Module 5, Session 3: When Things Go Wrong

[CPC Admin]

#2745

Having read the email exchange tell us what you think could have been done to avoid this problem or to rectify it now.

Remember to click “subscribe” (top right corner) to receive responses to your comments via email.

[Susan Kilonzo]

#3068

The case of Ms Julie (student), Prof. Worthy (supervisor), Prof. Clementine (Dean) and Ms. Ruby (Registrar) is quite intriguing. While this is not the procedure that my institution follows for examination process of theses, I feel that in this case was complicated by incompetence on the part of the registrar, her recklessness and poor communication on her side and that of the Dean. There are delays of over three weeks in responding to an email from the Supervisor. Copying the Dean, who is an academic supervisor, and the in-charge of the School, is not wrong (but this again depends on the examination procedures). However, I think that since the Dean is not directly communicating with the examiner, this is in order. The best course of action would just be to get the right person for the job of the Registrar; and follow the stipulated protocol.

[Christopher Odhiambo]

#3073

This is an interesting story. There are a number of things that just went wrong. One has to do with the minutes of senate. In my University that would happen because the board of examiners’ passes through a number of stages before it is approved by Senate. It is the Dean of the respective school who sends the thesis to the examiners. Two, there is problem with communication from both the registrar and the examiner. The examiner should have returned the thesis immediately she realized she was not competent to examine it instead of keeping it. At this point the only feasible remedy is to retrieve the thesis and send to the rightful examiner and explain what happened and ask him to expedite the process though the regulations allows him six weeks.

[Yakub]

#3078

1. From the onset, this was a disastrous typo-logical error by the senate recording secretary and the registrar failed to crosscheck the postal details before dispatch to the wrong individual. The registrar did not contact the examiner early enough even as KW, the supervisor, raised valid concerns with her about the deadline. She actually had to be reminded by KW of his initial email. She has the habit of late responses to such urgent issues which jeopardized the situation a lot. The truth was only revealed when the dean intervened once requested by KW amidst emails between them. The wrong examiner should have returned the thesis the moment she realized she wasn’t the expert for that discipline.

2. The situation could have been avoided by doing crosschecking of details of the examiner before dispatch. It could also have been salvaged by prompt responses to communications between the three, especially by the registrar. The wrong examiner could have declared her lack of expertise immediately she received the document.

3. Yes, the supervisor was right. Copying the Dean means he was informing his boss of the situation and ensuring this concern is known by the authorities.

4. Yes, the dean was correct. This is a student and supervisor in his school/faculty who needed to be accorded the correct academic attention. He had the authority to follow up with the registrar about the situation. Actually, without his intervention, the truth would not have been known that ‘soon’.

5. The thesis to be withdrawn from the wrong examiner and resent to the right one to examine. They could then ask the examiner to cover the shortest time possible after briefing him of the mishap. The student to be told of chances of not graduating that year.

6. Yes and No. Protocol was followed by sending the thesis to the examiner (albeit the wrong one) and was given the mandatory 6 weeks. However, the time span was increased which went against the regulations. The supervisor followed the rules by raising the issue with the relevant office first before bringing in the dean to intervene.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 1 month ago by Yakub.

[Jacinta]

#3092

The person taking minutes during the senate meeting which appointed thesis examiners transposed examiners. Therefore the student thesis was sent to the wrong examiner. The registrar should have called the thesis examiner before sending the thesis to brief her about the thesis that was to be send to her for examination and confirm the examiner’s availability. At that stage the registrar would have discovered that the thesis was being send to the wrong examiner and this would have helped to stop thesis examination delay.
The registrar also took a while to contact the external examiner on assumption that everything was going on well. This tells us that it is always good to confirm with the thesis examiner that all is well to avoid student progress delays.
The external examiner was also not very kind. It would have been fair to consult the registrar immediately and mail the thesis back to the university so that it can be sent to the right examiner.
The supervisor was correct in copying the email to the Dean because Deans are the School administrators and it is advisable that they are in the picture of what is happening in all maters concerning students.
It was very correct for the Dean to intervene because Deans are answerable to the Universities in matters concerning students.
The best course to take is to call back the thesis, talk to the correct examiner and send the thesis for examination to him. It may be good to explain to the correct examiner the urgency of the thesis extermination. However, it will be at his discretion to see how he can salvage the situation.

[Lydia]

#3128

This is a clear evidence of what human error can do to slow down the process of postgraduate studies completion process. I has happened once in my department where the thesis was mailed to the wrong examiner and the cross country transfer of the documents delayed the completion of oral thesis and therefore the final graduation was missed.

