A group of York students has won the opportunity to have their very own I-phone application developed after winning The App Challenge final, held at the Ron Cooke Hub on Wednesday, January 18.
YUSU Welfare officer Bob Hughes has warned students to be vigilant after a student loans phishing scam has been revealed.
Her Majesty the Queen will be visiting York on Maundy Thursday, 5th April, as part of the 800th anniversary of York’s Charter for the traditional “Royal Maundy” ceremony.
A flood caused by a heating system “failure” forced the university IT services to shut down many essential systems on Sunday night, causing problems for many students on the eve of their exams and assignment due-dates.
The investigation found that in the last three academic years there have been 159 cases involving undergraduate students, with 67 involving postgraduates.
The figures, from the University’s Standing Committee on Assessment, provide statistics from academic misconduct cases relating to undergraduate and taught postgraduate students.
For undergraduate students the most common causes of misconduct were plagiarism and collusion, followed by cheating in an exam.
For postgraduate students the main cause of academic misconduct was plagiarism, followed by cheating in an exam and collusion, both with ten cases across all three years.
Those found cheating in an exam face a mark of zero, the effect of which depends on the weighting of the module. Plagiarism and collusion are given penalty points, depending on the seriousness of the offence. The penalty points are then taken in to account at the time of degree classification.
The proportion of those who go on to face punishment after an academic misconduct hearing is high. In 2005/6 only 12 of 57 undergraduates were found not guilty, whilst the year before all 57 were found guilty.
Over the three years, the undergraduate cases have decreased slightly, numbering 57, 57 and 45 respectively, while cases amongst postgraduate students have risen from 9 to 36.
How the figures break down:
Number of cases: 57
Nature:
Plagiarism: 29
Falsifying Data: 0
Collusion & Plagiarism: 4
Cheating in an exam: 0
Collusion: 29
Collaboration: 0
Penalties Applied: 57
Number of cases: 57
Nature:
Plagiarism: 38
Falsifying Data: 1
Collusion & Plagiarism: 4
Cheating in an exam: 10
Collusion: 2
Collaboration: 2
Penalties Applied: 45
Number of cases: 45
Nature:
Plagiarism: 29
Falsifying Data: 1
Collusion & Plagiarism: 0
Cheating in an exam: 13
Collusion: 2
Collaboration: 0
Penalties Applied: 39
Number of cases: 9
Nature:
Plagiarism: 6
Falsifying Data: 1
Collusion & Plagiarism: 0
Cheating in an exam: 0
Penalties Applied: 3
Number of cases: 22
Nature:
Plagiarism: 14
Falsifying Data: 0
Collusion & Plagiarism: 0
Cheating in an exam: 4
Penalties Applied: 21
Number of cases: 36
Nature:
Plagiarism: 24
Falsifying Data: 0
Collusion & Plagiarism: 2
Cheating in an exam: 6
Penalties Applied: 34
This looks really interesting - but please can you sort ou the figures so it makes sense?!
Just wondering what the difference was between collusion and collaboration in the terms of academic misconduct.
In answer to #2:
Collaboration I would hesitate to say is simply sharing work or data with another candidate which could make it a form of collusion, although collaboration can be legitimate in group work.
Unfortunately I can find no formal definition of collaboration given by the exams office in their policies and the two terms are used interchangeably in some instances.
The exams office define colluding thus:
"collude i.e. assist another candidate to gain an advantage by unfair means, or receive such assistance."
Collusion also includes concealment of misconduct by others.
Perhaps collusion might also include inappropriate sharing of 'privileged information' I.e. a seminar tutor sharing the mark scheme or exam questions with a student.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report