I was expelled “because you did not take the qualifying exams after your first year in graduate school.” As you read this, think of all the time and interviews. Nobody took five minutes to look at my official transcript? I started grad school with a 20-year-old BS in mechanical engineering. The rules say you take the qualifying exam ONE YEAR AFTER GETTING A MASTER’S DEGREE IN THAT DISCIPLINE. I will address every allegation in this letter in another post.,
—
—
December 9, 2002
CONFIDENTIAL
VIA U.S. MAIL & CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. William Howard Clark
21203 Paseo de Vaca Street
Lago Vista, Texas 78645
Dear Mr. Clark:
I write to inform you of my decision regarding your appeal of the decision of Dr. Teresa A. Sullivan to sustain your termination from the graduate program in Aerospace Engineering (cf. her letter of September 25, 2002, to you). I have reviewed and considered the record, including the original record of the proceedings of your case; the materials and information that you provided to
Dr. Sullivan in your appeal to her; Dr. Sullivan’s letter of September 25, 2002, to you; your e-mail message of September 28, 2002, appealing to me Dr. Sullivan’s decision; Dr. Charles A. Roeckle’s letter of September 30, 2002, to you; and your letter of October 2, 2002, to Dr. Roeckle in which you further appeal Dr. Sullivan’s decision.
In your appeal of September 28, 2002, you make two salient points. My response follows each of the points enumerated below.
- You are appealing your dismissal from graduate school “as well as all eight counts ofmy grievance·for discrimination based upon my disability.”
Your complaints that you were discriminated against on the basis of your disability have been investigated carefully by both the Office of the Dean of Students and the University’s Equal Opportunity Services Office.
Neither office found that discrimination had occurred and your appeal to me offers no new evidence to support your claims.
- Dr. Teresa Sullivan, who was Vice President and Dean of Graduate Studies at the time of your appeal to the Graduate School, was prejudiced in her decisions, and was “a party to my discrimination grievance along with Dr. Terry Kahn.” You conclude that both Dr. Sullivan and Associate
Dean Kahn should have removed themselves from involvement in your appeal. – ·-·
As I have indicated, appropriate investigations found no evidence of discrimination in your case. Dr. Sullivan acted in her proper authority to review and decide the case of your Dismissal from the doctoral program in Aerospace Engineering. Professor Kahn was acting within his proper duties as Associate Dean of Graduate Studies in ensuring that the appropriate processes were followed for your academic grievance and your appeal.
In your appeal of October 2, 2002, you make the following salient points. My response follows each of the points enumerated below.
- The faculty in the Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics do not have the background or interest necessary to supervise research in your area of interest, viz. celestial mechanics.
The Graduate Studies Committee of the Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics is comprised of faculty who are all experienced and accomplished researchers. Dr. Sullivan’s letter of September 25, 2002, to you, discusses specifically the credentials of faculty members who sat on one of the panels that was formed to evaluate your work. She cites not only their general qualifications and eminence in Aerospace Engineering, but she also discusses the recognition that two members of the panel have earned in the field of celestial mechanics. I find no reason to believe that members of the departmental Graduate Studies Committee in general and members of the two faculty panels that reviewed your work in particular were not fully qualified to judge the work of a graduate student in Aerospace Engineering.
- You did not take the required written examination for your program in Summer, 2000, because a severe eye infection in the preceding spring interfered with your ability to study. You also state that when you cancelled the written examination that summer you were told “it was not a “
You provide no documentation to support your statement that you were too ill to study or take the qualifying examination. Neither do you provide evidence that you were informed, “it was not a problem.” The record indicates merely that you were scheduled to take your qualifying examination in June, 2000, but decided not to do so approximately two weeks before the examination date.
- There is no departmental policy about when written examinations must be
The departmental website (www.ae.utexas.edu/asecurrent students) contains the following statement regarding the Ph.D. written qualifying examination: “The Written Qualifying Exam is given once a year in June. If you begin in the fall, you should take the exam during your first year.” Although you began the graduate program in Aerospace Engineering in Fall, 1997, you did not take the written qualifying examination until June, 2001. You failed the mathematics portion when you initially took the examination but passed that section upon reexamination.
- You were pursuing a Ph.D. without seeking a master’s degree and, therefore, the departmental policy concerning when a student should take the Ph.D. written qualifying examination did not pertain to you.
The Graduate Catalog for 1997-99, which was in effect when you began graduate study in the Aerospace Engineering program, contains the following statement regarding the Doctor of Philosophy degree.
The PhD program consists of coursework, qualifying examinations, and the dissertation. Students who have master’s degrees must complete at least twenty-four hours of coursework; those who enter the �graduate program with bachelor’s degrees must complete at least forty-eight hours of coursework.
