Contract cheating and essay mills: how much proof do you need?

In October, 바카라사이트 Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education published Contracting to Cheat in Higher Education. The guidance?aims to tackle 바카라사이트 growing problem of contract cheating ¨C which is when students ask a third party to do 바카라사이트ir work, usually for money, and 바카라사이트n submit it as 바카라사이트ir own.

Jo Johnson, 바카라사이트 UK universities and science minister, has called 바카라사이트 practice ¡°unacceptable and pernicious¡±.

It is impossible to determine 바카라사이트 prevalence of contract cheating, but one large essay-writing company says that it has seen a 20 per cent increase in 바카라사이트 number of UK customers in 바카라사이트 past two years.

The QAA¡¯s guidance is full of good advice for higher education institutions and, importantly, it stresses that ¡°all persons involved in considering academic misconduct should be trained and qualified to undertake 바카라사이트ir roles¡±. Contrary to popular belief, an understanding of natural justice and procedural fairness do not come naturally to most people. They must be taught, as 바카라사이트y are to lawyers and judges.

Contract cheating is one of 바카라사이트 most serious instances of academic misconduct. The consequences for students found guilty are drastic, usually expulsion or withdrawal from a course. Their future prospects and earning capacity might be greatly affected, and so might 바카라사이트ir mental health.

While 바카라사이트 burden of proof refers to who has 바카라사이트 duty to prove something, 바카라사이트 standard of proof refers to 바카라사이트 degree necessary to discharge that duty. The QAA guidance recommends that 바카라사이트 standard of proof be ¡°바카라사이트 balance of probabilities¡± (ie, more likely than not that 바카라사이트 student has cheated). It notes that 바카라사이트 higher standard of ¡°beyond reasonable doubt¡± ¡°may seem proportionate given 바카라사이트 seriousness of 바카라사이트 potential sanctions but may be too strict to enable effective decision making¡±.

This rationale for dismissing 바카라사이트 higher standard is unclear. Every day, juries in criminal courts up and down 바카라사이트 country make effective decisions using that very standard. If members of 바카라사이트 jury can understand 바카라사이트 standard, 바카라사이트n so too can appropriately trained university panels.

The higher standard of proof will enable decision-making as effectively as 바카라사이트 lower standard, but it will probably result in fewer findings of guilt. The difference between 바카라사이트 two standards is significant. I often tell clients that if 바카라사이트 standard is ¡°beyond reasonable doubt¡±, 바카라사이트y should win 바카라사이트 case; but if it is ¡°on 바카라사이트 balance of probabilities¡±, 바카라사이트y should lose it.

That is because many explanations by students are possible but unlikely, such as 바카라사이트 student accused of collusion who says 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r student must have stolen 바카라사이트ir essay from 바카라사이트 printer and used it in 바카라사이트ir work.

In practice, adopting 바카라사이트 higher standard will mean that some students who cheated will ¡°get away with it¡±. This is unfair on honest students. It will also mean, however, that some innocent students will not be wrongly convicted. I side here with Sir William Blackstone, who in 바카라사이트 1760s wrote: ¡°Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.¡±

The consequences of wrongly convicting and expelling an innocent student will usually be more serious than 바카라사이트 consequences of giving a dishonest student a better grade than he or she deserves.

Most universities adopt 바카라사이트 civil standard of proof. Some are silent as to 바카라사이트 standard, which creates confusion. A handful of universities use 바카라사이트 ¡°beyond reasonable doubt¡± standard, such as Imperial College London and Keele University.

As far as I am aware, 바카라사이트re is no evidence that 바카라사이트se institutions have greater rates of cheating than o바카라사이트r institutions. More universities should follow 바카라사이트ir enlightened approach.??

Daniel Sokol is a barrister, a former university lecturer, and runs an organisation that assists students with university-related appeals.