UT Appeal Letter
Bill Clark
University of Texas at Austin. It describes my postion best:
BC
___________
April 28, 2002
Teresa A. Sullivan, Ph.D
Graduate Dean
Main Building 101
Mail Code G0400
Austin TX 78712-1191
Dear Dean Sullivan,
As I have mentioned in previous communications with your office, the
material which I submitted for review by the Aerospace Engineering
Department last December was incomplete material assembled in haste
(my oral exam was only two weeks away). I have done a lot more
organizing since then and have complied the material in seven formal
papers. I was expecting the review Committee to give me an
opportunity to meet with them and to discuss my research; they did not
do so, thus I am providing the materials to you. The Committee gave a
cursory review to two of the projects in their response to my appeal:
Optimizing the Earth to Mars Trajectory
The Inverse Problem of Celestial Mechanics
I have already noted in a previous letter that their evaluation of the
first paper was superficial and I believe inadequate. The second
paper is the third paper in a series of four papers and, since they
did not have the other three papers except in draft form, I allege
that their evaluation thereof was also done in haste, and in error
(and very likely in anger, as I shall show). The complete sequence of
these papers (which I submitted a week ago to Dr. Ward Cheney at UT
as a project in his Numerical Analysis class) is as follows:
The Invariant Plane
The Regularized Ten Body Problem
The Inverse Problem of Celestial Mechanics
The Gravity Ellipsoid
I presented a preliminary version of the "Inverse Problem" in Dr.
Victor Szebehely's Theory of Orbits graduate class in the Spring of
1997 (the entire grade for this class was based on this project; I
received an A). Another paper was originally a part of my Masters
Thesis project. I presented the trajectory optimization paper and
this paper in a formal seminar in the Department in November of 2000.
The second paper is called
The Restricted Four Body Problem
Other than the project for Dr. Szebehely's class, none of these
projects have been used in any other of my classes when I was in
graduate school. I have presented all of this work to my advisors
and other members of the orbital mechanics groups over the last four
years; the first comments I received on any of this material at any
time (other than a few cursory questions at the seminar I gave) was as
the rebuttal to my appeal by the Department released a few weeks ago.
I also completed two Masters Reports which I have provided on the
enclosed diskette in PDF format (the illustrations are available on
request):
An Orbital Mechanics Primer (primer.pdf)
Mission: Mars ~ optimization methods (primer2.pdf)
I also have provided on this diskette a copy of a proposal I wrote in
the summer of 1999 on creating a model of the semiconductor junction
diode; which I submitted to Dr. Abusali and Dr. Kwong; and which I
also mentioned to Dean Streetman since that is his specialty. I never
heard back from any of them. This file is on the diskette also:
A Solid State Physics Primer (ssphysics.pdf)
I also completed a project to create a computer simulation that could
be used to design buildings on Mars. The following file describes the
program (which I have been offering free with my textbook from
McGraw-Hill, "Retrofitting for Energy Conservation") in the context of
performing an energy audit of buildings on Earth:
Building Design Studio 2.0 (loads.pdf)
The inputs can be easily configured to simulate the high winds, thin
atmosphere, and weak solar insulation on Mars. I re-wrote the program
as a full windows application, and made further improvements. This
was to be the main part of a project I conceived with Dr. Fowler to
create a set of building design standards for future Mars habitations.
(I am a licensed Professional Engineer qualified to seal drawings in
mechanical, hvac, electrical, plumbing, energy conservation design,
and software design). I have in fact communicated on several
occasions with Dr. Dolling about teaching a class on energy
conservation, using my own book as the class textbook. He encouraged
me. Once the computer program was completed, nobody showed any
interest. Not even Dr. Kahn, an Architect, was interested - this is a
fantastic tool for architects, without equal on the market, because it
is extremely easy to learn and use but does all the rigorous
engineering calculations. I couldn't find anybody in the Civil
Engineering Department who was the least bit interested either. This
is very much at odds with the great popularity of the program with
visitors to my web site and experts in the construction industry. You
can download the full program from the web here:
http://www.inviticus.com/barx/loads.exe
I have provided all this information to you to show that (1) I have
done my part in the 40 hours of supervised graduate research classes I
have signed up for; (2) I have completed several projects that should
have sufficed for a Masters Report (the two Aerospace primers); (3) I
have completed a project worthy of a Master's Thesis (the optimization
program); (4) I have completed a project worthy of a Ph.D
dissertation, the energy analysis program. All of this work has been
unequivocally rejected by everybody.
The Department, in their letter dismissing me from Graduate School,
stated that I had not shown adequate progress in the program -
presumably because of all the research hours I had signed up for, and
for which they claim I had nothing to show. I rebut this using the
above information, along with the additional (and for the most part
completely different) information I provided to the Department last
December for evaluation. I have done what is expected of me: I've
researched projects, talked about them with my advisors and professors
and, with their blessing, set out to do the work itself. I have
prepared proposals stating my progress and specifying a body of
evidence to support further research in each area, and submitted these
documents in writing and in person at a formal seminar. I have done
my job diligently and efficiently but the Department has not responded
in kind. My work has not been evaluated, as I should rightfully have
expected from my advisors and as a part of the formal graduate
research classes I signed up for; and it is wrong for the Department
to allege that I am the one at fault.