To be admitted to candidacy for the Doctor of Philosophy degree, the student must pass both a written and an oral examination. The written examination is general in nature and covers subject matter studied through the first year of graduate work. The oral examination is in the student’s specialty area and is conducted by a committee of faculty members whose interests are in that area.
Students may not take courses on the credit/no credit basis until they have passed the written qualifying examination.
The catalog does not state when the written qualifying examination should be taken. However, that information is given on the departmental website as cited and discussed above. The website does not distinguish between students pursuing the Ph.D. without a master’s degree and students pursuing the Ph.D. with a master’s degree. There is no reason why the departmental expectation for you should have deviated from normal practice indicated on the departmental website.
- There is no formal policy about when a student must take the D. oral qualifying examination and you were “told in writing in October, 2002, there was no deadline at all.11
The website for the Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics does contain the following statement: “After you pass the Written Qualifying Exam, you should plan to take the Oral Qualifying Exam near the beginning of the fall semester.11 The departmental expectation is clear, viz., a student who passes the written qualifying examination in June should take the oral examination near the beginning of the following fall semester.
You provide no documentation to support your statement that you were informed in writing that there was no deadline. The record shows that you took the written qualifying examination in June, 2001, three years after the date normally expected for a student who began the doctoral program in Aerospace Engineering in Fall, 1998. Your oral examination was scheduled for December, 2001, i.e., more than three months later than the normally expected date for an Aerospace Engineering doctoral student who took his written qualifying examination in June, 2001.
- You were never informed that you were behind schedule or inadequate in your studies or other aspects of your program.
During your first year in the program, your research adviser consistently indicated to you that your work was not satisfactory. You reveal this in an e-mail message that you sent near the beginning of your second semester (Spring, 1999) to Dr. David G. Hull, Graduate Adviser and Chair of the Graduate Studies Committee for Aerospace Engineering. In that message, you comment about Dr. Roger A. Broucke, Professor Emeritus, Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, who served at the time as your research adviser.
. . . I have done much work already. In each case, I discussed my ideas with Dr. Broucke, and advised him of my progress, only to have it rejected when I presented my work. (I have copies of all the emails he sent to me.) I have written two complete 3D simulations of the earth-mars trajectory, following Dr. Broucke’s instructions exactly – when there was a little bug in the first he had me start all over; same with the second.
The record also shows a pattern of your resistance to meet and interact with faculty in situations in which you could be advised and apprised of your progress.
- In an e-mail message of September 28, 2000, you wrote to David S. Dolling, Chair, Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics:
“I’m on a ‘Sick Out’ as they say – I’m not going into WRW [W.R. Woolrich Laboratories, where the Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics is located] any more.”
- On May 19, 2001, you wrote to Student Judicial Services a letter that contains the following passa
- “Last fall when I was getting no feedback on my research from professors and staff in the Aerospace Engineering Department I told the ASE Chair that I was boycotting all my classes until such time as I got the feedback I was paying for, having registered for thesis and research classes.”
- ” … I will go to the UT Campus exactly five times for the remainder of my academic career. Three times this summer to take my written qualifying exams, once for the oral exam in the Fall or Spring, and once for my dissertation defense.
- “I will take no classes as I had hoped to do, nor will I audit any classes as is my right.”
- In response to your request for a departmental review of your research, Dolling convened a review panel to evaluate a sample of your research. You were given the freedom to submit a paper of your choice. (Cf. the letter of November 14, 2001, from Dr. Hull and Dr. Dolling to you.) The panel reviewed the sample and a meeting was scheduled for December 11, 2001, for you to discuss the results with Dr. Dolling and Dr. Hull. You failed to appear at the meeting. (Cf. the letter of November 14, 2001, from Dr. Hull and Dr. Dolling to you.)
- You were “roughly parallel with other students who were in the graduate “
You do not provide evidence to support your assertion.
- You delayed (“took so long to take”) your qualifying examinations because your research adviser, Dr. Roger A. Broucke, “was retired, of failing health, and I wanted to do the research under him while he was still in the Department.11
You provide no explanation of how or why Dr. Broucke’s circumstances affected your ability to take the qualifying examinations. You were notified by Dr. David Hull as early as February, 1999, that Dr. Broucke had announced his retirement as of June, 1999. You chose to retain Dr. Broucke as your research adviser and he continued to serve in that capacity after his retirement. He informed you in July, 2001, that he would no longer serve as your adviser and that you would need to find someone else to advise you. In October, 2001, Dr. Hull notified you that Dr. Wallace T. Fowler, the Paul D. and Betty Robertson Meek Centennial Professor in Engineering and a Distinguished Teaching Professor, had agreed to be your adviser.
