![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
i've said it before, and i'll say it again:
It's best not to mess with a Taurus who knows she's right.
in the mailbox today:
A letter from the Bursar, referring to my recent acceptance by the University to continue for the D.Phil. It notes that the College will be happy to give me a place for my continued study,
Well, there's no problem with that, of course, except that when I was accepted for the two-year degree I'm coming to the end of now, I expressed my intention to stay for the D.Phil. and accordingly provided evidence of sufficient funding for four years. In fact, when I was gathering signatures on my reapplication form, the college secretary wrote in "subject to proof of funding" or something like that, and I went up to the Bursar's office to say "Hey, can we just verify that because I've already provided evidence of sufficient funding for four years, College knows I'm good for it so I've met this requirement and that's that?" And she said yes.
So having read this letter, I went up to the Bursar's office to say "Hey, remember how we already talked about this?" And she said "Now that you mention it, it sounds familiar. Let me see what's going on with [secretary], because you know, she puts things in front of me and I sign them." And the secretary said it might indeed be that everything is fine -- she just went through everyone who's recently been accepted to stay on and sent the letter without looking to see what evidence they might have provided in the past. (This is the same secretary who, you may remember, sent a note at 8:45 on a Friday morning advising me that a meeting had been scheduled for 10:00 -- without specifying that she didn't mean that same day. She later sent a note insisting that we all take these meetings, after some of us had already had them, so we might have been excused for wondering if we were supposed to do it again. My feeling is that this is the wrong way to save time and effort, but I'm not running the office, am I?) The secretary took the letter back from me and said she'd look into it, and she'd e-mail me and cc the Bursar later in the day once the thing had been sorted.
So some time after lunch I indeed get an e-mail from the secretary, cc'd to the Bursar:
Well. You can probably imagine.
I thought my response was pretty restrained, actually:
(Well, it's my sig file. [g] My policy on that sig file, actually, is that I always use it when I'm sending e-mail in my capacity as student president, and almost never otherwise; but I routinely use it for e-mails within College when I want to remind the administrators who they're dealing with.)
The Bursar -- whom I do quite like, actually, and who I know is overworked, but this really appeared to be a situation where I couldn't blame the secretary, which is my normal custom because it normally really is her fault (and it may yet be her fault in this case, as we'll see), responded thus:
You'd think that would be the end of it. But no, the secretary is still in it:
Now, you don't quote things at me if you don't want me to quote things right back in your face. There's no earthly reason my parents would have calculated the cost over four years if they'd only been asked to do so over two. I dug out my folder of relevant paperwork and found the letter, dated 22 April 2004, originally offering me a place for the M.Phil. -- from which I copied the text above, actually, because it's totally the same letter saved in a file in the computer. The attachments include a sheet with estimations of fees and living expenses and a note to the effect that students should also budget for maintenance. So I responded, hurling the gauntlet right back at her:
Translation: I was, too, asked to show funding for four years, liar. Keep complete fucking files, and consult them once in a while, and you might have some idea what's going on out here.
This woman has, through her incompetence, caused people to miss deadlines for reapplying for visas, and to be removed from the registers at the NHS, among other things. I cannot understand why she hasn't been fired without a reference, except that the Bursar thinks she'd sue and defending the decision would be more than College could afford. Everyone else is confident College would win such a suit, and thus not be responsible for any of the costs involved ... and yet the secretary remains. One can only hope she'll retire soon [refrains from expressing less charitable thoughts].
in the mailbox today:
A letter from the Bursar, referring to my recent acceptance by the University to continue for the D.Phil. It notes that the College will be happy to give me a place for my continued study,
"conditional either upon your being awarded a grant, or upon producing evidence that you will have sufficient funds to cover combined University and College fees and maintenance. ... Once a student is admitted to a course, the College has to guarantee to the University his or her ability to pay the stipulated termly fees and the College must therefore be certain that students will be able to meet these financial requirements. I should be very grateful if you could give us this assurance about your finances as soon as possible. Evidence that you will be able to support yourself might include recent bank statements for yourself or for those who are promising funds to pay you."
Well, there's no problem with that, of course, except that when I was accepted for the two-year degree I'm coming to the end of now, I expressed my intention to stay for the D.Phil. and accordingly provided evidence of sufficient funding for four years. In fact, when I was gathering signatures on my reapplication form, the college secretary wrote in "subject to proof of funding" or something like that, and I went up to the Bursar's office to say "Hey, can we just verify that because I've already provided evidence of sufficient funding for four years, College knows I'm good for it so I've met this requirement and that's that?" And she said yes.
