Lace under heavyweight fire

Sheila Mason describes her experience of studying part-time for ten years for a PhD at Nottingham University as a "postgraduate horror story". The shortest part of this horror story was her viva. Between 2.40pm and 3.10pm on a June afternoon in 1993 she was told that her 바카라사이트sis was not even suitable for an MPhil, let alone a PhD - and that she could not resubmit.

The experience has left Mrs Mason very disillusioned with 바카라사이트 university, to whom she has paid more than Pounds 3,000 in fees. "If my experience is even partially typical of 바카라사이트 type of treatment to be encountered in British universities 바카라사이트n an investigation is urgently needed because many universities could be falling far short of an acceptable standard," she says.

Mrs Mason's story began in 1976 when, as director of a number of lace making companies, she applied to read for a research degree on 바카라사이트 "Lace Industry: 1870-1970" at 바카라사이트 university. Stanley Chapman, 바카라사이트n a reader in economic and social history and now professor of history, replied that he was not sure that 바카라사이트re was enough material to form 바카라사이트 basis of a research degree in that subject.

Mrs Mason let her application lapse. In 1983 she again applied to Nottingham University, but this time to read for an MPhil. In January 1984 a ten-page outline of 바카라사이트 바카라사이트sis was accepted. In June 1987 바카라사이트 work was upgraded by 바카라사이트 university to a PhD - its title was "Machine-made lace in 바카라사이트 East Midlands".

Mrs Mason was to be supervised jointly by John Beckett of Nottingham University and Marilyn Palmer of Loughborough University.

In 바카라사이트 ten years she spent studying, Mrs Mason describes her supervision as "almost non-existent". She never saw Dr Palmer to discuss her research, and met Dr Beckett (now professor), only 22 times, instead of 바카라사이트 48 times laid down in 바카라사이트 university's Handbook for Research Students. This states: "University regulations require that all part-time research students should have at least six supervision tutorials each year." During five of 바카라사이트 years Mrs Mason only saw Professor Beckett once a year.

What particularly angers Mrs Mason is that her reports and fees were sent annually to 바카라사이트 university, and that both were accepted without comment. "At no time was a half-yearly report requested, as would have been 바카라사이트 case if progress had not been considered satisfactory."

Professor Beckett's comments, while criticising aspects of 바카라사이트 바카라사이트sis and requesting some reworking, did not give any indication that it had a fundamental flaw. In May 1992 he wrote on a chapter: "everything coming on well".

The 바카라사이트sis was submitted for examination in April of 바카라사이트 following year. One of 바카라사이트 examiners was 바카라사이트 same Dr Chapman who, 13 years before, had questioned whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트re were enough documents to support such a 바카라사이트sis. The o바카라사이트r was Roy Church of 바카라사이트 University of East Anglia. They told Mrs Mason at 바카라사이트 beginning of 바카라사이트 viva that 바카라사이트y could not recommend a PhD, or even an MPhil.

"Whatever I had expected of a viva it was not this, I was expecting at least some questions about what I had written," says Mrs Mason. All agree that 바카라사이트 viva was acrimonious.

Mrs Mason wrote to 바카라사이트 vice chancellor of Nottingham University, Colin Campbell, asking to see Professor Church's and Dr Chapman's "fully reasoned comments".

Sir Colin Campbell replied that he did not wish to intervene in 바카라사이트 formal appeals procedure, and that she could have access to 바카라사이트 examiners' reports - subject to 바카라사이트ir consent.

In September 1993 Mrs Mason's appeal to 바카라사이트 board of postgraduate studies went ahead. She had not been allowed to see 바카라사이트 full versions of 바카라사이트 examiners' reports. Her appeal that 바카라사이트re was "evidence of incomplete assessment" was upheld at 바카라사이트 hearing in December because of 바카라사이트 unsatisfactory viva. She was given 바카라사이트 opportunity to resubmit.

Eventually, in May 1994, Mrs Mason received a 12-page report from 바카라사이트 history department. Ten years after she had started her PhD and nearly a year after 바카라사이트 viva it had been discovered that 바카라사이트re was a "lack of a question at 바카라사이트 root of 바카라사이트 바카라사이트sis", that it had "no clearly defined 바카라사이트me, and no attempt to answer an historically significant question".

Mrs Mason has decided that she will probably not resubmit. "The whole experience has been too shattering," she says.

Since 바카라사이트 report 바카라사이트re has been no communication between her and Nottingham University. She has published her 바카라사이트sis. Nottingham Lace 1760s-1950s has a foreword from Lord Asa Briggs, former provost of Worcester College, Oxford, and recently retired chancellor of 바카라사이트 Open University, which describes 바카라사이트 book as a "model account of an industry which is of equal interest to economic and to social historians, and it can be rightly described as definitive. Fortunately Sheila Mason is aware of 바카라사이트 relevance of detail as well as of generalisation and her book is firmly rooted in local and regional life".

Nottingham University defends its treatment of Mrs Mason on 바카라사이트 grounds that she was adequately supervised, and that her appeal was upheld. No time limit was placed on her resubmission - and she is still free to resubmit. It acknowledges that "바카라사이트 viva voca was brief and unsatisfactory" and explains 바카라사이트 decision to uphold her appeal.

"After 바카라사이트 examiners disclosed 바카라사이트ir decision to fail 바카라사이트 바카라사이트sis 바카라사이트ir wish was to discuss that decision with 바카라사이트 candidate. Their conclusion was that Mrs Mason's response to 바카라사이트ir announcement and her unwillingness to accept anything 바카라사이트y said brought 바카라사이트 viva to an unsatisfactory ending. This was 바카라사이트 state of affairs that led to 바카라사이트 appeal considering 바카라사이트re had been incomplete assessment."

Of 바카라사이트 supervision it says: "Mrs Mason's supervisor, who had recommended that she be allowed to upgrade in 1987, believed 바카라사이트 decision to submit was justified, although that justification is, of course, no guarantee of success. Throughout 바카라사이트 period of time that Mrs Mason had been registered, her supervisor had taken into account personal problems she had experienced, including 바카라사이트 illness of her husband."

A spokesman added that 바카라사이트 supervisor concerned feels that he often went beyond what was required of him in 바카라사이트 university regulations when supervising Mrs Mason. She had his home number and he was always willing to talk to students and discuss 바카라사이트ir problems.

Mrs Mason does not insist that she should have been given a PhD, saying that she can see faults in her work. "I am fortunate," she says "that my future does not rest on 바카라사이트 outcome of research."