It is with
regret that I inform the reader that I had a long dispute while I was a medical
student the University of Sheffield. However to go through the dispute it is
very important that the reader understands a few basics. All of this has come
out in several courts and/or my GMC hearing and/or was in a previous copy of
www.examfraud.co.uk – I have
now just put the evidence up as PDFs!
This website
is lengthy- it has to be. I make no apology for its length. Several people have
called this a horrific story. I very much hope that all student unions can use
this case study to campaign for the unconditional return of exam papers. If
ever an academic institution says that there is no need just point them to this.
I hope that this website ensures that the UEB examination is available for undergraduate
medical students forever. The UEB examination must be set and marked by the
UEB’s own examiners as opposed to University examiners. What would have
happened if I had sat the UEB at Sheffield? If this website ensures that the
UEB examination is open for undergraduate students forever and it is set and
marked by the UEB’s own examiners as opposed to University examiners then
the entire trauma I went through at Sheffield University will have been worthwhile.
I also strongly believe that if a student feels he/she cannot get justice from
his/her own university then there should be some mechanism like the UEB exam
for them.
"This
raises some important issues about the conduct of university examinations and
courses."
Richard Allan MP for Sheffield Hallam
“This
raises very grave concerns about the issues of freedom of speech and a student’s
right to freedom of expression.”
Richard
Price Solicitor
"I
honestly don't understand the attitude that you have received from the medical
school. To me every single thing you describe is terrible and when you add it
all up, I am so impressed that you are still pursuing your goal. “Medical
student
"The
behaviour of the university staff/ medical school are unquestionably irresponsible,
egocentric, and unacceptable." Another student
"I
think what happened to you was a terrible injustice." Medical Student
"I
think there is a lot in there which is potentially very damaging to the reputation
of the University." Student
"Ridiculous
doesn't even come close to describing the way this whole thing has been handled.
I reckon people need their heads reading at your college! All they've done is
drawn even more attention to a subject that had they just passed over and ignored,
wouldn't have generated as much hype as it will do now." Another student.
Qualification
A UK trained doctor can qualify through one of two routes. A university qualification
(MBBS) or a UEB qualification run by The
Society of Apothecaries. At which point the doctor is given provisional
registration with the General Medical Council.
The doctor is termed a Pre Registration House Officer (PRHO) or a Junior House
Officer (JHO)
The UEB exam
However the UEB is has a reputation of being more difficult. Most people who
take the UEB are qualified doctors from abroad. Most do a one year training
course in preparation. Even then they take several attempts to pass. It is harder
than the PLAB exam. PLAB is an exam taken by foreign graduates if they wish
to work in the United Kingdom. A few years ago, 200 UK medical graduates to
took the PLAB. Only two passed. One of my friends has passed PLAB and passed
a postgraduate exam with a 30% pass rate and took four attempts to pass the
UEB. I hold the UEB.
Registration
After a doctor qualifies he/she is required to do a one year house year. Usually
six months in general medicine and six months in surgery. After completing these
satisfactorily the doctor is granted full registration with the General Medical
Council.
The
Postgraduate Dean's Role
The role of the Post Graduate Dean is to supervise the PRHO year of newly qualified
doctors. He does this by receiving reports from the Educational Supervisors
of the PRHO for each post. If these are submitted and the PRHO has completed
the appropriate balance of experience laid down by the GMC, usually 6 months
each in medicine and surgery, the PG dean then signs the Certificate of Experience
and sends it to the degree awarding body, normally a medical school but in Varma's
case the UEB for counter signature.
The dean pays the PRHO's salary. However in return the hospital is expected
to train the doctor. The dean is ultimately responsible for the doctor's training
and disciplinary issues.
| |
 |
Different
for UEB graduates
The process for UEB graduates is slightly different in that the United Examining
Board is not able to establish approved posts for PRHOs and relies on its graduates
filling spare appointments. This often means that they are not in the area of
the medical schools to which they have been attached. As the PG Dean is concerned
only with the PRHO year, this has never proved to be a difficulty in the past.
Indeed on several occasions, the availability of jobs has forced UEB graduates
to take two PRHO appointments with different supervising PG deans and this has
also presented no problem in the signing of the Certificate of Experience.
The
role of the GMC
The GMC has been repeatedly
criticized for not being fair as the following show.
In 2003 it was reported that the
GMC was tougher on foreign doctors' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2757243.stm)
In 1994 His Honour Lord
Justice Charles Harris QC a high court judge called the GMC
a totalitarian regime. It is less surprising that Dame Janet Smith’s
5th report to the Shipman
Inquiry regarding the GMC is so damning. (The most important parts are the
conclusions of chapters 17-25.)
Most
recently the GMC came under criticism in Cardiology news in an article by Peter
Wilmshurst
The following is the basis for a
complaint against Mr. Page- the Undergraduate dean of the University of Sheffield
medical school. I have every confidence that nothing will happen to Mr. Page.
I am of non white background and to my mind the GMC does not take such complaints
seriously. Mr. Page is white and I can tell you that for each time a non white
doctor gets sanctioned by the GMC I can give you details of a white doctor who
does worse and gets away with it. Most importantly Mr. Page will be on very
good terms with Professor Weetman- the dean of faculty at Sheffield medical
school. Weetman is on the GMC.
Mr. Page knowingly and deliberately
gave a false/selective statement to a GMC disciplinary panel and affirmed that
this statement was true. He knew that I had been referred to the GMC on the
allegation of a fraudulent entry to the UEB exam in 2001. He knew that Professor
Catto- now GMC president said that there were no grounds for the GMC to get
involved. Yet he failed to declare it.
There is a GMC regulation
on this shown
here. These regulations state “You must do your best to make sure
that any documents you write or sign are not false or misleading. This means
that you must take reasonable steps to verify the information in the documents,
and that you must not deliberately leave out relevant information.If you are
asked to give evidence or act as a witness in litigation or formal inquiries,
you must be honest in all your spoken and written statements. You must make
clear the limits of your knowledge or competence.
The reader will of course note from
the information below that the Page's statement and testimony are somewhat selective,
in that they only identify failures, wherever anything positive has been allowed,
it is either ignored or undermined. It is clear from the manner in which these
papers have been put together that there has been no consistency of treatment
of documents. The reader will note that, for example, on one-hand Page talks
about the forms for entry to the UEB exam and produced them. On the other hand
Mr. Page failed to declare certain information and it is only through my own
foresight that I obtained it myself.
It is therefore the case
that Mr. Page and the other witnesses conferred the GMC’s panel into an
adversarial tribunal. It is the role of that panel to simply consider the case,
and to make a decision. It is not the role of the panel to hear evidence from
Mr. Page and others which is selective and adversarial. Yet Mr. Page has made
clear that his view is that I should be erased from the medical register. That
is not a view that he is permitted to take. The GMC made a decision that in
view of the alleged misconduct that I should be referred to a panel. That is,
with respect, as far as they should in fact take the matter. They should then
provide all the relevant information to that panel. For example Mr. Page failed
to declare correspondence between Professor Weetman- then dean of Sheffield
university medical school and Professor Catto.
The position is clear: all
these documents are relevant. Page should have disclosed all of them. It is
also noteworthy that Mr. Page failed to place before the panel a letter from
Dr Rao Punukullo, Consultant Psychiatrist. A copy of that letter is attached
to this submission. The panel are directed to Dr Rao Punukullo’s remarks,
which assert that “It appears to me that some people do not want him to
carry on his medical studies.” Of course Mr. Page could not have had certain
documents such as my notes of meetings with the UEB but he should have declared
all that the university had.