- You cite your website and assert that the papers posted there show that your research “is quality research, and that my time has been well spent in the program, given the infirmity of my advisor Dr. Broucke and the antagonism of the Department.11
Self-assessment of your own work does not substantiate the quality of that work. In November, 2001, responding to a request from you to have your work evaluated, Dr. Dolling appointed a review panel comprised of members of the Graduate Studies Committee of the Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics. The panel, which formally evaluated the paper of your choice (viz., “Mars Pathfinder”), included:
Dr. Bob E. Schutz, Joe J. King Chair in Engineering and FSX Professor of Space Applications and Exploration, Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics
Dr. Byron D. Tapley, Clare Cockrell Williams Centennial Chair in Engineering, Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics
Dr. Cesar Ocampo, Assistant Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics
The review panel found your work unsatisfactory. For example, in discussing your work concerning the optimization of Earth to Mars trajectories, one reviewer states that your work “is not valid nor useful to the field.” And the report concludes that your documentation “is full of ambiguous and disconnected statements.
As indicated above, you were invited to meet with Dr. Dolling and Dr. Hull on December 11, 2001, to discuss the results of this review panel’s evaluation but you failed to attend the scheduled meeting.
To address your formal grievance following your dismissal from the doctoral program, an ad hoc panel was formed from members of the Graduate Studies Committee of the Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics. This panel, which was asked to review your work, consisted of:
Dr. Bob E. Schutz, Joe J. King Chair in Engineering and FSX Professor of Space Applications and Exploration, Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics (Panel Chair)
Dr. Philip Verghese, Stanley P. Finch Centennial Professor in Engineering, Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics
Dr. Glenn Lightsey, Assistant Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics
Dr. Cesar Ocampo, Assistant Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics
The ad hoc panel’s conclusions were communicated to you in a letter of March 19, 2002, from Dr. Bob E. Schutz, who chaired the panel. That letter includes this assessment.
… Not only do you present erroneous claims in your research materials, you do not treat the subject with seriousness or respect by presenting the necessary evidence required to substantiate your claims. In this regard, you do not show the most fundamental understanding of the·scientific method which would be expected of a responsible researcher. Your research claims are at best frivolous and without substance. At their worst, they are irresponsible and orthogonal to academic standards for research.
- As your adviser, Broucke failed to assess your work.
Your appeal offers no substantiation for your assertion that Dr. Broucke failed to be a responsible research adviser. On the contrary, and as indicated above, you complained to the departmental chair that Dr. Broucke evaluated your work as unsatisfactory. I also note that you chose to retain Dr. Broucke as your research adviser for over two years after you were informed of his retirement, and that in September, 2000, you wrote to Dr. Dolling the statement, “I’ll just do what Dr. Broucke asks, and study for the exams and be a good graduate student.”
- David G. Hull, your Graduate Advisor and Chair of the Graduate Studies Committee of the Department of Aerospace Engineering, and Dr. David S. Dolling, Chair, Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, failed to inform you that a student could appeal to the Graduate Studies Committee “intractable situations like mine.”
Your appeal does not make clear the “intractable situations” to which you refer. When you sought to appeal your dismissal from the doctoral program in Aerospace Engineering, you were given information about the appropriate appeal process by both the Office of Graduate Studies and the Office of the President.
- The faculty failed to inform you of their opinion that your research did not meet the standards of D. study.
I have addressed this matter in items nos. 6, 9, and 10.
- A formal presentation in November, 2000 demonstrated the value of your research.
As she indicates in her decision concerning your appeal, Dr. Sullivan found nothing more than polite comments from outside researchers. She also notes that one faculty member of the Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics sought to speak to you in private after the event because he believed that your presentation had serious problems and he did not want to embarrass you by questioning you in public. You provide no evidence to refute her statements.
- Mechanics The Department of Aerospace� Engineering and Engineering took retaliatory measures against you.
You provide no evidence to substantiate your allegation.
You do cite the decision of Dr. Fowler to resign as your advisor, after you sent a letter of complaint to the Accreditation Board for Engineering. However, in his letter of December 21, 2001, Dr. Fowler informs you of his decision to resign, explaining his reasons. There is no evidence that he took action to retaliate. I note further that Dr. Fowler’s letter was written several days after Dr.
Dolling wrote to inform you that you had been d1sm1ssed from the doctoral program.
- Associate Dean Terry Kahn withdrew his support from you when he learned of the nature of your disability.