I have also provided three documents that will describe the events
that have transpired relative to this research of mine, and my
constant attempts over the last four years to get comments, criticism,
and guidance from various members of the Department. The first is a
statement submitted in October 2001 to the UT Ombudsman and the Office
of Students with Disabilities. The second is a formal statement to
the Dean of Students requesting an investigation of my situation as
discrimination based on disability. The third is another statement to
the Dean of Students on my situation. I believe all the referenced
documents are already a part of my appeal. I provide these to show
that I have tried very hard - first personally with all the noted
individuals; then in writing up the chain of command; and so forth.
The Department claims that I was being a bad graduate student in all
of this. They claim my research is not good and that my having caused
so much trouble to them via administrative channels is bad and
unjustified.
I have in the last three years gradually placed all of my research on
the web and started to solicit comments from the scientific community
at large. I have already submitted some comments I have received from
experts all over the world, indicating that my work has potential and
exhorting me to continue. These and other laudatory comments are the
reason I have continued in my research, and persisted in trying to get
some help from the people who owe me the help because of the
student/advisor relationship and because of the 40 hours of supervised
graduate research classes I have signed up for. I don't like causing
people grief; but feel obliged to ensure that my research gets a
proper review.
I have attached recent letters of acceptance from major conferences of
all my papers. I have submitted the complete series of four papers on
Celestial Mechanics, and they were accepted at the Friedman
International Seminar on Gravitation and Cosmology and also at the
Young Scientists Conference (the latter have seen only abstracts).
The papers on the optimization of the Earth to Mars Trajectory were
submitted in full to the Space 2002 Conference and have been accepted.
I submitted these three letters of acceptance, and others, to Dr.
Hull as part of my appeal. They were rejected by him and the
Committee.
I have also attached a list of the fourteen formal copyrights (several
more have been applied for) awarded by the U.S. Copyright Office.
This shows the papers have at least a nominal level of technical
acceptability.
These conference papers are additional substantiation that my research
is at least of interest to other scientists, and merits consideration
in a formal setting. I believe the Department is wrong to reject it
outright. Granted, professors have the right to expect their students
to conduct research in their own areas of expertise. However, Dr.
Fowler did his own Ph.D dissertation on a trajectory optimization
problem; Dr. Ocampo taught a class in trajectory optimization in the
Spring of 2002; Dr. Hull is an expert in optimization and optimal
controls. I have developed a project that has the potential of doing
good things in this field; I did so with the expectation that at least
one of these experts would support my research - indeed, most did (as
Dr. Ocampo, Dr. Fowler, Dr. Schutz, and Dr. Lightsey were on my oral
exam committee - and, by default, they would have been on my
dissertation committee). They cannot say that I have not been
diligent in estimating their interests and tailoring my research
activities to jive with their own favorite fields. The unwritten
rule is that graduate students are expected to submit to the interests
of their advisor in matters of research; this should imply that,
having done so, the student is owed an honest evaluation of his
research in this area of specialization and, having not received thus,
is correct to thereafter seek administrative mediation. I think the
University should not be asking me what I did wrong; but asking the
Aerospace Engineering Department why they have not fulfilled their
part of the contract.
If the University is to dismiss me from Graduate School, I am at least
owed a complete and thorough analysis of all the research presented
herein, and as part of my earlier appeal. I have paid over $15,000 in
tuition and fees for supervised graduate research classes. I have
gotten nothing in return. Either the University helps me further this
research or it gives me my money back; and deducts the 40 hours of
unfulfilled supervised graduate research courses from my academic
transcript. Otherwise, the University cannot in good conscience
dismiss me until they have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that my
research is not only unqualified; but - since I have not even been
accepted into candidacy yet - the University must prove beyond any
scientific doubt that none of the projects I have heretofore described
or submitted for review have any potential of being developed into an
acceptable research project for a dissertation, now or at any time in
the future. The University has not done this, and I assert that they
must do so before this appeal can be turned down.