Is
Mr. Page- the undergraduate dean of the University of Sheffield School of medicine
who made accusations against me a reliable person?
On 23 October
1997 I went to see him with both Mrs. Varma and Dr Varma.
During the course of that meeting Mrs. Varma raised the issue of Dr Peters (the
undergraduate tutor in psychiatry) flouting the university policy of anonymous
marking.
Mr. Page
admitted that he knew that Dr Peters – the course tutor in psychiatry
was openly flouting it.
One week
later on 30/10/97 Mr. Page wrote
to Richard Allan MP saying that the medical school adhered to the system.
I understand that knowingly misleading an MP is a very serious matter.
Later on
you will see how Mr. Page gave a false, misleading statement to the General
Medical Council about me and then affirmed/swore on oath that his statement
was true. When I applied to Sheffield University the prospectus never said that
the University may manipulate evidence and procedures to ensure you fail exams
and force you to have to take your exams externally. Nor did the prospectus
say that after doing that the university may try and have that qualification
removed. Nor did the prospectus say that the university authorities may knowingly
and deliberately give false information about you to external bodies. Worse
still at no stage did the prospectus say that the dean may lie on oath about
you.
Can
the University of Sheffield give reliable evidence?
In the case
of Blumsohn vs. University of Sheffield at the Sheffield Employment Tribunal
a race relations questionnaire was submitted. It is my understanding from an
email from Dr Blumsohn to Richard Price (solicitor) that they lied on the response.
It is my understanding from this email that one direct question was whether
there had ever been any allegations of racism against Professor Weetman- the
dean of the medical faculty (the medical faculty consists of the schools of
medicine, dentistry, nursing and midwifery.)
I understand
that the response was that there hadn’t. They also said that they didn’t
keep records.
Mr. Richard
Price, then of Howells solicitors Sheffield and now of Richard Price and Company
(ceased trading) made allegations of racism against Weetman and gave a letter
saying this. When his letter was accepted by the court the University settled
and Blumsohn was subject to a gagging order.
Recently
the University has issued a letter
saying that they do keep records.
To understand
the current dispute with the respondent we must go back to the days of University.
Documents/events
detailing the seriousness of the dispute
I had a
long dispute at Sheffield University.
It all started
when one of my lecturers Dr Steve Peters, the undergraduate course in psychiatry
tried to persuade me to leave the medical course. Although I can’t prove
it he told me that there were too many of my sort in the medical profession.
He told me to go back to where I came from or become a taxi driver. He also
told me that no matter what I did he would make sure that I never graduated
from Sheffield University (30 June 1996 at 11am). Given what is about to follow
on the balance of probability I am right.
To show
the severity of the dispute consider the following documents.
2
February 1998 the letter from the Commission for Racial Equality to me“(Mr.
Page, Undergraduate dean) states that the medical school does not monitor failure
rates but seems to have a belief, (possibly divine) that their procedures are
free and fair from racial bias.” At the heart of the scandal was Dr Peters
from the Department of Psychiatry who with impunity flouted the university policy
on anonymous marking. He used to openly say “it is a silly system.”
11
May 1998 “It appears to me that some people do not want him to carry
on his medical studies.” Dr Rao consultant. It was partly on the basis
of this letter that an examination decision was overturned even with anonymous
marking. However I only managed to do this because I had managed to get hold
of information that usually only the university had hold of. Students normally
didn’t have this information.
2
July 1998 the then Registrar and Secretary sent a memo to all departments
saying "A recent case has highlighted the danger to the University's reputation
of dealing with personal matters on university headed note-paper.”May
I ask you to remind all staff in your department that the University's name
and headed note paper may only be used for bona fide University related business
and not for personal matters. Under no circumstances may staff use The University's
name or notepaper for personal business. To do so can potentially expose the
university to damaging legal claims and adverse publicity. This must be because
Professor Mortimer – the external examiner for psychiatry falsely accused
me of being a drug taker on the basis of my exam papers.
During this
time I made representations to the Commission for Racial Equality over the university’s
unfair marking practices- in particular the medical school. After some time
using the evidence I gave to the CRE- evidence they said was “extremely
good” the university backed down and agreed to monitor failure rates by
ethnic origin. There was an article in the Sheffield Star and two in the Steel
Press (Student Union newspaper). It would have been obvious who the person behind
it was.
In September
1998 there was one incident that VC Roberts (the Vice Chancellor) and Mr. Page
will be only too aware of. Hence it would be erroneous if VC Roberts said that
he didn’t know who I was.
There was
a meeting of Senate and VC Roberts proposed a motion to scrap the postgraduate
appeals process and replace it with one similar to the undergraduate procedure.
The difference between the procedures is as follows.
Under the
UG appeals procedure you can only appeal on the grounds of mitigating circumstances
and procedural irregularity. Under the postgraduate procedure you can appeal
on: Mitigating circumstances; procedural irregularity; lack of supervision or
teaching and negligence and misconduct on the part of the examiner.
With the
PG procedure you get the automatic right to a hearing, you get to see your papers,
you get to see your papers, the departmental and external examiner comment.
With the UG process the dean decides. In the PG process a committee of 3 members
decides.
It is my limited understanding
– and I am probably wrong on this- is that Ms. Caroline Hadfield, then
Student Union Education and Representation sabbatical stood up before the senate
and said words to the effect of: “There had recently been a case in the
medical school where an undergraduate student appealed under the process that
the VC is proposing and lost. The student then went to a Faculty Student Review
Committee- a procedure very similar to the postgraduate appeals process- and
had a decision overturned on the grounds of bias. In this case a project was
failed and the same one was published.”
The VC’s
motion was rejected. VC Roberts was very embarrassed according to Ms. Hadfield.
He must have known which case Ms. Hadfield referred to.
Instead
the undergraduate procedure was brought partly in line with the postgraduate
procedure save for the fact that undergraduates could not appeal of the grounds
of lack of supervision/teaching or negligence and misconduct on the part of
the examiner and that the student did not get to see the exam scripts.
In
November 1998 I wrote to the University to ask for copies of my exam papers
back. I asked for a copy of the minutes of the review hearings. I also said
that in September 1997 I took an exam in psychiatry. The external examiner Professor
Mortimer wrote, in her letter of 26/9/97 to Dr. Peters “His examination
answers and the reports about him suggest that he is a very real possibility
that he is developing a mental illness of some kind. Of course one is always
concerned about substance abuse in young people these days. She made these comments
without assessing me in any way and that I have medical evidence to prove otherwise
and am willing to undergo further medical tests to prove otherwise. I said that
my solicitor had arranged for a prominent academic psychiatrist to mark the
paper at my own expense. This person had been made aware of the University of
Sheffield Department of psychiatry’s marking guidelines, criteria and
objectives. This examiner has considerable experience of teaching and examining
medical students and postgraduates.
They replied
saying that “It is not the University's policy to circulate the minutes
of the Student Review Committee to the student.” I got them in July 1999.
They replied
saying “You have also requested copies of both the question and answer
papers from your re-sit examinations as your solicitor has arranged for a prominent
academic psychiatrist to mark the papers at your own expense. I must refer you
to Professor Sharp's letter to yourself dated 31st March 1998, which stated
that "in order to pass the examination you have to fulfil and meet the
criteria set by this University. The external examiner is made fully aware of
the objectives a student has to achieve in order to pass and an independent
opinion would not be fully aware of the University's specific objectives.”