You provide no evidence to justify this allegation. The Office of the Dean of Students and the Equal Opportunity Services Office both investigated your formal complaints about disability-related discrimination. Neither office found discrimination in your case.
- The review panel formed in November, 2001, by Dolling to evaluate your work did not take sufficient time for the evaluation and, therefore, the ensuing decision to dismiss you from the graduate program was precipitous.
There is no evidence to substantiate your assertion. The faculty on the evaluation panel were all experienced researchers. Their assessment of your research sample makes clear that they saw no value in your work or methods (cf. item no. 9, above). Receiving the evaluation from the panel, the department had no reason to delay its decision about your status in the program.
- You came to campus on December 17, 2001 [sic], prepared to take your oral examination and were shocked to learn that you had been dismissed from the doctoral program.
You acknowledge that you were informed of the meeting of December 11, 2001, with Dr. Hull and Dr. Dolling to discuss the conclusions of the review panel that had evaluated your work. Your excuse for failing to attend that meeting, which was of obvious importance for your academic Career. Your excuse was not persuasive. “I was at that time extremely busy studying for the qualifying exam.”) Dr. Hull and Dr. Dolling did subsequently write to inform you that you were dismissed from the Aerospace Engineering graduate program and that your oral examination scheduled for December 18, 2001, had been cancelled. (Cf. the letter of December 14, 2001, from Dr. Hull and Dr. Dolling to you.)
- Hull refused to read an abstract of a research paper by you dealing with trajectory optimization.
You provide no evidence to support this allegation.
- The faculty of the Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics will not provide you with letters of recommendation to enter another program.
In your appeal, you make the following statement.
I have applied for several engineering jobs in the area, using various professors from the Department as references. I have not even been asked in for an interview. It is therefore clear that I would have no chance of getting the references I require to be admitted to another program.
You offer no proof that your failure to be called for an interview is a consequence of faculty recommendations. Moreover, a faculty member is not compelled to provide recommendations.
- If the department uses any part of your research as part of the qualifications for candidacy, then that policy must be applied to all students in the department.
The department has the responsibility for determining whether a student is meeting the standards for continuance in the graduate program. In your case, the department made its decision to dismiss you based upon the work that you chose to provide for evaluation.
- In order for the department to say that you are unqualified to undertake research at the Ph.D. level, it must address your work “in various engineering fields” in which you have had training and supervision.
In your appeal, you make the assertion: “Clearly I am an expert in the field.” However, you provide no substantiating evidence beyond merely stating that you have had works published. Doctoral research must be at a high level in a specific field and not “various” fields. A panel of experienced faculty members reviewed a paper that you chose to submit in your field of interest. As indicated above, the panel found both your work and methods unsatisfactory.
- In order for the department to disqualify you, it must show “irrefutable proof’ that you received supervision and feedback commensurate with the supervised hours of research for which you registered.
As indicated above (cf. items nos. 6 and 9), you took steps to deprive yourself of interaction with the faculty.
- You were fully supported in your research by Broucke until he resigned as your adviser.
In the nineteenth paragraph of your appeal, you state that:
Yet I was fully supported in my research by Dr. Broucke until he quit as my advisor in the Summer of 2001.
This contradicts what you state in the sixth paragraph of your appeal:
I was outspoken in trying to get my research evaluated. Dr. Broucke was just as stubborn in not doing so, saying that it is Department policy not to give students any solid feedback on their research until they pass their qualifying exams because they are afraid they will leave the University and use the feedback for projects at another university.
- You “got along with” the other professors in the
In your appeal, you respond to a comment of Dr. Sullivan by stating: As for my not getting along with the other professors in the Department, that does not jive [sic] with the facts either: they all agreed to be on my oral exam committee didn’t they (I also had agreements from Dr. Jefferys and Dr. Hans Mark and Dr. Bishop).
I note that in the fifth paragraph of your appeal, however, you cite what you perceive as “the antagonism of the Department.”
Mr. William Howard Clark December 9, 2002
Page 12
The record indicates that your dismissal from the doctoral program was based upon the level of your work as evaluated by qualified faculty and the subsequent faculty decision that you are not prepared to meet the standards of doctoral research in undertaking a dissertation.
Having completed my review of the record, I conclude that the relevant University procedures and policies were appropriately applied in your case. I find nothing in your appeal to justify altering the decision of Dr. Sullivan. Her decision to uphold your dismissal from the doctoral program in Aerospace Engineering will stand.
You are dismissed from the doctoral program as indicated in the letter of December 14, 2001, from Dr. Hull and Dr. Dolling to you.
Sincerely,
cc: Dr. Victoria Rodriguez, Interim Dean of Graduate Studies