The fact that university administrators and academic professors are like ‘two universities in one’, students may find it quite stressfull when they learn that they missed a job opportunity due to some administrative delay out of their control which spiraled to a missed graduation opportunity. This error can be minimised by post graduate coordinators working closely with registrars and admin officer.

[Titus]

#3149

The key players here are Prof. Worthy, who happens to be the thesis supervisor, Ms Julie, in this case the student, Ms. Ruby who I guess the academic registrar and Prof. Clementine, who is the Dean of Faculty/School.
•There seems to be a level of carelessness and casualness in the registrar’s office, in the way thing are handled here; proof reading and correcting minutes, double checking and confirming addresses of the examiners and adherence to deadlines.
•It would have been very easy to double-check details before mailing the thesis. But the examiners was also insensitive – should have immediately sought clarification on why the thesis was sent to them yet it wasn’t in their area of expertise.
•Since the university would have to take responsibility in case the situation took a legal turn, it was right for the supervisor to copy the dean
•The intervention of the dean ensured that corrective action was taken immediately.
•Thesis need to be withdraw and sent to the right examiner. While it would look more human to request the examiner to exam within a short time to allow the student to graduate if they passed. Quality should not be compromised.
•Although it looks like protocol was followed in sending out the thesis for examination, extending the examination time was very much against the procedure.

[Shonisani]

#3202

This scenario is very interesting. Though it is a human error,you might find that the exam section send the document to the wrong external examiner. In our institution, the process that we use , we can blame the secretary who send the thesis outside. To void this mess, verification should be made by more than two or three officers. It was not correct to involve the Dean as there is a higher degree committee that can solve the problem. Dean can be informed by the committee. Protocol should be keep on adhered too. The fact is responsible officers should thoroughly check and verify the relevant examiner before send the thesis. It affect the student’s progress.

[Theodora]

#3205

– This is a case of negligence, lack of communication, poor time management and unresponsiveness at the registrar’s office.There was transposition of names of External Examiners for particular theses, as a result of negligence and not cross-checking facts before actions are taken. Because there might have been a number of names of Examiners mentioned for different theses at Senate, it was important to have confirmed with the Dean (s)/supervisor(s) before dispatching them. This was not done, so Ms Julie Workalot’s thesis landed in the hands of the wrong Examiner. There was also lack of responsiveness and communication in the Registrar’s office. It takes forever before emails are responded to and acted upon. The Registrar should have been in touch with the Examiner as soon as she realised it was past the due date but she waited for more than six weeks before getting in touch with the Examiner. The Examiner, realising he was the wrong person to examine the thesis, also did not contact or return the thesis to the university.

– The registrar should have confirmed the name of External Examiner with the the Dean or supervisor. If the registrar had been more responsive to the emails, the mistake could have been rectified earlier. The External Examiner, knowing that he lacked the competency to examine the thesis, should have taken the initiative to contact the University to let them know in good time.

Yes, the supervisor was correct to have copied the Dean because the Dean is the Academic Head of the Faculty and must be made aware of issues like this.

– Yes, the Dean’s intervention was right because it is in his place to do that as the head of the Faculty.

What is the best course of action to follow now?
– he thesis will have to be recalled and given to the right Examiner. They could consider explaining what happened to him and negotiating with him to complete his work earlier than the norm. The student should be made aware about what happened and let her know that she is not likely to graduate as she was hoping.

Has protocol been adhered to?
-Protocol has been adhered to. All necessary processes were complied with but for the delays and mistake that occurred.

[Charles O]

#3222

What went wrong in the processes?
The senate secretariat made an error or wrote wrong minutes. The minutes were not confirmed by relevant personnel subject to final approval. The registrar did not follow through very well to confirm the minutes. In the end the whole process broke down to the detriment of the student. I don’t think the registrar is serious

How could this situation have been avoided?
Proper measures should be put in place to ensure that such unnoticeable errors with significant negative impacts can be avoided. Whoever is in charge taking minutes during senate meetings should be held to account…I suggest the “registrar”. Before the minutes are circulated, often the chair of the senate or whoever was chairing the senate meetings should go through the minutes before approval…the registrar messed up

Was the supervisor correct in copying the Dean of the Faculty?
Yes. The dean is the administrative head of the faculty. He has a right to know issues affecting smooth operations of the faculty such as the current PG mess. He has a higher authority than the supervisor and therefore can “bulldoze” for things to work i.e. he forced the registrar to finally respond and follow on the examination. The supervisor was not making any headway. The dean is part of quality management and processes

Was the Dean correct in intervening on behalf of the supervisor?
Yes. He is the faculty and administrative head of the faculty. the supervisor was not making progress with the registrar.