19
July 1999 “This does raise some important issues about the conduct
of University examinations and courses.” Richard Allan MP for Sheffield
Hallam- then of the House of Commons Select Committee of Education and Employment.
On 30
July 1999 Student BMJ asked me to write an article on why I thought students
should have their papers back once marked in July 1999. Once I submitted it
they decided to get someone to write an article why students should not have
their papers back once marked. They asked Professor Weetman- the dean of faculty.
On finding
out that I wrote the proposing article he demanded to see my article before
writing his. Why? All will be revealed when you read Mr. Richard Price’s
letter of 27 April 2001 and you will see why.
On 15
September 1999 I got an email saying “I am disturbed to find that
you know who your examiner is to be (for the final year project). For reasons
that I know I do not need to explain to you this is supposed to be anonymously
marked.” Dr Carole Angel- then level five co-ordinator who was made aware
of the problems in psychiatry in March 1999. The notes are self explanatory.
However
the biggest admission was in September 2005.
The Steel
Press the student union newspaper was going to run a story on me regarding falsification
of exam results. However after asking the University press office for a comment
this is an email that they sent: “I'm really sorry but the steel press
can't run that story I wrote. Everyone at the steel press has been talking about
it and it has gotten around to the (vice) chancellor who has said if we print
the story he will shut the steel press down.”
More will
be revealed with the letters from Mr. Richard Price. It was his letter of 27/4/01
that was the basis of the article
However
we now go to May 2000. Click here to see the photo of the envelope of razor
blades that arrived on the morning of my university finals.
In June
2000 I was told that I had “failed” my university finals. However,
as will be seen later, even that is doubtful.
The reader
will no doubt appreciate the letter of 22
June 2000 from the UEB showing that the UEB exam tests 10 subjects. (Laboratory
medicine tests pathology, immunology, and medical microbiology.)
The
meeting with Mr. Page 29 June 2000
After some
correspondence Mr. Page’s secretary made an appointment on 29
June 2000.
Page said
that he couldn’t sign me up to sit the UEB again as there was a review
panel coming up and that could result in exclusion from my parent university.
He said that they had a copy of the UEB regulations and as such he could not
sign the form until the Faculty Student Review Committee had met in August and
determined whether I should be allowed to stay on my course or not.
Meeting
with the UEB registrar 10 July 2000
I then met
with the UEB registrar on 10 July 2000.
Firstly
we went over the papers. He told me that I did well on the Short Answer questions.
In face on some of the obstetrics and psychiatry questions I got full marks.
The problem was the multiple choice section of the exam.
I told him
of Professor Pearson’s advice about MCQs in anatomy. That is to find N+1
questions that are definitely correct and to abstain the rest. (N= number of
questions/2). He said that was fine for anatomy but in clinical medicine every
candidate would have an error rate of around 10-15%- even a professor. In medical
exams they have negative marking
Get it right
+1 mark
Get it wrong – 1 mark
Abstain 0 marks!
My error
rate was 12%- lower than average and then using the computer breakdown he said
that at public health I got the highest MCQ mark- 31 correct and 5 incorrect.
Then after calculations he said that I failed the MCQ not because of lack of
knowledge but because I didn’t answer enough questions.
He advised
that next time I answer 230-240 questions. I then discussed the forthcoming
student review hearing with him.
I asked
what happened if I was excluded. He said that the issue with me was somewhat
different. At the time of 1st sitting I had not been excluded and therefore
accepted by the board. Technically after taking the exam first time the only
criteria you would need to fulfil would be to have some remedial training signed
up, you could technically be excluded from your own university.
He then
told me of the Cambridge medical student who did the undergraduate training
from Cambridge and failed the exam. He then went to another medical school,
did some training there, was signed up and sat the exam.
This is
reflected by the fact that in the certificate for re-entry no mention is made
about exclusion from the student’s own university. For a subsequent attempt
the certificate for 1st entry does not have to be filled as the UEB already
have that information on file. He went onto say that there are doctors who failed
their university exams but passed the UEB.
The University
made allegations that I had behaved improperly during an attachment at Barnsley
Hospital. I had an attachment with Dr Rhoden and Dr Saeed. A post had become
available and I wrote to Saeed if he would consider me for the post.
The
letter of 12 July 2000 from Barnsley Hospital
On 12
July 2000 I got a letter from Dr Saeed saying that he would be happy to
consider me for that post. Hence there was no issue at Barnsley otherwise Dr
Saeed would have said that he would not consider me for the post.
The
UEB letter of 28 July 2000
I then got
a letter from the UEB with regards to exclusion and the letter of 28
July 2000. It says that to date all UK undergraduate medical students who
have sat the examination have been fully registered with their parent university
at the time of examination. If such a student were excluded then the board would
have to make a decision and a dean’s signature would be required. An authorized
officer can sign a form but the authorized officer would have to have the dean’s
authorization to sign the form.
I then had
the trauma of the build up and the hearing of the Faculty Student Review Committee
of 2 August 2000. Dr Angel’s report (see later) was very selective and
the University chose a date when they knew that Mr. John McSweeney from Howells
solicitors could not attend. (Dr Angel was the final year tutor)
I basically
told the University that if they excluded me I would tell the papers about Dr
Peters. They backed down.
I was re-instated
on 2 August 2000 at the review committee. What was not documented was that we
challenged the marks and demanded to see the papers. Professor Weetman then
said “we are now entering an area of discussion that has recently caused
considerable public discussion.” He then looked at me; I knew then that
we had won. It was clear he didn’t want the senate to find out about Dr.
Peters. If a review panel excludes you then you can appeal to the Senate.
The
mock UEB exam
I then went
to London to St. George’s hospital medical school to sit the mock UEB
exam. I only did it for practice. I knew I would never pass because of the worry
about a review committee on 2 August 2000. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone-
apart from Weetman, Peters, Page and certain others.
Phone
call to Mr. Page’s secretary
On 3
August 2000 I phoned Mr. Page’s secretary and asked if Mr. Page could
sign the form for entry to the September 2000 exam.
I returned
to Sheffield on 5 August to find the form in the post. It clearly could not
be used for a September 2000 entry. The period of referred study on the form
ended in November 2000. Mr. Page signed a form saying this candidate will attend
for remedial study between 14 August and November 2000. I phoned Mr. Page’s
secretary on 7 August 2000. She made
an appointment for Thursday 10 August 2000.
However
as will be seen later you don’t need the support of the medical school
for a repeat attempt. You just have to have the training certified. The official
words are satisfactory evidence. For a re-sit attempt the remedial training
has to take place at a recognized EU medical school. It does not have to be
your own medical school Nor does the candidate need a dean’s signature.
It can be signed by an authorized officer.
Meeting
with Mr. Page 10 August 2000
I told Page
that he had signed a form on 3 August 2000 saying that “This candidate
will attend for remedial study between August and November 2000. I said “you
can’t be signed up for what you will do. You have to be signed up for
what you have done.” I showed and read out to him the UEB letter of 13
April 2000 and gave him a copy.
He said
“I am just wondering about the dates of your referred study.”
I then said
that the UEB letter referred to the revision for my finals I.e. between April
and June 2000. I made it clear that the 3RD August form could not be used for
the September exam as the period of referred study ended in November. I told
him that this form could only be used for an April 2001 sitting.
He signed
another form. I reminded him of our previous meeting of 29 June 2000 when he
said that he could not certify the form for 2nd entry because of a forthcoming
student review and his concern about exclusion.
