Overview
The complainant (Mr C) was a post/graduate student at the University of Glasgow (the University) studying for a doctorate in a science subject. He complained about aspects of the supervision of his study and about the way his appeal and complaint were handled.
Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the University:
- (a) did not provide adequate supervision for Mr C's PhD (not upheld);
- (b) did not provide an agreed placement (not upheld);
- (c) did not appropriately consider concerns about a key reagent (not upheld);
- (d) did not handle an academic appeal properly (not upheld);
- (e) did not handle a complaint properly (upheld); and
- (f) did not maintain adequate records in relation to Mr C's progress (upheld).
Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the University:
- (i) reinforce the good practice of maintaining a written record of significant events, such as decisions about a student's placement;
- (ii) apologise to Mr C for shortcomings in their handling of his complaint;
- (iii) take steps to ensure that complainants are given clear and accurate advice about the status of their complaints; and
- (iv) considers whether there are situations where it should be obligatory that accurate records are kept of meetings when supervisors are discussing serious concerns about the progress of a student.
The University have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.