Then there is the issue of discrimination based upon disability. I
have presented substantial evidence to the Dean of Students showing
that my dismissal from the Aerospace Engineering program happened
immediately after they became aware of my disability. Although the
U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights in Dallas, when
appraised in detail of my situation, wanted to prosecute my case as
one of retribution resulting from my letter to ABET. The cases are
related, because I wrote the letter to ABET as a result of negligence
and neglect; whatever the case, the Department has given no reasonable
explanation for the original dismissal in the first place. Until that
is done, the whole process is moot. That is, why would an advisor
quit on a student who has made years of progress on a dissertation
project in his own area of expertise? Why would several other
professors with similar interest also refuse to be this student's
advisor? They cannot say they do so because the research is not
valid, because these same professors sponsored a department seminar in
which the research was presented. The only logical explanation for
their not wanting to be my advisor is because they do not like me;
which cannot be supported because they all agreed to be on my
dissertation committee - in writing - a week before I was dismissed
from graduate school (each person was sent a letter on Department
letterhead advising him of the date, time, and place of the oral
qualifying exam.) The only thing that happened between the scheduling
of the exam and my dismissal from graduate school was news spreading
about my letter to ABET. Immediately thereafter, Dr. Fowler's
wholehearted support of my research evaporated; and the rest is
history.
I allege that I was justified in writing to ABET and that, had the
individuals in the Department known of the circumstances preceding
this act, they would not have judged me so harshly. UT is a research
university with a national reputation. A good research project should
not be neglected because of personal reasons. A student who has good
reason to push his research should be acknowledged as having shown the
stamina and strength needed to advance the state of science; not
punished for having lost patience with a system that is not suited to
handling problems of this nature.
The University environment has change radically in the last few years.
Professors must undergo tenure review. Graduate students have a 99
hour limit on resident tuition. Thus, at the same time that
professors are forced to keep their ideas in closer confidence, their
students are rushing to get through the program. These two goals are
mutually contradictory, and I believe my situation shows this flaw in
the system clearly. The University can either brush my case under the
carpet and ignore the whole sociological problem, or face the facts
and try to remedy the situation for the benefit of professors and
graduate students alike.
Finally, I must state for the record that as a licensed Professional
Engineer many of the things done me by the Department are clearly
slanderous, disrespectful, and perhaps even a theft of services or
misrepresentation. I cannot by law, for example, allow myself to be
treated disrespectfully by a professor before others so as to give
them a bad perspective of Professional Engineers (the things done me
go WAY beyond typical classroom conduct). Such activities may be the
customary behavior of the Graduate Advisor or others; I've been an
engineer for twenty years and am qualified in most of the major areas,
by training and/or experience. I am due more than a student a year
after matriculating with a bachelor's degree - not just ethically and
morally, but legally. I have done what I did to maintain and protect
my status as a P.E. and, even allowing that Dr. Fowler and others are
P.E.'s as well; that only makes their behavior more reprehensible, and
undeserving of full professors at a University of the caliber and
reputation of UT.
I am myself a graduate of UT Austin, BSME cum laude in 1978; I was an
Engineering Scholar, and graduated with honors. I have spent a career
promoting the University by example and by statement, as the best
engineering college in the world. I regret that will no longer be the
case; in fact, again by law as a P.E., I am obliged to tell the truth
to anybody who asks me about the conditions of the engineering college
at UT. I wish the system could give me cause to say otherwise; but I
have no confidence that will happen. That is the saddest thing of
all, to see something that was once great stoop to back stabbing and
malicious behavior; much less to have such behavior sanctioned by the
entire Administration. That is more than sad; it's tragic.
Regards,
William H. Clark II, P.E.
21203 Paseo de Vaca Street
Lago Vista TX 78645
Ron Greatus
undergo? it should cover all aspects of your problem, and may be some
resolution.....
wh...@mindspring.com (Bill Clark) wrote in message news:<172871a0.0204...@posting.google.com>...
John Beaderstadt
Duane Bozarth
Bill Clark wrote:
>
> I have just submitted the following letter to the Graduate Dean at the
> University of Texas at Austin. It describes my postion best:
(<Completely> off topic posting to comp.lang.fortran corrected....)
...snipped letter that should have never been written and once written
should have been severely edited and once edited should certainly have
never been made public....
Well, Bill, if you thought you had any hope up to now, you certainly can
write it off (so to speak) now...
I am truly in sympathy with your plight, but you really do need to get
some professional help and unbiased consultation on a course of action
before sending off such a torpedo.
As an aside, having followed a small fraction of this since the initial
post, I'd venture that a great deal of the problem leading to the
current position is you've failed to pick up on the covert messages
being passed to you by the faculty for the last several years...in my
experience, a large number of hopeful candidates are not formally
dismissed owing to the fact that they "get the message" that they're not
going to get through...this comes about for multiple reasons, but a
primary one being that if the candidate realizes on his/her own the
situation there is no need for a formal dismissal and no doors are
irrevocably closed--it is then still possible for the candidate to go
somewhere else (sometimes even a different department or school at the
same university) and succeed. While certainly risky to draw conclusions
from afar, I'd say you may have failed to pick up on the message that
was intended to be clear without a formal notification...
While I suspect it is most unlikely you will be able to force
reconsideration of the decision of the graduate school at UT-Austin, I
do wish you well in the future.
(But, aside from that <please> stop posting these complaints in
c.l.f--they have nothing whatsoever to do with Fortran. However, you
want advice/help on Fortran per se, come on in...)