I showed
him the form and said that the clause for exclusion applied for 1st entry. Once
you have taken the exam first time the only criterion that needs to be fulfilled
is that you have some remedial training done and that does not have to be at
your own medical school. Technically you could still be excluded from your own
university exams after sitting the exam 1st time but you could technically sit
the UEB exam again although the UEB would have the final decision. I then told
him of the Cambridge student. He said “but that hasn’t happened.”
With regards to the dates of examination he said “you can fill those in
yourself.” Is Mr. Page saying that he goes round signing blank forms?
The
UCL medical student
On 12
August 2000 an article came out in the British Medical Journal about a student
who cheated in her final exams and got away with it. This PDF shows the article,
a list of all those who graduated and proof that the student concerned went
onto full registration with the GMC.
Re-registration
On 14
August 2000 I re-registered with Sheffield University and paid a fee of
£200 for the re-sit course. As such the University was obliged to give
me a letter confirming that I had completed the course after completion. This
document also confirms that my registration at the University ended in June
2001. As such at the time I applied for the UEB exam (3rd sitting) and took
the exam I was a fully registered student at the University of Sheffield.
One of my supervisors made an outrageous suggestion that I misled the UEB about
my university registration.
Through
the stage 2 of the UEB exam
On
28/9/00 got notification from the UEB that I had reached the clinical part
(2nd stage) of the exam. You have to reach a certain standard in the written
papers to get through. On the day of the OSCE (Objective Structured Clinical
Exam) the Registrar told us that in the April 2000 sitting that they made a
mistake with one of the results and so they would be very careful this time.
Devastating
blow
However
on 11/10/00 I was told that I failed
the UEB exam. My university exams were forthcoming I knew that no matter what
happened I would never pass them.
A letter
from the UEB was sent to Mr. Page on the same day.
At the time
all the resit students had a tutorial with Professor Bax and afterwards Dr Angel
(the final year tutor) told me that they had received a letter from the UEB.
I wrote to Mr. Page asking for a copy and it was sent to me on 27/10/00
.
Page’s
holding letter
On 9/11/00
Mr. Page wrote to the UEB with a holding letter saying that the University would
inform the UEB of my status after the November 2000 resits of the Final MBChB.
The
November 2000 emails
On 22/11/00
I phoned my Local Education Authority at Lancashire County Council and asked
if I could claim expenses for my re-sit course- the course fees and living expenses.
I was told that you can try if there are circumstances. As such I put in the
email request of 22/11/00.
Racist
slur exposed
On 24 November
2000 an article came out in the Steel Press Sheffield University Student Union
newspaper. This article, called Racist
slur exposed. It shows how a Sheffield university law lecturer made comments
deemed to be racist in a lecture theatre. My concern was that lecturers like
Ms. Wilkie would be marking students’ exam papers. Despite her offensive
comments no action was taken against her.
The
Quality Assurance Agency report
In the same
week the Quality Assurance Agency
report into Sheffield University medical school came out.
This approved
the quality of the course I was on. The relevance of this is that when I was
working as a junior doctor my postgraduate dean was trying to get my consent
to give him permission to fish around at Sheffield University. One of the reasons
was that he was concerned about the quality of the course I was on as I had
“failed” exams and so some remedial training may be needed.
My consultant
Dr Williams made an outrageous suggestion that I should do another six months
in general medicine on the grounds that my undergraduate training was inadequate
as I had only done 5 weeks training in general medicine in my final year at
Sheffield University. The undergraduate course I did had the full approval of
the Quality Assurance Agency and the General Medical Council. Dr Williams is
not a higher authority than the QAA.
The
2nd attempt at the Sheffield finals
On 27
November 2000 I was told that I had failed my 2nd attempt at my University
finals. I wasn’t expecting to pass as I knew no matter what I did I would
never pass from Sheffield.
The
29 November 2000 email
I then rang
the LEA again and they told me that such a letter would have to come from the
head of department to confirm that such a course had been completed. In their
experience universities have been known to hand out such confirmatory letters
without any such course had been attended.
I then sent
the University another email of 29 November
2000 and filled in a request form.
Mr.
Page’s letter of 30 November 2000
Mr. Page
then gave his letter of 30 November
2000. Note it says “To whom it may concern.” There clearly was
no restriction on how it could be used. I would emphasize that since I had paid
fees for a re-sit course the university was obliged to give me a letter.
The
request to the LEA
On 6/12/00
I made a request to my LEA and the request is self explanatory. I never got
a reply. Looking back now I am not surprised.
The
appeal
The solicitor
then dealing with the Sheffield matter Mr. Richard Price then of Howells solicitors
Sheffield (now of Richard Price and Company- ceased trading) appealed on my
behalf and wrote a request for feedback on 7
December 2000 . Richard is a good guy.
Meeting
with the UEB registrar 11 December 2000
I met with
the UEB registrar on 11 December 2000.
Mr. Wallington
Smith (the registrar) said that there was no point going over the written papers
as I passed them and proceeded to the clinical.
In the OSCE
I got 45/75 which he said was a “good pass.” However it was the
long case that let me down. I got 8/25. Although the cumulative mark in the
clinical was 53% the fact remains that a candidate must achieve a minimum of
10/25 in the long case.
To get to
the clinical section you must pass the written paper and achieve no less than
30% in each subject on the multiple choice questions (MCQ). To pass the MCQ
you must get 46%. However you can proceed to the clinical section with a pass
in the multiple choice and a fail in the MCQ so long as you have achieved more
then 30% in each subject on the MCQ
In other
words on the MCQ you must get at least
30% in medicine
questions
30% in paediatrics questions
30% in psychiatry questions
30% in surgery questions
30% in obstetrics and gynaecology questions
In MBBS
MCQs you only have to get 50% so the UEB is much harder.
If you get sufficient marks you proceed to the clinical.
The OSCE is 75% of the clinical and you must get a minimum of 30%.
The long case is 25% of the clinical and you must get a minimum of 10%
Breakdown
of clinical
Component
of clinical Mark achieved Minimum candidate must achieve in order to pass
Long case 8/25 10/25
OSCE 45/75 30/75
Thus the
total in the clinical was 53% so for an MBBS I would have passed. However had
I got two more marks in the long case I would have passed.
The problems
at Sheffield
I then told
the UEB registrar of the problems at Sheffield and demonstrated the evidence
over a period of an hour. He then said that some students can’t accept
that they are not suited to a career in medicine. In this case it is obvious
that “someone does not want you to pass.”
The revised
rules for the UEB state that a candidate can only be accepted in special circumstances.
The UEB had asked Page for those special circumstances. I was very confident
that Page would not tell the UEB the contents of Richard’s letters.
Form for
re-entry
I gave him
the form for re-entry together with Mr. Page’s letter of 30 November 2000.
He said that there would be no problem with this.
Status at
the medical school
He then
asked what my status within the university was. I showed him the University
registration document of 14 August 2000 and showed him that my registration
at Sheffield University expired in June 2001 and that I have not been excluded.
He then said that there would be no problem.
The following
day the university told me the date of the review panel.
University
reply
On 18
December 2000 the University replied.
Mr. Price
replied with a letter on 21
December 2000 sent by fax.
On the same
day the University replied refusing
to release the exam papers.
Ironically
the University sent a copy of Curriculum
matters to all students with I was surprised to see that Dr Peters (see
later) had been put in charge of pastoral care of medical students.
Death
star approaching – Weetman style
On 4
January 2001 the University sent me the medical school’s documents
for the review panel.
