LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE NEW ZEALAND EDUCATION (PART 2)

Once I was re-accepted as a transfer student at the University of Auckland, I thought I could leave all the problems I encountered at Massey where they belonged (at Massey) and resume my studies seamlessly without more interruptions. There were two reasons for this thinking. My application went forward smoothly after confirmation by the Graduate Centre that I had completed draft chapters while studying at Massey for seven months and intended to bring my research with me. As I was self-funded, there was no question over who owned the copyright of my PhD thesis chapters. After signing a legal declaration in front of a lawyer (my witness) confirming that I had indeed written and completed the chapters I claimed to have written and submitting this legal document to the Graduate Centre, I was asked to send the admissions committee another set of official transcripts (which cost another USD $90.00 or so) directly from my alma maters. Massey was among these institutions, although I had not graduated from there. Some weeks later, Auckland accepted me, again. In the process of moving my records to Auckland, I saw no signs of problems to come.

Another reason for feeling that the transition would be smooth and uncluttered is because of Auckland’s high international ranking. The university rates itself as being globally competitive in terms of educational quality and says as much in the billboard ads they put up around the city and in the marketing language on their Facebook page. My understanding of world ranked universities are shaped by schools like UC Berkeley, U of Hawaii, and the Ivy leagues, whose professors publish prolifically, present papers regularly at conferences, and receive positive ratings from students for their teaching abilities. The University of Wollongong would also belong in this ranking for the same reasons. I assumed the quality of education and the academic staff at Auckland would be of the same high quality. At the doctorate level, the knowledge of professors is extremely critical to advancing and honing the knowledge of students in research development and analytical thinking. The schools mentioned have demonstrated through the academic work and commitment of the staff and therefore the universities to advancing disciplinary knowledge and to training doctorate students. I thought Auckland professors and academic staff were similarly committed to providing quality education to doctorate students.

Only after I had fully committed to Auckland, which was signified by the transfer of my federal loan records to the financial aid representative to Auckland and the submission of a formal declaration, signed by me, of my intention to enrol on 1 July 2013, did I begin to see red flags. The first sprung up when the graduate advisor assigned to me declared “there’s no such thing as a transfer student at Auckland” (26^th June, 2013). I knew this to be untrue as I knew that transfer students were accepted at the discretion of the Board of Graduate Studies as per the University of Auckland statutes. At the Board’s discretion, I was accepted. Moreover, the Graduate Centre had sought confirmation of my academic work (in progress) completed at Massey, which they included as part of my application.

Another red flag surfaced at the first meeting with my committee with respect to a comment that sounded like a “conflict of interest”. This committee member wanted to know what had transpired at Massey, a question I found to be inappropriate considering I did not transfer to Auckland to discuss my experiences at Massey. If anything, we (the committee and I) should have discussed my goals for the upcoming year. Starting this meeting with this more pertinent discussion would have been productive, especially since I had already made considerable progress in my PhD program in the seven months I was at Massey. It occurred to me then that this committee member was the person to whom my former Massey supervisor referred when she declared to me that “she knew him” at the final meeting with her on (roughly) 15 May, 2013. At the time, I didn’t realize that this former supervisor had a wide professional network or that she may have a group of allies, who were prepared to defend her conduct regardless of how wrong they were (although another doctorate student at Massey HAD informed me before I left that this woman – my former supervisor - knew a lot of people). A more professional individual would have made it known to this former supervisor that he couldn’t have any conversations with her about me, as he is on my PhD committee and is considered by the University of Auckland statutes to be a compromising situation for me if he allowed her to influence him in any way. Objective assessment is honoured by Auckland as disclosed in, again, the statutes governing academic conduct with respect to students.

My concern about conflict of interest forced me to turn, as I had done at Massey, to the Head of School of the School of Architecture and Planning in October 2013. I explained that I wanted my final years to go smoothly, as my only reason for applying to New Zealand universities was to complete the requirements for the PhD to the standard expected by the university. Unfortunately, instead of receiving support and agreement from this Head of Schhol that my goals and focus were consistent with the expectations of Auckland University, she instead accused me of not having completed any of the requirements of my provisional year (e.g. DELNA English test, academic integrity modules, the research proposal). Clearly, these accusations were untrue – I had completed all within three months (by October 1, 2013) of enrolling (on 1 July, 2013) at Auckland. Moreover, she claimed that I didn’t have all the qualifications I claimed to have. She then presented me with a form that demonstrated an incomplete list of university of qualifications. Only one of four university qualifications was listed on the form. Her comments led me to suspect that this person was more than acquainted with my former supervisor at Massey, and had chosen to align herself with her professional connection rather than enforcing the university policies assuring objectivity.