Christopher Browne
> Bill Clark wrote:
>>
>> I have just submitted the following letter to the Graduate Dean at the
>> University of Texas at Austin. It describes my postion best:
>
> (<Completely> off topic posting to comp.lang.fortran corrected....)
>
> ...snipped letter that should have never been written and once written
> should have been severely edited and once edited should certainly have
> never been made public....
>
> Well, Bill, if you thought you had any hope up to now, you certainly can
> write it off (so to speak) now...
>
> I am truly in sympathy with your plight, but you really do need to get
> some professional help and unbiased consultation on a course of action
> before sending off such a torpedo.
Well, well, put.
I agree that it's likely that the intent of the school was to give
"hints" that they didn't wish to have Bill continue pursuing the
doctorate, with the hope that he would bow out gracefully.
Unfortunately, advertising an appeal on the Internet is pretty much
the absolute opposite to anything "graceful." It is indeed pretty
much equivalent to firing a torpedo.
People don't generally do that in friendly waters in peacetime; they
fire torpedos as an act of war, against adversaries, with an intent of
destruction.
Schools are _very_ political places, and those that can't play within
the constraints of the subtleties aren't too likely to get past the
"It's purely about doing course work" level of the Master's degree.
Going for the Ph.D. is much more like a marriage, requiring
"courtship," where both student and advisor to some extent "court" one
another, to establish relationships surrounding research efforts,
possibly funding, and certainly the advisory role that surrounds the
Ph.D. committee.
You don't fire torpedos at a would-be spouse; does it seem likely that
sending belligerent letters to the Dean of the graduate school will
lead to a successful "courtship?"
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/unix.html
"Although Unix is more reliable, NT may become more reliable with
time" -- Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet
Introduction Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, US Navy.
Bill Clark
letters referenced in my letter of appeal. They give all the details:
Bill Clark
- - - - - -
April 7, 2002
Sherri L. Sanders, Ph.D.
Associate Dean of Students
University of Texas at Austin
Dear Dean Sanders,
Thank you for your letter of April 4, 2002. I think it would be
helpful to recount the events that have lead up to the current
situation, referencing official documents as available.
On November 2, 2000 I gave a seminar at the Aerospace Department on my
research project (see attached notice). This was to be my Masters
Thesis, and I gave copies of the formal report to Dr. Ocampo, Dr.
Broucke, and Dr. Jefferys. They all agreed to be readers and to
comment my report. I never heard from any of them. Dr. Ocampo agreed
at this time to be my advisor (it was a condition to my giving the
presentation). Dr. Broucke was my primary advisor but since he was a
Professor Emeritus, the Department made me get a second advisor. The
following spring Dr. Ocampo quit as my advisor saying - falsely - that
I had not followed his instructions to see him periodically about my
research. Quite the contrary, I had literally begged him to set up a
regular schedule or other requirements for me in early November; he
refused. Then he told Nita Pollard, the ASE Department graduate
assistant, that the reason he would no longer be my advisor was that I
had not followed his instructions (which I had asked for, but he had
refused to offer.) I complained about this bitterly to Dr. Ocampo but
to no avail.
When Dr. Ocampo quit, Dr. Fowler said he would be my advisor. The
following spring I asked on many occasions for comments on my
research to date from Dr. Fowler. He refused all my requests, telling
me in so many words to study and pass the qualifying exams first.
When I passed the written exams in the summer I again asked for his
comments on my research; he told me to pass the oral qualifying exams
first. Dr. Broucke was the same way; he said flat out that it is
Department policy for professors not to give solid advise on their
research until they pass their qualifying exams.
I was told in early October by Dr. Hull that there was no time limit
on when I had to take the oral qualifying exam. This is confirmed by
his letter of July 19, 2001. At this point I made an appointment with
the Veterans Administration Austin clinic with a therapist, for help
in coping with the stress; I told Dr. Fowler and Dr. Hull I had a
"stress disorder" and asked for some leniency in preparing for the
oral exam. (I appealed to Dr. Kahn also, telling him I was diagnosed
a severe chronic paranoid schizophrenic.) Shortly afterward Dr. Hull
had a meeting with Dr. Kahn to discuss my complaints of not being able
to get my research evaluated by anybody in the Department. A few days
later he sent me by registered mail the letter of October 15, 2001.
He implies I was not making good progress in my studies, even though I
had a 3.7 GPA and has passed all the formal course requirements for
the Ph.D and had completed most of my dissertation research (Dr.
Fowler et al had advised me to go straight for the doctorate and use
the Masters research I had already done for my Ph.D dissertation.) I
know two students in the orbital mechanics group, Harri and Andy, who
got married (to each other) last spring; both of whom took over two
years to take their oral qualifying exams. Dr. Hull imposed the
deadline on me for personal reasons, I allege. He also implies I had
been doing independent research, when in fact everything had been
suggested by Dr. Broucke; Dr. Abusali at CSR can confirm that I have
him regular updates on my research, in which he had a keen interest.