The most
important document was Dr Angel’s
report that asserted that the marks in the clinical part of the exam were
7 clear passes, 4 borderline passes, 5 borderline fails, and two clear fails.
I also enclose a copy of the external
examiner’s report.
The other important documents were the correspondence between the University
and Professor Mindham -
of the University of Leeds after an exam decision was overturned in June 1998.
Mr. Price’s
secretary phoned me on 8/1/01 and asked me to come in on 9/1/01.
Winning
the battle of Endor- Richard Price style
Mr. Price
was surprised at the selectivity of what had been submitted and a decision was
taken to lodge the formal grievance of 9
January 2001 that day.
The hearing
took place on 12 January 2001. It only lasted a few minutes. Mr. Price asked
Professor Weetman who put the medical school’s documents together. Weetman
said “The Medical School” to which Mr. Price said “Who personally?”
In response
Professor Weetman said “both myself and Catherine Davison” (Davison
being the operations manager.)
Mr. Price
then landed a bombshell “you may want to know that we had lodged a grievance
against you personally accusing you of misconduct and the way that you have
put these documents together adds to the allegation of misconduct against you.
Why have you not responded to my appeal letters? This hearing should not be
taking place because the result is in doubt as we have appealed against it.”
Professor
Smith the chair then called a recess for a few minutes. On reconvening he said
that the committee could not continue as an appeal had been left outstanding.
On that day an advert came out in the BMJ advertising 4 senior house officer
posts at the Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust. I went to medical
staffing and asked for the forms. I noticed that several of the consultants
involved were examiners who failed me in the November OSCE/ Long case.
The
CV experiment
I then applied
for these posts with two identical CVs
one had an English name, one had an Indian name. Apart from the name they were
both identical.
On 15
January 2001 the University confirmed the adjournment and on 25
January 2001 the Registrar of the University wrote to Mr. Price about the
grievance saying that it would not be dealt with at this time.
Ironically
on the day Fletcher’s letter arrived (26 January 2001) an article came
out in the Times Higher Education Supplement about the Commission for Racial
Equality Investigation into Sheffield University medical school called Minority
Medics Probe. It would therefore be most erroneous if anyone were to accuse
me of being a fantasist for falsely saying that the Times Higher was going to
run a story on me.
The
lack of personal support for students
During this
time letters of invitation for the CV experiment were sent (more on this later).
On 23 February 2001 the Steel Press ran Personal support fails students. I have
attached the article and the formal
report that was commissioned by the University
It is very
clear from this report that Sheffield University had failed to reach the standards
set in the GMC document Student
Health and Conduct.
The report-
commissioned by the University- confirmed what I found in my research year.
Rejected
appeal
The appeal
was rejected on 27 February 2001.
They said that there was no procedural error and safeguards were taken against
examiner bias. Well what do you expect? However what is about to follow shows
the flaws in the current appeals system.
Race
Row
On 23 March
2001 an article came out in the Steel Press
called Race Row and this article is self explanatory apart from Dr David
Smith got 4 interviews and Sanjay Sharma just two. Dr Sam Everington OBE is
quoted in the article as he did the original research on this matter. Here Dr
Everington comments on the level of racism in the medical profession.
Union
leaders demand anonymous marking
However
there is another article in the same edition called Union leaders demand anonymous
marking. It demonstrates that in the absence of anonymous marking a non white
student, in those days, would get around 20% fewer marks than a white candidate.
I would
point out that further research carried out by the National Union of Students
shows that in the absence of anonymous marking a non white student will get
around 12-20% fewer marks than a white candidate. Dr Graham and co thought I
was an idiot for making such assertions.
Bear in
mind that the same people who discriminated in the CV study are also examiners
and in fact in clinical exams there is no so called protection of anonymous
marking.
It must
also be remembered that while I was a house officer I was in an environment
where I was being assessed with no protection of anonymous marking. As such
if they were to claim under- performance there would be an issue of biased marking.
I do accept that there cannot be anonymous marking in this situation.
The
Catto speech
On 17 March
2001 Professor Catto- then chair of the GMC education division gave a speech
saying “there is no excuse
for rotten doctors and there is no excuse for having to wait 18 months to have
your case answered.” Catto was then dean of King’s College
medical school and is now the GMC president. In my case the GMC took almost
four years.
Death
star operational- university of Sheffield style
On 29
March 2001 I was informed that the Faculty Student Review Committee was
re-convened for 1 May 2001.
Government
promises
The following
day- 30 March 2001- an article came out in BBC news: Doctors blighted by Shipman
backlash http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1251196.stm
in that article John Denham pledged that no innocent doctor should be kept from
working for more than six months by investigations into such allegations. I
was kept from working for 5 years largely because of an alleged fraudulent entry
to the UEB exam.
Stooping
low
On 11
April 2001 the UEB sent me a document to say that the exam was to take place
on 30 April, 1 and 2 May 2001.
Expose’
lands in legal quagmire
On 13 April
2001 an article came out in the Times
Higher Education Supplement called Expose lands in legal quagmire. It was
about my CV experiment. Again it would be wrong to say that the Times Higher
was not going to run a story on me.
Co-incidence
The Faculty
Student Review Committee convened on the day I was due to sit the United Examining
Board licensing exam. It cannot be a co-incidence. Indeed it is the belief of
others that they did this deliberately to put me off my preparations for the
UEB. As such they knew that I was sitting the UEB. This contravenes Mr. Page’s
letter of 28 June 2001.
There was
a memo sent on 25 April 2001 together
with the same enclosures that was sent on 4/1/01. However this memo confirms
that the review panel was to meet on 1 May 2001- the day I was going to sit
the UEB exam.
Death
Star destroyed Richard Price style
On 27
April 2001 Mr. Richard Price sent a detailed submission showing how I had
been failed deliberately on numerous occasions. The letter is below with his
exhibits as PDFs so that the reader can see that this is backed up by evidence.
Here you can see how Professor Weetman knowingly and deliberately gave false
misleading information to a review panel- presumably in a bid to get me excluded
from the course.
Review Hearing
1st May 2001
Written
Submission to Review Hearing.
This is
the second Review hearing following the Examination Failure of the student Mr
Sushant Varma. A first Review Hearing took place which, Mr Sushant Varma together
with his Solicitor, his Father and a Representative from the Student Union attended
before a Review Panel. At that stage, an academic appeal was pending, as also
was a formal grievance against Professor Weetman and Dr Peters. That grievance
relates to gross misconduct. The first Review Hearing was adjourned to allow
an academic appeal to be progressed. Subsequently, Mr Sushant Varma was denied
an academic appeal, notwithstanding his allegations of Examiner bias.
Mr Sushant
Varma maintains his assertion that he has been unfairly treated by the Examiners
in this matter. He maintains his assertion that Professor Weetman is racist,
and has deliberately set out to cause him to fail his Examination. Evidence
for this is the manner in which Professor Weetman prepared the documents for
submission to this Review Hearing. At the previous Review Hearing, Professor
Weetman admitted, in response to a direct question from Mr Sushant Varma’s
Solicitors, that he had personally selected the documents for the Review Hearing.
