Plagiarism/cheating implications

Possibly. On one of the forms (I think it's Law Society student membership), referees need to disclose whether a student has been found to have plagiarised. This does not automatically stop the student from pursuing a legal career, but it will make it necessary for that student to make a special case (individual application) to the Law Society for admission.
Similarly, the Bar council requires certificates of good character, and having been found guilty of plagiarism (or, indeed, any other form of unfair means) could mean that referees are unable/unwilling to sign off the form, at least without disclosing the plagiarism.

But, as far as the competition for places is concerned, having plagiarised won't help. Some people do get away with it - but they are only storing up difficulties for later on in their careers when they realise that they can't actually do what people expected of them, having cheated their way through an exam.

Reply 2

11

I feel all of that is accurate, but for the last statement. Just because somebody cheated on one exam doesn't mean that they won't be able to do something... especially in law, where academics is so removed from practice.

Reply 3

True - a single instance is unlikely to have that kind of impact. However, if you cheat with, say, a first-year legal research project, chances are that you've not worked well on developing your research skills, and that could then cause problems as soon as you get to your next essay.

Reply 4

11

Fair, the implications of plagiarism can be really really severe - I think they can refuse to mark any of your (course?)work. I would have said it was far harder to prove someone was guilty of plagiarism in an exam format, anyway. But if they find you guilty of plagiarism on one piece of cwk I think (at Notts) they disregard all of it and make you re-take! And I say guilty, because if they suspect you they drag you in front of the uni senate and grill you like a trial! The law profs went a bit skitz because my year in first year had the highest incidence of this...

Reply 5

Each University will have fixed procedures for dealing with plagiarism, and, yes, it will involve at least a Faculty or University-based committee, usually comprising staff from different departments. The penalties can be anything from '0' for the tainted piece of assessment, to '0' for the module, to '0' for the module and no resit permitted (which would, effectively, take a student off an honours programme), to, in the worst cases (and usually for repeat offenders) termination of studies. I have noticed instances of all of these in the last year or so.

Reply 6

11

I think if you are caught twice you get told to pack your bags at Notts, don't quote me on that though!

Just out of interest, what is the difference between an hons and a non-hons degree (I don't mean in status, but HOW do you get it downgraded?) I know out here an Hons degree is treated as a REALLY big deal, but at home everyone gets one... so HOW do you get a non-hons degree, which, in the UK, i guess is pretty worthless.

Reply 7

Honours is 360 credits; ordinary is 300 credits and no classification.

Reply 8

11

I think hons used to be a big deal though didn't it... you had to do soemthing extra to get it, whereas now it seems like the default? Am I correct?

It certainly seems that way in Asia... they make a big song and dance about it.

Reply 9

10

At Leeds Met, a guy on my course (the patronising "mature" :rolleyes:

student who I've ranted about before) was well known for cheating. He barely even denied it to his coursemates and was open about it to his friends.

He paid a postgrad to write his first year assignments.
In 2nd year, he went to the toilet 4 times during the criminal exam, because he had stashed his notes folder in there. The invigilators found it after his 4th toilet break, but because it was typed therefore no handwriting, and obviously didn't have his name on, they couldn't prove anything.
In final year, 16 of us sat the family exam in a classroom, with 2 invigilators. One left the room temporarily, and the guy took the opportunity to kick off about the exam paper, claimed it was written wrong and we were all going to fail, and demanded that a family law tutor was summoned immediately. The remaining invigilator panicked, and left to find the family tutor. He and his friend immediately grabbed their bags and folders, started discussing the paper and checking things. Nobody said anything about this though because we had so much on and just couldn't deal with the stress of a resit.
Finally, in semester 2 of the final year, he was cautioned after him and FIVE of his little gang of idiots submitted almost a practically identical assignment. They were told to redo it, but no further action.

It was so frustrating because we told tutors what was going on, (all except the family exam) but they just turned a blind eye; it was too much hassle to try and intervene.

Reply 10

11

God, what a shoddy establishment... but yeah, they were probably afraid of the paperwork more than anything else!

Reply 11

10

Lewisy-boy

God, what a shoddy establishment... but yeah, they were probably afraid of the paperwork more than anything else!

Yup. It's disgraceful that it wasn't treated properly.

He didn't have a TC though, so hopefully he won't ever make it into practice. I'd hate to think of people entrusted him with their problems. I know lawyers have a bad reputation, but he's in a league of his own!!

Reply 12

Fireman John

9

I hope people dont see me as a patronising, mature, part-time student!

Reply 13

11

oooh ooooh I do! pick me!

Reply 14

10

Fireman John

I hope people dont see me as a patronising, mature, part-time student!

lol

I'm sure they don't John :wink:

I said "mature" in quotations because he was a mature student (28/29 I think) yet he was the most childish person on our course.
He was deliberately horrible, rude and patronising (he once said to me when I challenged his opinion in class, "what do you know, you're only 18" :rolleyes:

) and went out of his way to study random tangents off a subject rather than the syllabus, and then he constantly tried to hijack the seminars.

We had several altercations, notably two spectacular arguments in Criminal (he was arguing that the 1957 Homicide Act applied when it had been superseded and he just wouldn't accept that) and in property because he was hijacking with his rubbish. I actually yelled at him, and the tutor thanked me afterwards for getting the class back on topic!!!

He was truly awful.

I maintain to this day that he learnt random bits of irrelevant crap to try and hide the fact he hadn't got a clue about the actual work and general, relevant principles. I'd love to know what classification he got in the end.

Reply 15

11

funny if he was top o the class!

Reply 16