Dr. Frank Teveter had also followed my research closely for the last
few years and had offered many helpful comments.
As Dr. Hull kept the pressure on about the oral qualifying exam
deadline (at one point I tried to schedule it before the beginning of
classes in January 2002, but he said if by some chance somebody
canceled I would be dismissed from the program altogether); and even
went so far as to require me to arrange a professor to be a back up in
case another canceled out. He also implied that I had to PASS this
oral exam to remain in the program; which is unqualified, as the rules
state that a student has an automatic re-take no sooner that six
months. Eventually I took most of my formal course work and applied
for a Masters Thesis on credit hours. I had an appointment to see Dr.
Kahn - it was October 31, 2001 - the same afternoon I went to get my
MS application check with the person in the Graduate School; when I
got that done and asked to see Dr. Kahn, the secretary adamantly
refused (several times) to let me see Dr. Kahn. I told him this
later, but he would not believe me.
The problem was clearly that Dr. Hull considered the 40 hours of
graduate research I had done to imply that I was not doing my work. I
was, and the seminar and Dr. Abusali can confirm this (I exchanged
emails with him this past summer and he though that my presentation
was a dissertation defense and that I would be Dr. Clark by then). I
put all my research on the web and got some favorable comments from
experts all over the world; several agreed to be on my dissertation
committee, they were so interested in my work. I was trying to show
that I had done good work and that in fact was well ahead of the usual
progress for graduate students; not behind, as Dr. Hull insisted.
Dr. Hull and Dr. Kahn persisted, and I eventually wrote a letter to
the Ombudsman (attached), then to ABET complaining (ABET is the
accrediting authority for engineering programs). Word of this got
back to Dr. Fowler and the Department, precipitating the letter from
Dr. Fowler which Dr. Dolling told me he had put in my personnel file
prior to the letter he wrote dated December 14. I had asked for help
from Dr. Fowler on several occasions; in the fall and spring he was
very busy as national president of a major engineering society; when I
saw him in the summer and fall he begged off saying he was too busy
putting out the second edition of his textbooks on statics and
dynamics. Dr. Broucke wouldn't help either; and in fact quit as my
advisor when he found out I had not passed the written qualifying
exams. (I later did pass, after an oral re-exam in the math portion.)
The letter to ABET evidently spurred the Department to have my work
reviewed. However by that time Dr. Fowler had put his slanderous
letter in my personnel file, misrepresenting my situation; so
naturally the evaluation was negative. Dr. Dolling insisted that I
send my work in, whatever the level of organization. I did the best I
could (the oral exam was only weeks away, it was Thanksgiving,
etc...). This was used against me by the reviewing Committee both in
December and in their latest report on my appeal.
Please let me know if you require further information.
Regards,
William H. Clark, P.E.
- - - - - -
February 14, 2002
Sherri S. Sanders, Ph.D.
Associate Dean of Students
Office of the Dean of Students
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
Dear Dr. Sanders,
Thank you for your letter of February 12, 2002. I am writing to you
in order to file a formal grievance for discrimination on the basis of
disability against Dr. Terry Kahn and Dr. David Hull; among others. I
have discussed this situation with Ms. Joseph, and it seems she is not
able to help me in this matter, since it is closely associated with
the appeal I have made to my dismissal from the Aerospace graduate
program. I request that, in filing this complaint with you, it does
not imply Ms. Joseph has not done her job; the problem is that the
issues involve informal graduate policies and issues of educational
freedom, for which she cannot help.
I am the person issuing the complaint, and my disability is severe
chronic paranoid schizophrenia. Specifics are as follows. I will
describe the events in reverse order.
(1) I submitted documentation over the Christmas holiday to the
Physics Graduate Coordinator, Ms. Norma Kotz, to apply to the Physics
graduate program. This material included several letters of reference
on my research. When I found out I could appeal my dismissal from
graduate school, I asked Ms. Kotz to forward the materials she had to
the Graduate College for consideration in my appeal. She told me in
an email around January 10, 2001 that she called Dr. Kahn, and then
sent the materials to him. About ten days later I was told by Dr.
Kahn that he would not forward these materials to Dr. Hull for
consideration in my appeal. Why, then, did he have Ms. Kotz send the
documents to him in the first place? Dr. Kahn is aware of my
disability, as I told him and also Ms. Joseph told him (with my
permission). The persons whom I asked to write letters of reference
are Dr.s PAM Abusali, Anthony Bedford, Roger Broucke, and Don
Chambers; all in the UT Aerospace Department, and Dr. William Jefferys
in the UT Astronomy Department.