The Review Committee will note that the documents are somewhat selective, in
that they only identify failures, wherever anything positive has been allowed,
it is either ignored or undermined. It is clear from the manner in which these
papers have been put together that there has been no consistency of treatment
of documents. The Review Committee will note that, for example, on one-hand
notes of a previous Review Committee decision have been produced, on the other
hand, there is a straight decision in another. In a case of this nature, where
the Review committee is being asked to determine a Faculty of Medicine Student,
and there have been numerous other Review Committees. It is with respect, the
only fair way of dealing with the matter, that all of the notes from the previous
review Committee Hearings should be produced. Professor Weetman has declined
to do this. Consequently, he has impaired Mr Varma’s ability to present
his case. At a previous review hearing, Professor Weetman asserted that the
other result was not relevant. With respect, that is not the case.
This review
committee has to determine whether this Student should be permitted to take
a further Examination, or should be recommended to pass his course. Clearly
his previous academic successes, as well as failures are relevant. To suggest
otherwise is misleading.
Mr Sushant
Varma asserts that his failure is due to misconduct on the part of Professor
Weetman, and one of his colleagues, Dr Peters, the undergraduate tutor in psychiatry.
A formal, detailed grievance has been made in this regard. Exhibit
1. The fundamental difficulty with the Student Review procedure, in cases
of this nature, is that there is assumption that the Student has in fact failed,
and has failed fairly. With respect, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible;
accurately deal with a Student Review, where a grievance of this nature has
been raised with the university.
There, it
is, with respect, the case that Professor Weetman has conferred the Student
Review Hearing into an adversarial tribunal. It is with respect, the role of
the Student Review Committee, to simply consider the case, and to make a decision.
It is not the role of the Student Review Committee to hear evidence from the
Medical School, which is selected and adversarial. Yet, Professor Weetman has
made clear that his view is that Mr Varma should be excluded. That is, with
respect, not a view that he is permitted to take. The medical school made a
decision that in view of the failure, or apparent failure, at the Examination,
that Mr Sushant Varma should be referred to the Review Committee. That is, with
respect, as far as the Medical School should in fact take the matter. They should
then provide all the relevant information to that Review hearing. As an example,
Professor Weetman puts forward an account of a Student Review Hearing on the
27th May 1997. Yet he fails to put forward an account of the Student Review
Hearings of the 6th November 1997, 1st June 1998 and 2nd August 2000.
It is, with
respect, the position that all of these minutes are relevant, and all should
have been disclosed and should have been put forward before the Student Review
Committee. Further, Mr Sushant Varma has, in our submission, a right to receive
these documents, as they are fundamental to the case he would wish to put before
the Review Hearing. It is also noteworthy that Professor Weetman failed to place
before the Review Hearing a letter from Dr Rao Punukullo, Consultant Psychiatrist.
A copy of that letter is attached to this submission Exhibit
2. The Review Panel are directed to Dr Rao Punukullo’s remarks, which
assert that “It appears to me that some people do not want him to carry
on his medical studies.”
Reference
is made to Mr Sushant Varma taking the UEB examination. Such reference is apparently
made in a further disparaging way, and on the basis that it was “exceptionally
permitted” in an attempt to demonstrate good faith upon the part of the
Medical Faculty. With respect, that is not the case. Mr Sushant Varma saw Mr
Page on 23rd August 1997, and discussed with him the UEB examination. At that
meeting he was told by Mr Page that “We used to call it conjoint…
I am surprised that more people do not do it.” This was no exceptional
provision. With respect, Professor Weetman has simply misled the Review Committee.
It is also
interesting to note, that on previous occasion the Faculty has been represented
by a course tutor. It is our understanding that for a member of Staff as senior
as Professor Weetman to actually attend to represent the Faculty is somewhat
unusual.
On the 30th
October 1997, Mr Sushant Varma saw Mr Page, to complain about the comments of
Dr. Peters in the run up to the Student Review Hearing of the 6th November 1997.
It is interesting to note that at that stage Professor Mortimer wrote in her
report that “his examination answers and reports about him suggest that
there is a very real possibility he is developing a mental illness of some kind.
Of course one is always concerned about substance abuse in young people these
days.” Exhibit 3. One is extremely
concerned that the phrase and reports about him. One must ask, where do the
reports about him come from, and what do they contain? Subsequently, Mr Sushant
Varma was seen by an independent Psychiatrist Exhibit
4 and also undertook a drugs test Exhibit
5. Copies of those reports are contained with this submission.
Subsequently,
the Student Review Committee re-instated Mr Sushant Varma, and permitted him
a further attempt against the recommendation of the external examiner and Dr.
Peters.
At the review
hearing, Mr John McSweeney, the solicitors from Howells, then acting for Mr
Sushant Varma, made allegations of multiple acts of gross misconduct on the
part of Dr. Peters Exhibit 6.
It is interesting to note that at this stage, Professor Weetman was the acting
dean of Faculty. One would have hoped that where serious allegations of that
nature have been made, he would, as a bare minimum, investigate those allegations
and take action. There appears to be no action taken against Dr Peters following
the allegations made by Mr Sushant Varma at the Review hearing.
Mr Sushant
Varma takes the view that effectively, the failure to produce this information
is indicative of an attempt, by Professor Weetman, to protect Dr Peters and
to prevent the allegations of misconduct coming into the public domain.
Subsequently,
in March 1998, Mr Page informed Mr Sushant Varma of the failed decision in the
fourth sitting of psychiatry.
Mr Varma
then appealed that decision. Exhibit
7 and exhibit 8
The decision
was subsequently overturned at a Review Hearing on 1st June 1998.
It is noteworthy
to recognise that the written paperwork was 51%. Dr Peters came into the examination
room after 15 or so minutes. The Clinical examination mark was 52%. The marks
by the consultant were: attendance, impressive (65%) Clinical capability –
good (60%), outline case summaries – good 60%, Topic of interest- satisfactory
(55%) – Total 60%. Exhibit 9
Under Departmental
Regulations – 60% is a mark of distinction. Exhibit
10
The external
examiner then downgraded those marks, outlined case summaries – fail/lacking
(45%), topic of interest fail (35%.) Exhibit
11
That mark
still however came to 50%. It is with respect a pass mark in its own right.
The external
examiner then wrote an extremely offensive note about the Topic of Interest,
and concluded it by stating “I place the essay in the failed category.”
What is, however, relevant, is that the essay has in fact been published. Exhibit
12 and exhibit 13.
The usual
procedure if a student has an article published is that there is usually an
account of it in the Faculty magazine, “Curriculum Matters.” There
has been no such report. The question “why not?” arises for consideration.
It is also
interesting to note that the external examiner in fact downgraded the marks
awarded by the consultant. This is particularly interesting, as in his letter
dated the 18th December 1997 Exhibit
14, Doctor Peters wrote to Mr Sushant Varma, and asserted that “you
will be attached to Dr Rao Punukullo, who will be responsible for the firm assessment.”
The Review committee are directed to the letter from Dr Rao Punukullo, in which
he asserts that he had “never heard that any of my gradings or markings
have ever been re-checked by the examiners.” In so far as the viva is
concerned with respect Professor Weetman has again misled the Review Panel.
In the bundle attached to this submission, the Regulations clearly state that
the viva will only be relevant to candidates who have failed the written examination.
The assertion of passing on a technicality is simply not true. Exhibit
15
Indeed,
in a previous Review Hearing, in response to a direct question Dr Peters asserted
that “it is departmental policy that marks in written papers are not downgraded
by vivas.”