So having read this letter, I went up to the Bursar's office to say "Hey, remember how we already talked about this?" And she said "Now that you mention it, it sounds familiar. Let me see what's going on with [secretary], because you know, she puts things in front of me and I sign them." And the secretary said it might indeed be that everything is fine -- she just went through everyone who's recently been accepted to stay on and sent the letter without looking to see what evidence they might have provided in the past. (This is the same secretary who, you may remember, sent a note at 8:45 on a Friday morning advising me that a meeting had been scheduled for 10:00 -- without specifying that she didn't mean that same day. She later sent a note insisting that we all take these meetings, after some of us had already had them, so we might have been excused for wondering if we were supposed to do it again. My feeling is that this is the wrong way to save time and effort, but I'm not running the office, am I?) The secretary took the letter back from me and said she'd look into it, and she'd e-mail me and cc the Bursar later in the day once the thing had been sorted.
So some time after lunch I indeed get an e-mail from the secretary, cc'd to the Bursar:
After consultation with the Bursar she has asked me to point out that your evidence of funding documentation is now 2 years old and before she can confirm that she is happy with your funding for your intended Dphil to commence October 2006 can you please provide an up-to-date letter from your parents and also the bank
Many thanks
[signed]
Well. You can probably imagine.
I thought my response was pretty restrained, actually:
Hi Bursar and Secretary --
I'll see what I can do about getting this documentation to you. However, while I'll grant that the evidence of funding documentation is two years old, I point out again that it was evidence of funding *for four years*, only two of which have gone by. Why was I required to provide evidence of four years' worth of funding if I'm just going to have to do it again? I should only have been asked for evidence of two years' worth of funding for a two-year degree; and if I was asked for the additional two years' worth at the time because I ticked the box to indicate an intention to stay for the DPhil (which I did, and I was, and as you see I provided that evidence then), then I should not be asked to re-prove that I have the funds available. Furthermore, when I came and spoke to you about this very question in the first week of Hilary Term you assured me (verbally, so I have no record of it, unfortunately) that everything was in order.
In short: I'll try to provide further evidence, but I'm not at all pleased about a) the fact that my original proof was apparently either unnecessary then or insufficient now, nor about b) being given the run-around in this manner.
[signed]
President, Student Representative Committee
etc.
(Well, it's my sig file. [g] My policy on that sig file, actually, is that I always use it when I'm sending e-mail in my capacity as student president, and almost never otherwise; but I routinely use it for e-mails within College when I want to remind the administrators who they're dealing with.)
The Bursar -- whom I do quite like, actually, and who I know is overworked, but this really appeared to be a situation where I couldn't blame the secretary, which is my normal custom because it normally really is her fault (and it may yet be her fault in this case, as we'll see), responded thus:
I am sorry Fox, if you provided evidence of 4 years worth of funding then it is OK. I am trying to do too much, too quickly.
[signed]
You'd think that would be the end of it. But no, the secretary is still in it:
Bursar
Can I point out that Fox was not asked to show funding for four years, just funding for the Mphil i.e. 2 years. It was her mother who stated in her letter
"we calculate the cost over four years, if she attends Oxford that long"
Can you please confirm that you are now happy to draw a line under this?
[signed]
Now, you don't quote things at me if you don't want me to quote things right back in your face. There's no earthly reason my parents would have calculated the cost over four years if they'd only been asked to do so over two. I dug out my folder of relevant paperwork and found the letter, dated 22 April 2004, originally offering me a place for the M.Phil. -- from which I copied the text above, actually, because it's totally the same letter saved in a file in the computer. The attachments include a sheet with estimations of fees and living expenses and a note to the effect that students should also budget for maintenance. So I responded, hurling the gauntlet right back at her:
The reason my parents' letter stated that the cost had been calculated over four years was the note in the attachment to the Bursar's letter originally offering me a place:
"For those students intending to proceed to a D.Phil. please supply evidence of funding to support fees for 3 years and maintenance for four."
I have all the original correspondence with me, and I'd be happy to bring it up any time tomorrow or Thursday if you'd like to place a copy in the file. :-) I'm leaving town on Friday for a couple of weeks, and I'm sure we'd all like to have the matter sorted by then.
Thanks
[signed]
Translation: I was, too, asked to show funding for four years, liar. Keep complete fucking files, and consult them once in a while, and you might have some idea what's going on out here.
This woman has, through her incompetence, caused people to miss deadlines for reapplying for visas, and to be removed from the registers at the NHS, among other things. I cannot understand why she hasn't been fired without a reference, except that the Bursar thinks she'd sue and defending the decision would be more than College could afford. Everyone else is confident College would win such a suit, and thus not be responsible for any of the costs involved ... and yet the secretary remains. One can only hope she'll retire soon [refrains from expressing less charitable thoughts].
no subject
I hate incompetent people.
no subject
no subject