Bullied, Blocked, and Broke: A PhD Student's Fight to Study

Apr 20
6 min read

Updated: Apr 21

By Gia Arora

Jose Angel Salazar Lucas began his PhD at Queen Mary, University of London in January of 2024 with a research project on insect signalling and plant viruses, supported by a Global Talent scholarship from the Fundación Politécnico, or Polytechnic Foundation of Mexico (PFM). Within six months, Jose says his supervisor’s conduct escalated from what Jose had previously perceived as persistent criticism, to behaviour that he describes as openly unprofessional including public belittling, shouting, and episodes of table-banging during classes and meetings.

Jose initially tried to resolve the issue directly with his supervisor before escalating the matter through formal channels afforded by the university. Following an investigation, the university upheld his complaint and assigned him a new supervisor within the School of Biological and Behavioural Sciences (SBBS). He also had to change the subject of his research project, a compromise Jose accepted as he believed it would allow him to continue his doctorate without further issues. However, shortly afterwards, PFM suspended his scholarship without an appeal process, citing insufficient evidence of academic progress, a claim that Jose disputes based on his successful progression review and the university’s findings through the investigation.

With SBBS stating they have no direct contact with the funding body, refusing further correspondence, and Jose having no way of funding the remainder of his studies, he is now faced with the threat of losing his student status and potentially being forced to abandon his PhD altogether. His case raises questions about the nature of the agreements between universities and external funding bodies, how both parties respond when students experience unforeseen circumstances that hinder their studies, and who bears the responsibility when funding collapses, even when the university upheld the complaint.

Consequences of Filing a Formal Complaint

Jose filed his formal complaint in November 2024. According to him, the investigation lasted approximately three months and included interviews with peers who had seen interactions between him and his supervisor. In March 2025, the university released the outcome of the investigation, confirming that his complaint was upheld. He says he did not request the supervisor face disciplinary action or to receive any form of compensation. Instead, he asked only to continue his PhD in a safe and professional environment. The university offered a change of supervision, which he accepted, undeterred by the requirement that he abandon his original research project and begin a new one.

In January 2025, during this period of transition, Jose passed his first-year progression review; one of the most significant academic milestones in a UK PhD. For him, this confirmed that concerns about his performance were unfounded. “I realised it wasn’t about my ability,” he said. “I had the skills to complete my PhD.”

Interruption of Studies and the Suspension of Funding

As they made new arrangements for supervision of his project, Jose says he was advised, by the school, to temporarily interrupt his studies. He says they told him this would stop the “clock” on his PhD timeline while a new supervisory structure was finalised. For international students, interrupting studies at university is limited by visa regulations. Jose applied to take a short interruption, which was accepted. During this period, he informed PFM of the situation and provided documentation relating to the upheld complaint.

Shortly thereafter, his scholarship was suspended. According to Jose, PFM stated that the suspension was due to insufficient evidence of academic performance. He disputes this, citing his successful progression review and the university’s own investigation findings. He says he provided further documentation when requested, including email correspondence and formal outcome letters. But, against his best efforts, in July 2025, he received notice that his scholarship had been terminated. He says the decision included no appeal mechanism and stated that no further documentation would be considered.

Attempts to Resolve the Funding Crisis

Jose informed SBBS that his scholarship had been suspended. He says the school attempted to appeal the decision to PFM on his behalf, but, as far as Jose was informed, no response was received. He was not copied into any communications between the university and funding body, so Jose remains unsure of how the situation was represented on his behalf.

Despite these circumstances, Jose later secured an alternative scholarship arrangement from a different source (though the Mexican government). However, this funding would only cover a stipend for living costs and not his tuition. Under existing agreements, Queen Mary covers approximately 70% of tuition costs for certain sponsored students, with the remaining 30% typically paid by the funding body. With his original sponsorship terminated, Jose requested that the university temporarily waive or cover the remaining portion of his fees in light of the exceptional circumstances. He says this request was declined.

Without full coverage of his tuition, Jose was informed that failure to pay the outstanding program fees would result in him being classified a debtor to the university. He was presented with four options: secure payment independently, accept his status as a debtor, withdraw from the program, or interrupt his studies. Unable to self-fund the remaining fees, he applied for a longer interruption of studies. This interruption, however, requires the university to withdraw visa sponsorship, meaning he must leave the UK.

Impact on Jose’s Mental Health and Professional Life

Jose says the events have had significant personal consequences. He sought support from university counselling services and was later diagnosed by his GP with depression and anxiety. He has been prescribed medication. Professionally, the stakes are equally high. As his programme was a direct-entry PhD, withdrawal would leave him without a master's qualification. He says this would limit his ability to apply for future doctoral programmes elsewhere and would effectively erase two years of academic work. He also requested the possibility of an exit award being granted in recognition of the research he had completed but says this was not offered.

Institutional Responsibility

Jose argues that his situation exposes structural gaps in the university’s scholarship agreements rather than isolated failures. He says there appears to be no clear framework governing how funding bodies assess academic performance when universities have already conducted formal reviews. Nor, he argues, is there transparency in how disputes between universities and external sponsors are handled when students are caught in the middle. SBBS, he says, informed him that it does not maintain direct communication channels with PFM. Meanwhile, he says PFM indicated that information about his performance had been relayed by the university, though he has not been shown the specific basis for that claim.

The result, Jose argues, is a diffusion of responsibility. “At each stage, I was told there was nothing more that could be done,” he said. “But I followed every instruction given to me. I passed my evaluations. My complaint was upheld. And I am still the one facing the consequences.”

Jose also believes his case reflects wider vulnerabilities faced by international doctoral students, who are dependent not only on their universities but also on external funding bodies and visa sponsorship structures. He says confidentiality requirements during the investigation limited his ability to seek external support at earlier stages.

He also questions whether current agreements between universities and overseas sponsors provide sufficient safeguards for situations where supervisory relationships break down. Salazar is now speaking publicly in the hope that increased scrutiny may prompt institutional review. “I don’t want this to happen to anyone else,” he said. “But I also still want the opportunity to finish my PhD.”

Developments Since February

As the bulk of this article was written in February, we reached out to Jose to ask about any developments in the situation. He claims that since we last spoke, QMUL withdrew their sponsorship of his studies and he lost his student visa, forcing him to abandon his research and return to Mexico. He described his position as exhausting as he has been prioritising his mental health. Unfortunately, he did not get the opportunity to complete his PhD, but we wish him well and hope that he is able to continue his research once he recovers.

Note: The Fundación Politécnico is also affiliated with the Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN), which is a university, but the funding comes from the foundation. Jose was under the impression that his funding body was IPN, but the agreements made by QMUL (see below) clarify that the funding body was the foundation.

Both Queen Mary University of London and the Fundación Politécnico have been contacted for comment. We invite the opportunity to report on their side of the case and are happy to do a follow-up article to further engage with the discussion.