Prof Carey Denholm: Person of Interest
Carey Denholm features prominently in some of the reports we've got here at the UTAS Blog. Given that the Blog started life as a vehicle for Postgrad discussions this is not unusual.
In this entry we want to highlight two "incidents"(?) that Denholm was personally involved in. They appear elsewhere in the blog but are buried in comments and such like for the most part. They involve one student and we've emailed them to clarify these issues. This is the response.
UPDATE: We sent the following email to the Dean of the Board of Graduate Studies by Research (and several other UTAS people) more a week ago. Still no response or even acknowledgment that they received the email.
"Dear Prof Frappell and others.
1. Prof Carey Denholm: Personal Bias, It sure looks like it.
If you're naive enough to get to the third level of complaints at UTAS, you're in for a big surprise. Basically, your complaint has dwindled or been whittled more like, to "Personal Bias on the part of the Complaint Investigator". Well, it just so happened that this student thought that they had a reasonable case on these grounds. Obviously it was rejected out of hand.
What do you think of these documented circumstances?
The student initially gave Carey Denholm a list of 12 (twelve) complaints against their PhD Supervisor taken straight from the Rule Book. So, for example, a complaint might read "1) My supervisor did not notify me that he was going to be absent (ie on holiday) prior to and during the submission of my thesis without informing me as is required by RHD Handbook Rule X.YZ".
The student did not provide any evidence of this as they fully expected the Dean of the BGSR Carey Denholm to discuss the complaints and allegations with the student.
Carey Denholm aka Dean of the Board of Graduate Studies by Research did not discuss with the student any of their 12 complaints. The student tells us that Denholm took the two A4 sheets of complaints and the next the student heard was that all the complaints had been dismissed.
In marked contrast, documents we have obtained show that Carey Denholm spent nearly two hours with the student's supervisor discussing the allegations and then gave the supervisor a week to "produce" evidence to support his position. We're sure the irony of the word "produce" won't escape many people.
Is it biased for the investigator Prof Carey Denholm to spend so much time discussing the allegations with the supervisor and none at all with the student? We think so. UTAS doesn't.
2. Carey Denholm: Offer of a degree and scholarship withdrawn after further complaint proceedings.
In this section we'll detail how Prof Carey Denholm offered the "wronged" student a Masters Degree but when the student took the advice of the Secretary of the BGSR to say "not accepted/not declined" Carey Denholm subsequently refused to allow the student to take a Masters degree.
We have since obtained the hard copy of this. Carey Denholm advised the BGSR to offer the student a Masters degree and a 9 month scholarship. The students took the advice of the Secretary of the BGSR to not accept this offer. The suggestion was that by accepting the lesser degree the student would be acknowledging their thesis was of that standard. BTW, when we say secretary we're not talking about a blonde with a perm and fingernails, this one had a PhD.
The student wrote back to the BGSR to say they would like to not accept or decline this offer. It seems they wanted to see how their complaints went at higher level. Well, the complaints went nowhere, and so did the legal action after more than $8000. (Why don't lawyers know the law? $8000+ to say you can't sue your supervisor because of his poor supervision?). When asked the University of Tasmania said they would not offer any degree to the student.
They hadn't withdrawn the offer...
In this entry we want to highlight two "incidents"(?) that Denholm was personally involved in. They appear elsewhere in the blog but are buried in comments and such like for the most part. They involve one student and we've emailed them to clarify these issues. This is the response.
UPDATE: We sent the following email to the Dean of the Board of Graduate Studies by Research (and several other UTAS people) more a week ago. Still no response or even acknowledgment that they received the email.
"Dear Prof Frappell and others.
We run the Utas Blog (http://utas.ws) and lately have been very interested in the performance of the Board of Graduate Studies by Research when Prof Carey Denholm was Dean.
One of our main "contributors" has sent us information detailing their complaints and interactions with the Board and Prof Denholm. It seems to be pretty damning stuff, but there are always at least two sides to a report. If you would like to make any comment we can publish it or whatever part you would like published verbatim, although we reserve the right to comment.
Also, we're moving out of Tasmania soon and are looking for some-one to run the UTAS Blog.
Best Regards
Admin (The UTAS Blog)
Best Regards
Admin (The UTAS Blog)
1. Prof Carey Denholm: Personal Bias, It sure looks like it.
If you're naive enough to get to the third level of complaints at UTAS, you're in for a big surprise. Basically, your complaint has dwindled or been whittled more like, to "Personal Bias on the part of the Complaint Investigator". Well, it just so happened that this student thought that they had a reasonable case on these grounds. Obviously it was rejected out of hand.
What do you think of these documented circumstances?
The student initially gave Carey Denholm a list of 12 (twelve) complaints against their PhD Supervisor taken straight from the Rule Book. So, for example, a complaint might read "1) My supervisor did not notify me that he was going to be absent (ie on holiday) prior to and during the submission of my thesis without informing me as is required by RHD Handbook Rule X.YZ".
The student did not provide any evidence of this as they fully expected the Dean of the BGSR Carey Denholm to discuss the complaints and allegations with the student.
Carey Denholm aka Dean of the Board of Graduate Studies by Research did not discuss with the student any of their 12 complaints. The student tells us that Denholm took the two A4 sheets of complaints and the next the student heard was that all the complaints had been dismissed.
In marked contrast, documents we have obtained show that Carey Denholm spent nearly two hours with the student's supervisor discussing the allegations and then gave the supervisor a week to "produce" evidence to support his position. We're sure the irony of the word "produce" won't escape many people.
Is it biased for the investigator Prof Carey Denholm to spend so much time discussing the allegations with the supervisor and none at all with the student? We think so. UTAS doesn't.
2. Carey Denholm: Offer of a degree and scholarship withdrawn after further complaint proceedings.
In this section we'll detail how Prof Carey Denholm offered the "wronged" student a Masters Degree but when the student took the advice of the Secretary of the BGSR to say "not accepted/not declined" Carey Denholm subsequently refused to allow the student to take a Masters degree.
We have since obtained the hard copy of this. Carey Denholm advised the BGSR to offer the student a Masters degree and a 9 month scholarship. The students took the advice of the Secretary of the BGSR to not accept this offer. The suggestion was that by accepting the lesser degree the student would be acknowledging their thesis was of that standard. BTW, when we say secretary we're not talking about a blonde with a perm and fingernails, this one had a PhD.
The student wrote back to the BGSR to say they would like to not accept or decline this offer. It seems they wanted to see how their complaints went at higher level. Well, the complaints went nowhere, and so did the legal action after more than $8000. (Why don't lawyers know the law? $8000+ to say you can't sue your supervisor because of his poor supervision?). When asked the University of Tasmania said they would not offer any degree to the student.
They hadn't withdrawn the offer...
Comments