I was cheated in my PhD exam at Nottingham University UK, Malaysia campus.

Double Standards 
Between Nottingham University UK, Nottingham University Malaysia campus.

                                                      

I'm Nachimani Charde, was a research assistant for 2 years (from April 2009 to March 2011) and was a research student for 1 year (from April 2011 to May 2012) at Nottingham University UK, Malaysia campus. Finally I submitted my PhD thesis with 20 journal papers publication on 4th May 2012 for evaluation.

1) During these three years, I was forced to develop and maintain a web page for my PhD supervisor’s own company which was actually out of scope from my PhD research. I did it because I have no choice as the dean was failed to stop this matter click here .
2) The dean of engineering faculty did not follow the PhD completion procedures thereafter and at last the viva voce was announced to be invalid click here . Suppose I should have been given the PhD by publication as I have fulfilled the minimum requirement for click here . Otherwise, the viva voce exam has to be conducted within 3 months of time, as of the quality manual indicated but the dean has delayed for 1 year without acceptable reasons (Imagine if you are a foreign student and then during the waiting period, you have to spend your own money to find a survival here in Semenyih or you have to find job within university campus because it is little hard to find academic-related job in Semenyih – read this sentences few times).
3) I have published 20 journal papers from my research (5-ISI, 5-Scopus and 10-google scholar) click here but the dean has said that I was not even entitled for M.Phil in 2013. The truth is that: the external examiner selection was went wrong and became unacceptable, click THESIS in the main menu to compare first external examiner's thesis with his own student's thesis. First external examiner has graduated with his PhD, approximately 8 months before I submit my PhD thesis. I have never seen any publication of him in ISI or Scopus listed database.
4) I was transferred to dept. head in UK and wasted 5 months without any useful help click here .
5) I was again transferred to Malaysia campus click here but the examiners selection was went wrong once again. The internal examiner was not from my field of research as I have reported this matter to the Vice Chancellor's office but as normal, he did not care about it Click here and the external examiner was finalized by Prof.Graham, as the external examiner was a research expert in another university where I was doing post doctoral research.
6) In the second viva, the external examiner was genuine and respectable. Adversely the internal examiner was not expert in my field of research and he has hidden the very important instruction that given by external examiner in the form of letter to complete the minor amendment, as I already was awarded 'PhD with minor correction-required' that time.
7) External examiner has finally guided and accepted the minor amendment but not by the internal examiner APPROVED-AMENDMENT BY EXTERNAL EXAMINER. (Pls note that my research outcome was accepted by American Welding Society and Welding Research Council-USA, The German Welding Society-German, The Welding Institute-United Kingdom, The Institut de Soudure-France, Welding Technology Institute of Australia – Australia, Indian Institute of Science – India and Institution of Engineers, Malaysia as journal papers). My PhD viva exam was not accepted by internal examiner who is not an expert in my field. So what I understood from this process is that Nottingham University UK, Malaysia campus is not for intelligent and smart people like me.
8) My current supervisor was also victimized by sending a message to me saying that my research paper was plagiarized by someone. When I checked it, it was not true.
9) I published post doctoral research papers containing fellow research members (Download) (Download) (Read Acknowledgement). This matter becomes an issue now as I already told this matter to Vice Chancellor's office (before exam, I sent emails to him) and to Provost (after exam, I sent emails to her with the published documents). They did not stop the exam immediately but asked me to do the minor amendment and submit the thesis. If they (Vice Chancellor and Provost) have failed to ensure that the proper procedures are taking place, who else can guarantee a fair process then? So I trusted them and submitted my final version Email from vice chancellor.
10) Three (3) years PhD research duration but the examination process has taken almost two (2) years and nine (9) months extra. Even then,the process is still not completed yet. Finally I dropped-out because they said that they want to maintain the internal examiner's decision who knows nothing about my field of research and wanted to change the external examiner because I have prior-publication with her in my post doctoral research. When I informed this matter to Provost by sending my post doctoral research papers in Oct 2014, she asked me to follow the process and Vice Chancellor is also advised likewise. UNMC staffs will delay the exam for years and years but student should not go for any other university for further research and stay there until they finish their procedures. Besides, no one is punished for any of my struggles.
11) If the Examination Committee of UNMC is right in making decision, then the Vice Chancellor and Provost are wrong in guiding the viva process. Alternatively, if the Vice Chancellor and Provost are right in guiding the viva process then the Examination Committee of UNMC is wrong in making decision.
12) The Quality Manual of Nottingham University UK was not followed about 80% in the flow of PhD viva voce exam. I notified this problem to them for several times but no use. What is the use of Quality Manual then? Now UNMC has different guide for PhD completion which contradicts with UK campus one. I made several complaints to Vice Chancellor but as normal, there is no use with sending emails as grievances.

