Hi Mike

In the worst case scenario, it gos further than "a student is incapable
of providing oral proof of understanding an area they are supposed to
have studied"  That is the worst case in a normal viva.

When we use a viva for determining plagiarism, however, the student has
to demonstrate through an oral exam that he had that knowledge at the
time that he wrote the assignment.  (And if he demonstrates _more_
knowledge in a plagiarism viva, does his assignment mark increase? - not
likely.)  Given time differences, mixed abilities in different exam
conditions and the pressure (not just pass/fail, but defending oneself
against being called a cheat), the odds are stacked against the student.

While I can't really counter Grandma Simpson and her bus load of
convicted prisoners, the fact is that I would need the evidence before
finding a student guilty.  We don't have to refer to a particular legal
system - it's simply a case of presenting proof to back up an
accusation.  And when we walk out of that room, balance of probabilities
is not enough to keep our consciences clear.

As for branding the student a cheat - no, in the official records and to
the media, we would never use that language.  But it doesn't matter,
really.  When it's written down on the student's record, no matter how
unemotional the language, it amounts to the same thing.  And when that
student walks onto that graduation stage (if he gets there), it follows
him.  And the further he progresses through his career, there's always
the risk that it will surface somewhere, and the chances of his claiming
innocence are zero.  After all, where's there's smoke, there's fire.

That's the responsibility we carry - that's the balancing part we had
better have as a certainty.  In effect, we have reached a point where we
are using an examination tool as an interrogation tool, and we believe
that we can pronounce a student guilty based on probabilities, which is
another way of saying 'hunch'.
The risk is simply too great for me.

But I seem to be in the minority - there appear to be a lot braver
people than I on this list.  And I've got to the stage where I'm merely
repeating myself in other words, which is always bad in a discussion.


Regards

Ken

----

Dr. Ken Masters
Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
Medical Education Unit
College of Medicine & Health Sciences
Sultan Qaboos University
Sultanate of Oman
E-i-C: The Internet Journal of Medical Education
____/\/********\/\____

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: The 100% solution
> From: Mike Reddy <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, June 04, 2010 7:28 pm
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> Ken Masters wrote:
>
> "For branding a student a cheat, you HAVE to be 100% sure.  And that means solid proof." Then raised the 'better to let one guilty man go free than imprison an innocent' moral argument.
>
>
>
> While I can understand his position, it is based on two fallacies:
>
> 1) All universities I am aware of have a "balance of probabilities" level of evidence requirement, NOT "beyond all reasonable doubt" needed by law courts. Even that isn't 100% as most lawyers will tell you. "A one-armed man could have killed that man's wife, but there's no evidence he even existed!"
>
> 2) Most unfair practice procedures I am aware of are massively slanted towards the student, even with this apparent lower threshold of evidence. Far far more guilty go free than innocent get convicted.
>
>
>
> Of course, there might be appeal cases where wrongly (falsely?) accused students vindicate themselves - that IS what appeals are for - but as Grandma Simpson said to a bus load of convicted prisoners: "Now just the innocent sing… Now the REALLY innocent…" Rarely do students confess. Without that… Written… Preferably in blood… Preferably the student's own… Oh, and witnessed… there will never be 100% proof.
>
>
>
> Nearly forgot, Ken, I don't recall anyone ever in unfair practice hearings over 20 years ever using the word "cheat", let alone 'branding' students. The last thing we need here is emotive language. There's far too much already, especially in the Media.
>
>
>
> Let's revisit your worst case scenario, where a student is convicted on the basis of suspicion and a bad viva.
>
> - a student is incapable of providing oral proof of understanding an area they are supposed to have studied, and get the (usual) chance to retake, knowing that universities have a level of QA they have to defend and maintain and are doing so
>
> - the student walk away knowing that even in the stressful situation of a viva that they can demonstrate knowledge, and know that universities have a level of QA they have to defend and maintain and are doing so.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> *************************************************************************
>
> You are subscribed to the JISC Plagiarism mailing list. To Unsubscribe, change
>
> your subscription options, or access list archives,  visit
>
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/PLAGIARISM.html
>
> *************************************************************************

*************************************************************************
You are subscribed to the JISC Plagiarism mailing list. To Unsubscribe, change
your subscription options, or access list archives,  visit
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/PLAGIARISM.html
*************************************************************************