(2) Last fall I put all my research on the web
(http://www.inviticus.com) and emailed experts all over the world to
ask for their evaluations of my research, and for them to be on my
dissertation committee. I received many nice comments on my research,
and three or four individuals wanted to be on my dissertation
committee. I sent all these letters to Dr. Hull to be included as
part of my appeal. He said he would not consider them because I did
not also send him the original letter I had emailed to these
individuals. I did not have that letter, so I emailed all the people
back (including those whom had submitted letters of reference to the
Physics program for me in item #1) and asked them to confirm what they
had said, directly to Dr. Hull. Most of them did so, as they sent
copies to me. Dr. Hull wrote me back soon after, saying he would not
accept these letters either as part of the appeal. Dr. Hull is aware
of my disability, as of the middle of October, 2001 when I told him in
an email. The aforementioned email letters were from
P.A.M.Abusali <abu...@csr.utexas.edu> - a senior researcher at CSR
Juris Vagners <vag...@aa.washington.edu> - a professor of aerospace
engineering
Frank Tveter <f.t.t...@dnmi.no> - a researcher in astrophysics
Rick Greenberg <gree...@pirlmail.lpl.Arizona.EDU> - an expert in
celestial mechanics
Jorg Kampmann <kamp...@ibk-consult.de> - an computer expert in
optimization
Robert Tolson <rhto...@earthlink.net> - a professor in orbital
mechanics
Nicholas A Netreba <net...@ai-solutions.com> - a vendor in
optimization software
Steve Wichman <Steve....@colorado.edu> - a professor of orbital
mechanics
John R. Birge <jrb...@northwestern.edu> - dean of engineering at
Northwestern
(3) I believe both of these actions will harm my appeal to dismissal
from graduate school, especially since a major part of my case is that
those individuals in the Aerospace Department whom have reviewed (and
will review) my research are not as qualified as the above named
individuals to comment on my research.
(4) I asked to submit a paper to the regional AIAA Student conference
being held at UT Austin this April. Dr. Glen Lightsey, a professor in
the UT Aerospace Engineering department and a member of my appeal
committee appointed by Dr. Hull, refused to allow me to present a
paper at this conference. I contacted several student representatives
of the AIAA elsewhere in the US concerning this problem:
Miranda Murdock <mro...@hotmail.com>
John Jacklin <j...@cc.usu.edu>
Their response is that I am eligible to present papers at the UT
conference since I am a member of AIAA, a student at UT Austin, and
hold a MS in Aerospace Engineering. The only condition imposed by
AIAA is that I would not be eligible for a prize. Dr. Lightsey is
hurting my appeal by prohibiting me from presenting my research at
this conference.
(5) My original dismissal from graduate school (REF: a formal letter
written by Dr. Hull dated December 14, 2001) was ostensibly because my
advisor at the time, Dr. Wallace Fowler, quit as my advisor and nobody
else in the orbital mechanics group would agree to be my advisor.
Yet, a few weeks earlier every member of the orbits group agreed to be
on my oral exam committee (which by default becomes the dissertation
committee) - Dr.s Schutz, Ocampo, Lightsey, and Fowler were all issued
formal letters from the Department advising them of the time and place
of my oral exam (it was to be December 18, 2001); Dr. Mack agreed to
be a back up in case somebody could not make the scheduled exam. (Dr.
Hull required me to have this back up; since he said he would not
extend the deadline for passing the oral exam under any
circumstances.) I believe these individuals all refused to be my
advisor because Dr. Fowler told them of my disability. Dr. Fowler, in
fact, placed a condemnatory letter in my personnel file in the
Aerospace Department, partially explaining his actions and mostly
based upon false allegations.
(6) On or about October 15 I told Dr.s Fowler and Hull found out I was
disabled, and that I had an appointment to see a therapist at the
Austin VA Clinic in early December. This was the first anybody in the
Department knew of my disability. Within a few days I received a
registered letter from Dr. Hull saying he was requiring me to take the
oral qualifying exam before the spring 2002 semester. He then placed
a bar on my registration, which will be confirmed by the Aerospace
Graduate Coordinator Nita Pollard. There is no specific time limit
stated in any of the rules of the Aerospace Department on when to take
the oral exam after passing the written exams (I passed them in June
2001). I know current grad students who have taken a year; one couple
in the Ph.D. program - Hari and Andy - took over two years because
they were engaged, and then got married. Dr. Hull had no authority to
impose this false deadline upon me. I believe he did so because he
found out I was disabled.
I would appreciate any assistance you could offer in resolving these
issues.
Regards,
William H. Clark II, P.E.
- - - - - -
Office of the Ombudsman
University of Texas
Austin, Texas
To whom it may concern:
I claim neglect by the Aerospace (ASE) Department, as evidenced by the
following actions, which are in violation of the Department's own
written rules:
1. No advise on Thesis course work.
2. No advise on Research classes taken in conjunction with Thesis
courses - the Department guidelines say to take these research classes
to do extra research associated with the Thesis.
