Of Public Interest: Further Abuse of the Post-Grad Application System

Further to my previous post on this blog 'Of Public Interest: How Universities can Abuse the Post-Grad Application System', I would like to raise awareness of just how many details, including very simple tasks, can be made to go wrong during the postgraduate application process. I would also show the level and severity of how an applicant can be deliberately misled, misinformed and denied key information about vital stages of the application system, in ways which aim to disempower them, manipulate them, be totally disrespectful towards them and abuse their human rights and data. And all the applicant receives as an answer is a pile of lies and excuses that don't hold water. 

After this 2016-17 MRes application saga:

Don't even think of asking me to file any form of complaint/challenge, or application or re-application there. 

Don't ask me to show any interest in this university I applied to, be it their Open Days or their Events (academic or otherwise). 

And don't even dream of trying to involve yourself in so much as a vague, future possibility of any type of other Postgraduate application of mine to any other universities either. 

I have learnt to stop assuming that if you have a good time at a university conference or workshop as a speaker, that this will translate into being a respected, valued prospective student there, even if you are actually invited to apply to study the course. 

I have also learnt that negotiating, compromising and continuously communicating clearly and rationally to a person in a relevant job at work, certainly does not mean that they will pay you the same courtesy or that they will actually bother to resolve any issues that you raise with them. I've also learnt that expressing your wishes, your boundaries, what you do and don't give them permission for, and agreeing things in writing, can also be undermined by people working in relevant job roles, even during official processes. They manage to unnecessarily complicate the simplest things in the most ludicrous ways. 

Moreover, don't even dream of persisting in asking me to 'fix' the MRes application. I immediately gave the then Head of Department, and apparently a Member of the Admissions Commission, a chance to correct the bizarre and completely inaccurate decision letter I received. He refused to do so. So the matter is closed. I'm not negotiating any further with him or anyone else about the matter, or related issues. 

After I received the rejection Decision Letter (see previous post), I forwarded it to the then Head of Department / Member of the Admissions Commission and informed him that I found it unacceptable and inaccurate:

(the longer emails span over more than one of my screenshots, so I've shown the last sentence of the previous photo in the following photo as well, so you can see how the screenshots match up as you read the full email)

.......

Three days later, I received these feeble excuses and poor or missing explanations. There are no excuses for the abysmal decision letter I was emailed. 

There are also no excuses for wasting everybody's time by refusing to state a deadline by which referees must submit a reference, then the Head trying to blame everyone else, apart himself, as to why they do not meet this deadline, even though he continued to leave the date vague, making sure he never actually stated: the reference submission deadline; nor if I needed to replace a referee who he was allowing to break the rules; nor did he ever state the specific day the decision meeting took place. He merely says in this email that the decision was "before the 10th'. Well, it would be, that was a Sunday and work meeting don't take place over the weekend. And how convenient that it was sometime before I received confirmation of a reference submission, especially since the dates don't add up. You simply cannot mis-represent the facts in an official letter (not that it is formatted like an official letter, it doesn't even contain my full name) that something you are already aware of (his reference) does not exist. It's existence should be reflected in the wording of the letter. If missing the reference deadline was the reason, then this should have been stated in the decision letter. However, this too would not make sense, given that the Head had previously stated that a later reference submission would merely result in a conditional offer. He can't blow with the wind and have it both ways, at different stages of processing the same application. That's just a way of leading everyone into inevitable, apparent errors which can be cited against them later once in a tight spot. 

I was not prepared to waste further referees' time by calling them up before he had informed me that I needed to replace one of the three named, male referees. At no point did anyone ask him, or members of their department where I was applying, to replace any referees from my previous university. 

........

I'm unclear what he's implying or suggesting when writes he would be happy to help me continue with my work on early modern philosophy. Surely if he meant further study options, he could just say so. Needless to say, I certainly didn't take him up on this concerning offer. I don't need him to interfere with my work as an Independent Researcher too. 

I replied:

........

Which the Head of Department illogically misconstrued thus: 

Although this does prove my point, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the referees should never have refused to provide me with the documents containing their references, for me to upload as the applicant to my online application portal. By forcing me to continue my application without all the documents I requested and required myself for this particular university, they automatically caused my Post-Grad application to get stuck in the system and not go through. So both universities, not just the one I applied to, are undoubtedly at fault and infringed my rights. 

Here is my reply:

........

Unsurprisingly, he ran out of lies and excuses, fell silent and never replied to this last email. I have considered the matter closed ever since this evening (15th July 2016) and I don't appreciate anyone attempting to revisit this discussion or matter. It's all simply not allowed, from either university. It's against people's basic European human and equal rights to put them at such an unfair disadvantage. 

And don't even try to start a conversation (with me or Professor Emerita Susan James) about who's abiding and not abiding by which rules. I think universities and academics have well and truly forfeited any pretence of having a right to moralise and be draconian towards others.