Full story until 16th December 2014 in pdf: Click here .

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have submitted my corrected version of thesis after received advise from Vice Chancellor and Provost of UNMC to continue with this process but now the decision is different. Are they (Provost, Prof.Christine Ennew and Vice Chancellor, Prof.Sir, David) purposely cheating me? If yes then why? Email from vice chancellor.

16th Dec 2014

Dr. Farazila (External Examiner) has given a letter (instruction to carry out the amendment in thesis) but Dr. Lim Chin Seong (Internal Examiner) has hidden it because he wants to take full control over the process. Dr. Lim Chin Seong's field of expertise is not spot welding engineering. I received a letter from Nottingham University UK on 17th January 2015, that my PhD exam is set aside. One of the reason is that I did not fulfill the internal examiner's requirement. I have to re-take my exam but they will maintain the internal examiner's decision. All the problems are because of disagreement of examiners selection and the internal examiner is not an expert in my field research to judge my novelty. What about the consent that given by the Vice Chancellor through his email? click here

Unacceptable decision as the post doctoral research-related publication was already informed to the Provost and Vice Chancellor in October 2014. Who is cheating who? Two years nine months are wasted in the name of fair viva voce examinations although I have fulfilled the minimum criteria for PhD by Publication. Besides, I have informed them before the exam click here and after the exam click here . Once I get words (consent) from vice chancellor, only then I submitted my thesis. I think the Vice Chancellor has been victimized by them too, but I'm not sure yet. So please investigate the matter Mr.Chancellor and deliver justice for me.

I have forwarded Vice Chancellor's email to every lecturer who works in Malaysian University.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Respected Prof.Sir Witty (Chancellor) / Prof.Sir David (Vice Chancellor), can you people explain why we have two different guide for PhD completion and to which one I have to attach with ?

17th Jan 2015

UK QUALITY MANUAL

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/academicservices/qualitymanual/researchdegreeprogrammes/role-and-appointment-of-examiners.aspx click here

Criteria for appointing Internal Examiner The Head of School should ensure that the person nominated to act as Internal Examiner is a research-active member of the academic staff of the University who has the appropriate expertise in the student's research area . If Schools wish to recommend nominees who do not satisfy this criterion, this should be highlighted in the nomination form and a case provided for consideration by Quality and Standards Committee.

Disagreement between Examiners In the event of a disagreement on the appropriate outcome of a research degree examination between the Internal and External Examiner, the matter should be resolved by the Examiners on the basis of detailed argument about the specific academic points arising from the examination, and a joint decision should be reached. In this circumstance particular weight should be given to the views of the External Examiner. Where there are two External Examiners particular weight should be given to the chair.

UNMC PGRHandbook for FOE (Equiv. to QUALITY MANUAL)

http://www.graduatesunion.info/2013-14PGRhandbookUNMC.pdf click here

Submission and Examination “This option should be selected only in instances where the candidate is required to make minor amendments to the text, e.g. typographical errors, which are so minor as to be completed in one month. It is the responsibility of the Internal Examiner to verify that the corrections have been made to his/her satisfaction. ” click here

If the internal examiner is not an expert in a PhD student's field of research, how to satisfy him/her-self? How can he/she judge one's PhD work then? Wake up Prof. Sir Witty / Prof. Sir David, Wake up ! Why there is double standard for campuses ? There are so many dissimilarities between these two documents. Using such rules, UNMC official can easily cheat any student as how they have dragged my viva for 2 years and 9 months and finally cheated my award.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Various Issues about UNMC

Times Higher Education (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/tribunal-says-nottingham-ran-franchise/310368.article)

Doubts cast over Nottingham’s MBA degree - Malaysiakini

Internet Bloggers have discussed bad about UNMC.. Click here

British Government has advised to take the matter to Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (www.oiahe.org.uk) as I have submitted a formal complaint to investigate the matter Click here ...

I have submitted a formal complaint to MOHE (www.mohe.edu.my) to investigate and deliver justice... Click here

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Important documents.

Tribunal says Nottingham ran 'franchise' | Times Higher Education (THE)

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/tribunal-says-nottingham-ran-franchise/310368.article

Doubts cast over Nottingham’s MBA degree

 http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.malaysia/2006-01/msg01298.html

---

=====================================================================
Doubts cast over Nottingham?s MBA degree - Malaysiakini
=====================================================================
Doubts cast over Nottingham?s MBA degree
Claudia Theophilus Jan 25, 06 11:30am

exclusive A storm of controversy is gathering at Nottingham University
Malaysia Campus (UNMC) over the management and delivery of its
world-renowned masters in business administration (MBA) programme.

Four months after its grand opening, the campus situated in Semenyih, about
40 minutes drive south of Kuala Lumpur, has been accused of an internal
cover-up to prevent possible revocation of its MBA accreditation.

It is learnt that the university has been given 12 months to put its house
in order over alleged discrepancy in the marking scheme which may have
pulled down the overall grades of MBA students.

Failure to meet the conditions stipulated could jeopardise the renewal -
required every five years - of accreditation. This is awarded by the
Association of MBAs (AMBA), the global guardian of the quality of such
programmes.

Frustrated with indifference to concerns raised by lecturers and students,
former faculty member Dr Geoffrey Williams filed two complaints with the
AMBA in March and November last year.

The latest dossier contains 170 pages of claims and records of staff
meetings held last year. Copies of the complaints brief and related
correspondence were made available to malaysiakini.

UNMC submitted its response this morning denying all allegations, while
AMBA has yet to reply to questions sent yesterday.

Directive issued

Williams, 36, who quit his post because of ?victimisation?, said he is
appalled with the extent of the attempted cover-up. He had joined
Nottingham University in 2003.

In March last year, he informed the AMBA of a university directive to
destroy documents and the electronic trail pertaining to the management and
delivery of the MBA programme.

Met in Kuala Lumpur recently, Williams, said AMBA had acknowledged his
complaint via e-mail with an assurance that a probe would be conducted.

?In preparation for the AMBA visit (last) December, there were a number of
instructions to the faculty to destroy documents and to delete e-mails
about the delivery of programmes, especially the MBA, which may prove
embarrassing during the assessment,? he told malaysiakini.

?Faculty members were approached directly to suggest names of students who
would be supportive of the school with a view to recommending them for
interview, and to identify those who may be critical with a view to keeping
them away from the assessors.?

According to a letter dated Nov 29 to students, Williams had explained that
the discrepancy was due to a more lenient marking scheme used by lecturers
in the UK, of which UNMC faculty members had been unaware.

?I should stress that none of the lecturers have done anything wrong. We
applied the normal marks scheme in good faith, unaware that a more lenient
marks scheme was being applied by others, especially lecturers in the UK.?

He said a comparison of marks between 1st and 2nd semester exams in the UK
and Malaysia revealed a difference significant enough to have affected the
final results.

?This means that four out of six 1st semester modules for the MBA could
have been affected by procedural irregularities which may have caused
disadvantage to some students.

?It is likely that a number of students who had to re-sit 1st semester
exams may not have to do so if the more lenient scheme had been applied,
since their marks may have been high enough to pass the first time,? he
explained during the interview.

Last weekend, the university held its convocation ceremony. A preview of
its MBA programme had been held the previous week.

?Concerns dismissed?

Williams, who started teaching in 1992 at the London Business School before
moving to Oxford University, feared that the discrepancy may have caused
good students to miss an overall distinction or to pass the examination.

?This is pretty scandalous, given that the MBA is Nottingham University
Business School?s flagship and a world-renowned programme. It is the
university?s most important programme.

?The administration believes the quality in UNMC is not up to standard.
This was made clear when the business school denied allegations raised by
the students.?

He said the discrepancy in marking was identified at an Exam Board meeting
on Nov 11 but the university had dismissed the concerns as unfounded and
blamed the students for under-performing instead.

?This matter is clearly of public interest especially since Malaysian
universities have been under a lot of criticism recently. It?s clear that
UK universities here are no better.?
The students, he said, have also received a note about their marks from the
business school director in the UK instead of from his Malaysian
counterpart.

?Despite the statistics we were provided with, he has simply denied that
there is a problem here. Students will therefore not be able to appeal the
marks.

?One of the main reasons for this is that the Business School will have an
accreditation visit next week from the AMBA and they do not want student
appeals affecting this outcome. So, they have refused to allow students to
appeal.?

The AMBA accreditation is renewable every five years at a cost of
20,000-30,000 pounds sterling.

About 100 students are enrolled for the full-time MBA course offered at
about RM44,500 plus extra charges a year.

Disposal of appeals delayed

In his letter, Williams urged students to appeal against their marks backed
by the evidence gathered by him and marketing and strategy associate
professor Dr John Zinkin which ?provides strong grounds for an appeal and a
re-assessment of marks?.

It is learnt that several appeals are pending, but that deliberations were
delayed by the convocation ceremony.

?Upon the filing of an appeal, the university has 10 days to decide but in
this case it has been more than a month now with no outcome,? Williams
said.

He also alleged that faculty dean Prof Eduard Bomhoff had failed to fulfil
his promise to raise the matter with the Final Exam Board in the UK.

In an e-mail to students last month, he said UK Business School director
Prof Alistair Bruce had dismissed his allegations of procedural
irregularities as ?unfounded? based on investigations.

?I am assured by Mr Scott Goddard, director of postgraduate programmes and
chair of the Examination Board in Nottingham which considered these
programmes, that the issues raised by Dr Williams were fully factored into
deliberations in the board,? reads a copy of the e-mail.

?The publication of results is indicative of the fact that the external
examiners for these programmes were satisfied with the way in which
procedures were followed, issues were considered and outcomes were
decided.?

It is learnt that officials from the AMBA were here early last month on a
three-day visit to the campus. Another visit is due in the next few weeks.

The UNMC, designed as a boutique campus, is the first of two outside of the
UK. The other is in Ningbo, China.

The RM120 million purpose-built complex sits on a 40-hectare site and
boasts an international student population of 1,300 from 30 countries.

On Sept 26, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak officiated at the
opening of the campus in Jalan Semenyih-Broga, accompanied by Selangor
Menteri Besar Dr Mohd Khir Toyo.

Tomorrow: Brain drain in the business school

Nottingham honours Zeti
03:27pm Sat Jan 21, 2006

Target - 100,000 foreign students by 2010
02:32pm Tue Sep 27, 2005

Police harass Broga ?welcome? party for PM
09:01pm Mon Sep 26, 2005


===================================================

Tribunal (or equiv. to court in UK) says Nottingham ran ‘franchise’ (7 Sept. 2007)

Tribunal says Nottingham ran ‘franchise’ (7 Sept. 2007)

Claims by Nottingham University that its Malaysia campus is an integral part of the university are incorrect, a court has ruled. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has stated that the University of Nottingham in Malaysia (UNMC) is a “franchise operation”, contrary to claims in Nottingham’s marketing materials relating to the venture.  In an unfair dismissal case brought against Nottingham by lecturer, Geoffrey Williams (Now he is working as Deputy Vice Chancellor in www.unirazak.edu.my), the EAT referred to Nottingham’s publicity material. The judgement said: “UNMC was said to be an integral part of Nottingham University, and the business school was referred to as ‘one school incorporating both the Nottingham and Malaysian campuses’.”

But the tribunal ruled that “in truth, UNMC was not integral to Nottingham University but was a franchise operation conducted by a separate entity”.  Dr.Willaims lost his claim after the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear his claim, as his employer was not based in Britain. The ruling was the latest outcome in a long-running dispute between and the lecturer, who has filed complaints with the Association of Masters of Business Administration against UNMC.

UNMC is a joint venture in which Nottingham holds a minority share; the balance is held by two Malaysian firms. The university receives 10 per cent of the student fees from the venture and provides academic control over courses, sets exams and awards degrees.

Nottingham’s China campus, a joint venture with Wanli education Group also has separate company status. A Nottingham spokesman said the China and Malaysia ventures were campuses in “academic terms” and were “absolutely not franchises”. “A franchising operation is simply the licensing of a curriculum, with remote quality assurance. A condition of Nottingham’s decision to establish (these) campuses has been 100 per cent control of academic matters,” he said.

Nottingham’s vice-chancellor, Sir Colin Campbell, said: “Franchise arrangements are too great a risk to reputation. That is why we have taken the overseas campus approach. Degrees awarded by Nottingham, whether in the UK, Malaysia or China, are exactly the same.”

Full story at:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/tribunal-says-nottingham-ran-franchise/310368.article