The Review panel are directed to the exchange of correspondence which took place
between Professor Weetman and Professor Mindham, following an external Review
hearing. With the greatest of respect, that correspondence is indicative of
misconduct. The Student Review panel heard evidence. It was wholly inappropriate
for it then to write to a third party, not to produce the third parties response
to Mr Sushant Varma, but to go outside of the Review Hearing undermines all
of the fundamental rules of natural justice and fairness. To enclose that letter
with Review documentation for a further Review hearing, is again an attempt
to undermine the current Review Committee. One must ask, by what authority did
Professor Weetman write to Professor Mindham? One must of course doubt the bona
fides of Professor Mindham in responding to such a letter, and indeed, Mr Sushant
Varma asserts that Professor Mindham’s close link with Sheffield University
undermines any possible independence he may have as an Independent examiner.
Mr Sushant Varma denies totally Professor Mindham’s assertions to the
content of the viva. In any event the viva was wholly irrelevant. It is clear
in the letter from Professor Weetman “We could not exclude Mr Varma…”
That Professor Weetman in fact wished to exclude Mr Sushant Varma. He was only
prevented to do so by a technicality, that is by Examination Regulations. One
would suggest an important technicality.
As to the
conduct of Professor Weetman and, the behaviour of Dr Peters, it should be remembered
that Dr Peters orchestrated the verbal abuse and harassment of Mr Sushant Varma,
which was as to convince Mr Sushant Varma that he was not going to pass from
Sheffield.
Consequently
Mr Varma applied to take the UEB examination. The Review Committee will no doubt
appreciate that the UEB examination tests a far wider area of medical knowledge
that the Sheffield Examination. In fact the UEB examination effectively tests
10 subjects Exhibit 16 whereas
the Sheffield Examination only really tests 2 subjects, being medicine and surgery.
It is true to say that in theory, anything from Levels 1 to 5 can be tested,
although Level 5 Examiners are general physicians and surgeons and consequently
that is all that is tested on the Level 5 examination.
The UEB
examination was in fact failed by two marks. That was only after 7 weeks revision.
It is also the case that the majority of people who take the UEB examination,
in effect take several attempts to pass it. This is due to the breadth of the
Examination, in comparison with other medical schools. Indeed, the majority
of students take three or four attempts to pass it. It should also be noted
that a substantial proportion of those students are already qualified Doctors
from abroad. At the April 2000 sitting of the Examination., of 23 undergraduates
who took the examination only 8 passed. Those 8 candidates all were taking the
Examination for a second time.
Professor
Weetman appears to be attempting to use Mr Sushant Varma's failure of the UEB
as justification for failing Mr Sushant Varma at Sheffield. Professor Weetman
appears to be suggesting that Mr Sushant Varma's presence would someway undermine
the integrity of Sheffield University Medical School. This is clearly emotive
and wholly unacceptable from a senior academic.
As the Review
Committee will see from the enclosed papers, there have been numerous breaches
of Examination procedure at Sheffield University. In June 2000 as Mr Varma was
completing the OSCE, as he was leaving the Examination Room Dr Peters walked
in. Exhibit 17. The question
which then arises is why was Dr Peters present? Further, the anonymous marking
system was flouted in that OSCE. A copy of the particulars is attached to these
representations. Exhibit 18
On 2nd August
2000, at a Review Meeting Dr Angel, the representative of the School, made a
comment of a complaint about Mr Varma. She was asked to substantiate that complaint
yet she was unable to do so. Exhibit
19
On one occasion
Dr Heatley, a senior lecturer in general practice, indicated that Mr Sushant
Varma was perfectly able to qualify as a doctor. Professor Weetman's comment
to that was that Mr Varma was "a fool to believe him." Indeed at the
Review Committee of the 2nd August asserted that all of the failures were Mr
Varma's own fault. Unfortunately, when one considers the regulations at that
time Exhibit 20, the Review
Panel was allegedly about repeated failures. At that stage, the Review Committee
could not be convened for repeated failures. It was again an attempt by Professor
Weetman to attack Mr Varma, and to undermine Mr Varma.
The Review
Committee will see from the papers that there is an Examiners Report which indicates
that Mr Sushant Varma's communication skills were "less good" than
the others. One must confess that this is a somewhat vain form of wording. It
was a summative general practice OSCE in communication skills Exhibit
21, which indicates that Mr Sushant Varma passed that particular module.
One must ask what does "less good" mean? Does it mean that the skills
were allegedly poor, were below average, were unacceptably low, or were good,
but not as good as the others. If the latter assessment is accepted, then clearly
where an Examination is not comparative, that pass and failure is by reference
to specific marks, then "good" would be a pass. The fact that other
people may have performed better is irrelevant.
Mr Sushant
Varma is convinced that he has been targeted for racist reasons. Indeed, he
undertook a recent experiment in which he applied for some Senior House Officer
rotations at the CSUH (Central Sheffield University Hospitals) with two identical
CVs, one of an English name Exhibit 22,
the other of an Indian name. Dr David Smith was short listed for four rotations,
Exhibit 23 Dr Sharma only two Exhibit
24 and 25. Several of the consortiums
involving these rotations were by Examiners in the November examinations. Clearly,
there must be an element of racial motivation in failing to interview, or to
at least offer interviews to both candidates for all four rotations.
The position
is, with respect, that Professor Weetman, and the Medical School, has manipulated
the evidence, and has misled the Review Committee. These matters are at the
heart of a grievance which has been lodged under the grievance procedure.
Dealing
with Dr Angel's report, she asserts that the total mark of the clinical section
was 7 clear passes, 4 borderline passes, 5 borderline fails, and two clear fails.
In the enclosed marking scheme for the Clinical Examination Exhibit
26 and 27, it asserts
that
Clear Pass
- minimal acceptable for a PRHO
Borderline
pass - some doubts but probably a pass
Borderline
fail - some doubts but probably a fail
Clear fail:
Unacceptable for a PRHO
It is therefore
arguable that Mr Varma even failed the Examination at all. When one considers
that factor with his ethnic origin, particularly in view of the experiment involving
the CV. That several consultants in these SHO rotations were Examiners in another
examination, one must ask, whether the Examination was fairly conducted at all.
It is also
worthy of note, that Dr Angel asserts that the overall clinical result was a
borderline fail "after much discussion." It is interesting that Professor
Weetman asserts in an article written for the Student Newspaper, that "My
own experience from double marking of Examination scripts is that there is rarely
a serious discrepancy between markers, provided model answers are used, and
a winding up process for two discrepant marks will favour the student. Exhibit
28. The Faculty of Medicine Customer Care policy Exhibit
29 states that the Medical School is firmly committed to the University
Equal opportunities policy.
The Equal
opportunities policy states that the University is committed to the comprehensive
policy of Equal opportunities in all aspects of teaching and examining. Exhibit
30. Thus Dr Weetman's assertion for written Examinations must also apply
to clinical examinations.
Therefore,
arguably, the overall result of the clinical section should be a borderline
pass. A borderline pass in a clinical and a Grade 3 in the written papers, gives
an outright pass Exhibit 31.
Yet, this has not happened. There has been a procedural irregularity. The University
policies, with respect, have not been followed.
With respect,
the position in this case is that Mr Sushant Varma has been subject to a sustained
campaign of harassment and intimidation. It is his view that such conduct upon
the part of the University staff, particularly Professor Weetman and Doctor
Peters is for racist reasons. Mr Varma has been placed under such pressure that
he has not been able to perform properly in an Examination. As an example, Dr
Peters' visits to the Examination room, and the harassment and abuse sustained
by Mr Varma from other students, at Dr Peter's instigation, has had a grave
and serious effect upon Mr Varma's Examination performance. It is worthy of
note that his results in an independent Examination were only 2 marks short
of a pass. This is indicative of his underlying ability.