What is the best course of action to follow now?
Apologize to the student. Explain the mistake that was made “human is to err”. Restart the process again. The best is have a department or a center in charge of PG studies. This can assist in reducing such mistakes and accountability can be ensured

Has protocol been adhered to?
YES. The mistake was just the error in minutes taken during the senate meeting

[George Mark Onyango]

#3224

As universities grow in size so do the numbers of students. This causes complexities in management of examination processes. The decentralisation of issues such as dispatch of thesis to examiners to the School/Faculty level would reduce such errors caused by the Registrar. The School/Faculty would identify such anomalies as what occurred in this case and make corrections. Remember the Registrar is an administrator and may not know the examiners being proposed by the Faculty.

So when we find that Protocol is followed but lends itself to error then they need to be reviewed.

[Paul]

#3228

Protocol must be observed but sleeping on the job should not be condoned.

Borrowing from Module 4 session 2 ….if as a supervisor I have the laxity to propose examiners, check on their availability and get their consent before engaging them, then what is wrong if I follow-up later to know whether they got the thesis?

I once experienced the wrath of a Professor (external examiner) who swore not to return a thesis of a student I co-supervised citing the case of her own student who was delayed by an examiner from the same university asking for her services. I followed up and got the examiner replaced before it was too late.

[Lucas]

#3235

This is a very interesting story but a situation that must be avoided at all costs. The cause of the problem was probably poor record keeping at the RR’s office. Why on earth would a University Registrar who is trained and qualified mail a thesis to a wrong examiner? Assuming the student had two examiners, one also wonders who between the two forwarded the thesis to RR. Our practice is that once supervisors are satisfied and the thesis is duly signed by both, it remains the responsibility of the student to send the thesis to the School of Graduate Studies from where it gets mailed to the examiners.

The RR delayed in responding to the supervisor’s request. A simple phone call to the “wrong” examiner early enough could have saved the situation. I think copying the Dean of the Faculty was in order, but I hope the HoD was also part of the communication. The reason why I consider it important the the Dean be copied is that s/he is the admitting and graduating officer of the university as the custodian of all the academic programs in the School/Faculty. However, I have my reservations regarding the Dean’s intervention because it caused more delays in the chain. I have witnessed a similar but worse scenario whereby the delay is caused by the “correct” examiner. In such a situation, we have often pleaded with our HoD to make a quick follow-up and if this failed to work within a reasonable time frame, we would ask for the thesis to be withdrawn and sent to another examiner to enable the student to graduate.

The above notwithstanding, the role of the RR is to maintain accurate student records. For the same office to handle postgraduate matters was probably a tall order. How I wish the concerned university had a separate office (i.e.Postgraduate Office) to handle such matters. Such an office would simply copy the RR regarding what has been done. It is difficult to judge whether protocol was breached. This depends on the laid down procedures in the university. As indicated earlier, this problem was probably caused by an error either at Senate level or in the office of the RR.

[Kefa S]

#3237

What went wrong in the processes?
There was a serious communication mix-up and some officials failed to do their job!
How could this situation have been avoided?
The mix-up of names of examiners should have been avoided through confirmation of the Senate proceedings/minutes by the Senate secretariat and the relevant departmental leadership.
Was the supervisor correct in copying the Dean of the Faculty?
Depending on the SOPs of the concerned institution, this could be judged appropriate or inappropriate! However, on account of the tail end of the case, the supervisor was correct as blame cannot be laid on him/her! The Dean was fully informed of what was going on!
Was the Dean correct in intervening on behalf of the supervisor?
Certainly!
What is the best course of action to follow now?
Corrective measures must be taken, blame appropriately apportioned, and a way forward decided for the benefit of the student!
Has protocol been adhered to?
Absolutely not! Very unfortunate!

[Rox]

#3239

Thanks for illustrating this (common?) story in such an eloquent manner.
In my opinion, the failure was procedural and started in the most basic operation of labeling and checking the names and address of the professors.
I identify that the procedural failure was exacerbated by the negletance of the register office, which did not follow up on time with the thesis examiner about his delay response. On that note, I wonder whether the supervisor has authority to connect directly with the examiner while they are reviewing the thesis. I understood that examiners are recommended by the supervisors. Am I right?
Now, the question is what to do. I would try to find an examiner in extraordinary time and provide all the conditions (additional payments, follow-up, and all what it is needed) to guarantte that the thesis be examined on-time before graduation.

[Author]

Posts