3. Students are instructed to write their name and advisor's name on a
3x5 card and tape this to their desk so their desk is not reassigned
at the beginning of a semester. Dr. Bishop re-assigned my desk, which
was properly labeled, twice - the second time he had the desk, with
the label still on it, removed to the main 4th floor hallway.
4. There is no limitation how long students can take to take the oral
qualifying exam after passing the written qualifying exam. My
Graduate Advisor, Dr. Hull, is making me take this oral exam before
the beginning of classes in the spring semester. There are current
grad students who have taken over a year; I know one student who took
over two years. If Dr. Hull is claiming that there is a new limit on
taking oral exams, then it doesn't apply to me anyway because I
entered the program under the same catalog by which the aforementioned
students were granted over a year's time.
5. When I asked for additional time to get some of my research
evaluated so I would know exactly who to ask to be on my dissertation
committee, Dr. Hull placed a bar on my registering for the spring
semester. This puts my financial aid and scholarships in jeopardy, as
I will not be registered when they make their determination over the
holidays.
6. When I asked for an extra week beyond his deadline because I was
having trouble coordinating the schedules of the professors for the
exam, Dr. Hull told me to schedule it sooner in case one of the
professors had a last minute deadline; he implied that if I was not
successful in making the arrangements I would be out of the program.
7. I am discouraged from giving a presentation in November at a
mathematics conference in North Carolina on some of my research. This
is not considered grounds for having the deadline extended on taking
the oral qualifying exam. Whereas the aforementioned grad student was
given over two years to take this exam because she was romantically
involved and got married.
I have complained about all of the above to Dr. Terry Kahn and others
at the Graduate College. They have discussed the situation with Dr.
Hull and evidently support his position in all of this.
When I met with Dr. Hull three weeks ago, particularly to talk about
the problems I had with my previous advisor, Dr. Roger Broucke, in
getting my research evaluated, Dr. Hull said I was the one to blame
because:
1. I should have told Dr. Hull I was having problems with Dr. Broucke;
I did tell him, on many occasions. At one point, when I was a staff
columnist on the Daily Texan last fall, I went on a "sick out" -
boycotting classes that whole semester until somebody evaluated my
research. During this period I complained to Dr.s Hull and Dolling,
the Graduate College, the Dean of Engineering, the President of the
University, and even Dr. Klein on the Board of Regents. Nobody ever
took any action. It wasn't until a brand new professor, Dr. Ocampo,
in the Department asked me to do a formal presentation of my research
at a Department seminar last November, that I went off of this
boycott. Evidently Dr. Ocampo was informed of the "party line" over
the holidays, however. Whereas after the seminar he was anxious to be
my advisor and to read the draft Thesis I had written on what I had
said at that seminar; when I went to him the following spring, he said
he no longer wanted to be my advisor. This, despite the fact that his
specialty is trajectory optimization - exactly what all my research is
about. (you can find about half the research I have done on the web
at http://www.inviticus.com)
2. I should have complained to the Department Graduate Studies
Committee; I did complain on many occasions to Dr. Dolling the Chair
of our Department and head of the GSC. At no point did either Dr.
Hull or Dr. Dolling tell me I could, or should, go directly to the GSC
for resolution of the problems I was having. I did not even know it
existed for such things.
3. I should have found a new research project, because obviously my
advisors were not interested in my work and I was wrong to expect them
to critique or help me. That is not correct; I did just what Dr.
Broucke told me to do, and kept him informed of my progress until he
retired this past summer and said he would have no more graduate
students. Similarly, Dr. Fowler my new advisor said he liked me work
- he should, it's a direct extension of his own dissertation on
interplanetary trajectories.
4. I should have gotten the message, and stopped trying to get people
in the department interested in my work because it is obviously
flawed. That is not correct either because I have had several papers
accepted at conferences, many good comments from people around the
country in industry and research; several of these people have agreed
to be on my dissertation committee to help me further this research.
They would not do this if they though my work completely invalid. Nor
would the ASE Department itself have arranged for me to present my
research at a formal seminar last November.
I can think of a few possible reasons why all this may have happened:
1. ASE Department policy is to help students on research only after
they pass their qualifying exams. Apparently even my Thesis research
was beyond the normal level of research work in this field; thus they
could offer no comments.
2. If my research is beyond the normal level of Thesis work, so they
cannot say it's any good because they would get into trouble for
allowing a graduate student to do unsupervised research, which is
against Department policy.
3. The 99 hour rule works great to motivate students to complete
graduate school quickly, but there are no incentives for professors to
participate in this process. Graduate students are in the fast lane,
while professors are still in the old system.
4. I have managed to optimize one of the most complex non-linear
problems without using any traditional optimization methods; so not
even Dr. Hull, whose specialty is nonlinear optimization, will show an
interest in my work. Whereas I have three national experts in
optimization asking to be on my dissertation committee, one of whom is
the Dean of Engineering at Northwestern.
5. My work also competes with another standard method in orbital
mechanics, called the "genetic algorithm" approach. This is favored
by most people in orbital mechanics, and they resist any new methods.
