

 Elena K

________________________________________________________

From: Nils H

Sent: 07 January 2013 23:01

To: Elena K; Marianne C; Martin W; Johan M; Pär F; Christer B

Cc: Jan S

Subject: Re: why put a method to death+ next supervisor meeting

Dear Elena,

You are right that the research questions are far more important compared

to methodology. In order to complete your thesis and for possible

discussions with the supervisor group you have to complete the study plan**

which was due to the faculty already Nov 15 2012. It is not possible to

have such an in depth discussion without a study plan as a basis. In the

supervisor group, we are prepared to have such discussions about your work

provided we have a study plan sent to us as a starting point for the

discussion. Furthermore, the work will not be fruitful if you are not

present yourself at the meetings.

The time for the next supervisor meeting is 13.00 Jan 10 in room A372 as

announced before.

Sincerely,

Nils H

** According the new "supervisor" group the information that my updated research plan lacked was: