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 .
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
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.
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.
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribunal says Nottingham ran 'franchise' | Times Higher Education (THE)
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/tribunal-says-nottingham-ran-franchise/310368.article
No comments:
Post a Comment