6. It is well known that all the professors in the Department hate Dr.
Broucke, and so they hate me because I have been his student. I might
even go so far as to say this hatred was transferred to me after Dr.
Broucke retired two years ago. Coincidentally Dr. Broucke is
disabled, as am I.
7. Dr. Broucke was the last expert in Celestial Mechanics at the
University; I was his last graduate student. Orbital mechanics people
don't much like CM, because it has the potential of outdating accepted
methods as told in items #4 and #5 above. CM is to aerospace like the
IRS is to business; they don't like having us around.
I have no idea if any or all of the above notions are correct. I just
know that I have done what is expected of me in the Research and
Thesis classes I have signed up for, and that the Department has done
bad things to me because I have been assertive in asking them to carry
out their end of the deal. In particular, I think the idea of barring
from registration a student who is in otherwise good standing (I have
passed all the courses required for a Ph.D with a GPA of 3.7, and I
passed my written qualifying exams this past summer) is unethical and
unprofessional if not illegal. To claim that I am not a good student
or that I have nothing to show for all the Reseach and Thesis classes
I have signed up for is not supported by the facts. To use this
premise as reason to force me to take the oral qualifying exam before
I am ready and prepared is not right either.
Clark
news:m3k7r4p...@chvatal.cbbrowne.com...
Taking anything *negative* outside of the department is gonna hurt.
Continuing that action outside the school is demonstration of poor judgement
to the point of disqualification for further work toward a Ph.D. About the
best that Bill could do now is formally apologize to the department and
university, withdraw all protests, make notable progress in treatment for
his illness, and then ask to re-apply for admission at UT or perhaps apply
to another school.
Mike Speegle
news:172871a0.02041...@posting.google.com...
I'm sorry, but I seemed to have missed something. When did this
group get changed to alt.schizo.support.group ???
Bill, you said goodby in another thread and yet you continue.
What do you think the community of sci.space.history can do or cares
to do to help you? Oh, never mind.
<plonk>
--
Mike
________________________________________________________
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often. Ski hard.
Spend *lots* of money. Then leave as quickly as you can.
Jim Patterson
"Mike Speegle" <mikes...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:a9q9pj$5f0an$1...@ID-130573.news.dfncis.de...
Some trolls are better at getting people to keep feeding them than other
trolls.
--
Jim Patterson
Kelly McDonald
wrote:
>I have just submitted the following letter to the Graduate Dean at the
>University of Texas at Austin. It describes my postion best:
>
<big honking snip>
Why exactly are you posting all of this here?? Are you looking for our
support?? Trying to make UT look bad?? Trying to convince us to
intervene?? I'm quite confused as to the point of airing all your
dirty laundry.
I know you havn't gained any support from me. By all the evidence you
have provided you have convinced me that you are your own worst enemy.
Kelly McDonald
Andrew C. Lindgren
After following these series of posts, it is clear that you should cut your
losses with UT and move on. This may be very difficult to do, because you
feel that you have put a lot of time, work, effort, and part of yourself
into your graduate studies. If the complaints you are making are authentic
( they may or may not be, I have no way to objectively evaluate the
situation, because I have not heard every side of the story), then you
probably do not want to go back to UT even if UT accepts you back with open
arms. My advice to you is to step back for a moment and evaluate your
priorities and the options that are available to you now. What are you
trying to accomplish with your letters and these posts? Are you pursuiting
the most prudent course of actions to meet these goals? Are you current
actions helping the situation or should you try something else? These
questions are rhetorical in nature, and you should try to answer them to
yourself.
If you work is good and you think you have what it takes to get a PhD, then
apply to a different school and start over. Consider your time at UT as a
learning experience and attempt to see the positive in what you did there.
Also, you are wiser now and know what to avoid and watch out for.
Andy
"Bill Clark" <wh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:172871a0.0204...@posting.google.com...
Stuf4
> losses with UT and move on. This may be very difficult to do, because you
> feel that you have put a lot of time, work, effort, and part of yourself
> into your graduate studies. If the complaints you are making are authentic
> ( they may or may not be, I have no way to objectively evaluate the
> situation, because I have not heard every side of the story), then you
> probably do not want to go back to UT even if UT accepts you back with open
> arms. My advice to you is to step back for a moment and evaluate your
> priorities and the options that are available to you now. What are you
> trying to accomplish with your letters and these posts? Are you pursuiting
> the most prudent course of actions to meet these goals? Are you current
> actions helping the situation or should you try something else? These
> questions are rhetorical in nature, and you should try to answer them to
> yourself.
> If you work is good and you think you have what it takes to get a PhD, then
> apply to a different school and start over. Consider your time at UT as a
> learning experience and attempt to see the positive in what you did there.
> Also, you are wiser now and know what to avoid and watch out for.
>
> Andy
I wholeheartedly concur with Andy's advice. I wish you the best, Bill.
~ CT