|
Home page
Some documents
"Pathologies" and destruction of evidence
Suppression
The two versions of the Corner/Esler report
The vice chancellor's behaviour
Why is it "Skorupski's Law"?
Some costs
The employment tribunal
Who lied?
The Prince William effect
"Rapportage"
On being silent
The AUT and its solicitors
The author
Why put up these pages?
Some links |
|
Dodgy PhDs
(and other nefarious practices...)
at the University of St Andrews
Shortly after arriving at the University of St Andrews to take up a lectureship, one of my colleagues told me that he had re-written the entire PhD thesis of one of his students because—as he put it—she was rarely able to write a coherent sentence. As I looked at him open-mouthed, he smiled grimly and said, 'That was the second worst PhD thesis I came across here. The worst was one we called 'The African PhD', which was absolutely abysmal. But we didn't want to send the candidate back to his country empty-handed, so we passed him'.
The first of these cases subsequently went on to get very significant amounts of money to do quasi-medical research based on the fact that she had a PhD from one of the most reputable universities in the United Kingdom. On the same grounds, the second presumably went home to a high-status position.
The system of external examiners which all UK universities employ is meant to prevent such corrupt practices. How, then, can they happen? There are two simple reasons. The first is that other universities are doing the same. The second is that standards in subjects like mine–social anthropology—have fallen so far that almost anything can be submitted in certain universities and be awarded a PhD. The system of external examiners, which previously offered some security, has not only failed; it is very actively complicit in the increasing degradation of universities in recent years. That the practice is widespread is no consolation.
In the case of St Andrews I had first-hand evidence of this degradation since I was myself, by a curious coincidence, an external examiner of a PhD just before being interviewed for my post there. Pressure was brought to bear on me to the effect that if I didn't pass the candidate my application for the lectureship 'might not be very favourably looked upon'. For personal reasons at the time it was very important to me to get that particular job. We arrived at a fudge. The thesis was referred back to the candidate for significant revision and I was exempted from having to look at it again. The internal examiner undertook to see that the revision was carried out. By chance, this was the same examiner who later told me that he had re-written the entire thesis of another student.
It got worse...
|