I began to feel as if I was being shoved into a power game, with my PhD committee and the Head of School at the helm. This power play was also beginning to characterize my relationship with the academic and administrative staff. This former supervisor seemed to have the power to influence not just my committee member and the Head of School, but other academic staff at Auckland, evidenced by the false claims about my qualifications, the delays in the progress of my research proposal, but also in the failure to correctly interpret and enforce university policies. For instance, I had been informed that I had to be at Auckland unequivocally for another three years, forcing me to reaffirm the policies regarding the provisional year of the PhD program. In November 2013, I was able to confirm with a managerial employee at the international students office, it IS possible to not only apply my graduate work started at Massey towards my current, provisional year at Auckland, but it is also possible to leave for my fieldwork in the provisional year, make changes to the provisional year in light of my transfer status, and apply to submit my PhD thesis in two years time, all of which would allow me to still complete my PhD in three years. This is preferred by me, as any doctorate student borrowing money to complete their program would understand. Obvious to anyone, another year would force me to borrow money unnecessarily for another year, increasing my debt to another USD $20,500, a personal hardship.

When the feedback on my research proposal began to also stymie my PhD progress, I felt that familiar sinking feeling in my stomach and the need to vomit. The nature of the feedback to contents of my research proposal was simply peculiar. The comments pertained to explanations in the methodology, the literature review, and the background chapters, which I had been accused of not including, but upon reading were obviously scribed in the relevant sections of the research proposal. Then, even after reviewing the proposal contents, and informing my PhD committee member of the presence of these missing elements, he would return it to me with the same requests. This unproductive communication back and forth went on for five months, and had caused considerable delay in my provisional year. Keep in mind that Auckland only requires that provisional year students submit a formal research proposal and a completed literature review chapter draft. In my case, I had done more, having completed both of these documents as well as the methodology and the background chapters. These finished draft chapters exceed the expectations from doctorate students, so the delay is perplexing.

There were other consequences to me, but not to the academic staff. Delays forced me to miss the deadline for the AAUW scholarship awarded to American doctorate students matriculated at international universities in the final writing year of the PhD. If I had been able to apply, receiving the scholarship would have offset the cost of financing the final year. With my publications and my expedient progress, I felt I had a good chance. Delays have also pushed my departure back by more than two months  and could result in additional financial burdens. 

The demonstrated lack of understanding of the policies at the University of Auckland by academic and administrative staff, coupled with what I have begun to perceive as a power game being played by these same people at my expense, forces questions about the job descriptions of university staff and the mission statement of the university. What is the purpose of Auckland with respect to accepting and agreeing to train research students? What is a reasonable expectation from doctorate students regarding the integrity of the conduct of academic and professional staff at the university with respect to students’ academic progress? If students are expected to test and obtain a score of 100% on the required academic integrity modules, shouldn’t academic and professional staff do the same? Shouldn’t this outcome, then, be demonstrated in their performance on the job in the way that doctorate students are expected to perform at an acceptable level in their doctorate program? Shouldn’t there also be reasonable protection for doctorate students from being targeted by professors, who are violating integrity standards?

So far, I have yet to see a person in authority create a buffer around me (a tuition-paying student) to protect me against the personal attacks from this former Massey supervisor and those whom I have perceived to be her allies. (In a future blog, I’ll describe just how criminal her conduct had become). How can a mere lecturer (senior or otherwise) have such absolute power in an educational system, where the people are expected to ensure that student progress is made? Aren’t universities solely in the business of education and research? Shouldn’t politics be left to the politicians?

Unfortunately, I have not seen Auckland conduct itself as a world-ranked university, contrary to the way it markets its image. Is it a learning institution or one established to simply employ people?