Andrew's draft guidelines on exams will be helpful, notably in providing
"evidence" for disbelieving colleagues as we try to persuade them of the
implications of DPA!
The note about assuming that the Act is fully in force right now is (I think)
the only way in which one can avoid fruitless and possibly damaging arguments
about whether one can technically withhold information. Take a hypothetical
case of a PhD student arguing about evaluation of thesis. Would it be worth
arguing that the student was on-going from pre-98, and that the work in eventual
thesis was started pre-98, so that the external comments made in (say) 2000 were
therefore part of an on-going process? I doubt it - or if it *were* worth it,
it would probably be because of (or certainly suggest) lack of faith in
comments. No?
So while I have argued for sticking to the Act on various other things, and not
being press-ganged into early release, I do think that on this one it's
important to get all examiners acting "as if" immediately.
----------------------
Dr Trevor Field
Senior Assistant Secretary
University of Aberdeen
++44 (0)1224 272077
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|