In the circumstances,
the Review Panel is invited to adopt one of the following options:
To adjourn,
to enable the formal grievance to be processed
To determine that Mr Varma should receive a pass
To determine that a re-sit should be granted."
Not surprisingly this Faculty Student Review Committee hearing was adjourned
on 30 April 2001.
Thoughts
to ponder over
I have often
wondered since the decisions of 1 June 1998 and the 30 April 2001 how many candidates
at all levels in all disciplines have failed due to non academic reasons? One
exam decision was overturned and another one could have been because I got hold
of information that students don’t normally get hold of. It logically
follows that candidates must have this information and assessment processes
must be wholly transparent. Under the current system they are not.
The flip
side is that how many people have been passed deliberately who did not deserve
to. When I was a junior doctor my supervisor, Dr Williams, said that this could
not happen.
Over the
years I have been called all sorts of things for saying that students can be
failed for non academic reasons. Indeed on of the purported reasons that Dr
Graham- the Mersey postgraduate dean wanted to obtain information from the University
of Sheffield was because I had supposedly failed exams. He said in his letter
of 29 July 2002 (see True Lies on www.undercovermedicine.com)
to the GMC that “Dr Varma admitted to me that he had failed parts of the
course.” That is not true. I told him that I had been failed deliberately
and he looked at me as if I was an idiot.
How many
other students who have faced review committees have had evidence against them
manipulated like this? This is a classical attempt at framing. Who else has
been framed like this? How many other students would be too afraid to dare question
what has been put against them?
External
examiners exposed
External
examiners are supposedly independent. Richard’s letters shows that Professors
Mortimer, Mindham and O’Connell’s independence is questionable.
External examiners get a very generous allowance for being an external examiner.
If they don’t do what the course tutor wants then they won’t be
called back and they won’t get their allowances.
Steel
Press retraction
On 4 May
2001 the Steel press apologized to the medical school for a factual inaccuracy
in Race Row. The article said
that the medical school discriminated. I personally would not have apologized.
The interviews took part in the medical school, several consultants were university
lecturers and the postgraduate dean of the medical school supervised these posts.
Victory!
On 8
May 2001 I qualified in medicine against the wishes of the University of
Sheffield I had qualified.
They
really do stoop very low
On 11
June 2001 I informed the university that I had passed the UEB exam.
Unknown
to me at the time on 13 June 2001. The
University wrote to the UEB- presumably in a bid to try and have the UEB qualification
removed. The university enclosed its copies of the forms. However they lied.
They said that the Undergraduate Dean told me in January 2001 that he didn’t’
support a 3rd attempt at the UEB- presumably because of a risk of exclusion
from the University.
However
it is not true. How could he? I never received a letter. I never got a phone
call and indeed while Student review procedures are in progress you are not
allowed on university premises. Indeed on the contrary. In August 2000 I told
Mr. Page that once you have been accepted by the board the only criteria you
need to fulfill for re-entry is that you have to have some remedial training
signed up. He accepted this. However the memo from Ms. Davison admits that Mr.
Page has signed blank forms on two occasions. This is not the first time that
Catherine Davison has told a pack of lies about me. I wonder when else she has
done this for other students.
Enter
Graeme Catto
On 15 June
2001 Professor Sir Graeme Catto –wrote to Professor Weetman about re-sit
attempts. Catto was at the time the chair of the GMC education division and
dean of Kings College Medical School. His views confirm my own regarding regulations
29 and 30 and I have attached those regulations to the
letter from Professor Catto and the UEB
regulations and the entry form.
It is very
clear that the rule for exclusion does not apply for a repeat attempt. Once
you have sat the exam first time the only criteria you need to fulfill is to
produce satisfactory evidence of remedial training at a UK or EC recognized
medical school. It does not have to be your own medical school. Nor do you need
a dean’s signature.
On the same
day – 15 June 2001 - the
UEB wrote to the University saying all was in order. The form for the 3rd attempt
was very clear. The remedial training that was on the form finished in November
2000, therefore an exam earlier than that i.e. September 2000 could not have
been intended.
Now
they are getting desperate
On 27 June
2001 Sheffield University instigated disciplinary proceedings because of the
CV experiment- see the Times Higher article later on.
Is
Mr. Page getting a bit upset?
Unknown to me at the time Mr. Page the Undergraduate Dean of Sheffield wrote
to the UEB trying to have my qualifications taken off me on
28 June 2001. Page failed to mention the contents of the Richard Price letters.
Why?
Mr. Page claimed
that the university didn’t have any knowledge that I was sitting the UEB
exam.
I had a review committee on 12 January
2001. It was adjourned due to an academic appeal. It was re-convened for 1 May
2001- the very day I was due to sit the UEB. So they did know- it was clearly
an attempt to put me off.
Mr. Page said I had supposedly failed
my Sheffield finals and thus the dean didn’t support further attempts.
Note that in Ms. Davidson’s fax to the UEB of 13 January 2001 she told
the UEB that Mr. Page had told me he didn’t support a 3rd attempt. I never
got such a communication.
It must be remembered that on 26
January 2001 the Times Higher Education Supplement ran an article on the Commission
for Racial Equality Investigation into Sheffield Medical School.
On 23 March 2001 the Steel Press
ran a story showing that 20% of all students across the board were being under
marked because of lack of compliance with anonymous marking.
Research from the NUS shows that
in the absence of anonymous marking a non-white student will get 12-20% less
than a white student.
Mr. Richard Price’s letter
of 27 April 2001 shows that I hadn’t failed. This letter shows that I
had been failed on purpose numerous times. Would Mr. Page have objected to me
sitting the UEB had I passed my university finals?
Mr. Page said that the possibility
of exclusion would debar me from taking the UEB exam.
The letter of 15 June 2001 from Professor
Catto to Professor Weetman confirms my interpretation of the UEB regulations.
Once you have sat the exam 1st time, the only criteria that you need to fulfil
is to have some remedial training signed up. Therefore once you have sat the
exam 1st time you can potentially be excluded from your own university and have
up to four attempts at the UEB.
Mr. Page said that I did not have
the support of my parent medical school.
If you look at the form, you don’t
need it for a repeat attempt. There was a student from Cambridge medical school
who once sat the exam 1st time and failed it. He then went to another medical
school, got the remedial training signed up and then passed the exam.
What
are you going to do?
On 3
July 2001. I replied to the University about the disciplinary charges and
asked what action would be taken against those who discriminated. I never got
a reply. I wonder why?
If
you go round signing blank forms you’re an idiot
On 6
July 2001 the UEB told Mr. Page he had no case. Mr. Page’s signature
of 3 August 2000 was unusually early but the only requirement is that entry
to the exam must be taken within 12 months of completing the training. Coupled
with that was the fact that the remedial training signed up on 3 August 2000
ended in November 2000 and so an examination earlier than that i.e. September
2000 could not have been intended.
This section
was specifically signed by Page, requires no further information and the dates
had not been altered. It was therefore entirely reasonable to rely on those
dates. The University copy of the form had these dates on – unaltered.
The University copy of the form says “Will study between 14 August and
30 November 2000” as does the UEB copy. As such it could not have been
me who put in those dates.
The examination
applied for was clearly stated as April 2001, and as the candidate must complete
this part before the dean’s signature, the Board reasonably considered
that it was Page’s intention to certify me for the April examination.
Is Mr. Page
a respected consultant surgeon and dean of a medical school saying that he goes
round signing blank forms? A doctor can be struck off for this.
