Overview
The complainant (Ms C) was a post-graduate student at the University of Glasgow (the University). After her status was upgraded from that of a masters to a doctoral candidate, she was transferred to a different department. A progress meeting in that department decided that Ms C's work to date was not of sufficient standard to allow her to continue as a doctoral candidate. She appealed this decision and complained about aspects of the University's administration and supervision during her period of study.
Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
- (a) the University accepted a research topic that was not viable (not upheld);
- (b) the University incorrectly upgraded Ms C to status as a PhD student when she did not have the knowledge necessary to complete it (not upheld);
- (c) the supervision of Ms C's PhD was inadequate (upheld to the extent that the University did not apologise for shortcomings they identified);
- (d) review meetings were improperly conducted (not upheld); and
- (e) there were shortcomings in the University's handling of Ms C's complaint (not upheld).
Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman recommends that the University make a formal apology to Ms C for a standard of supervision which fell short of that to which she was entitled.