In my answer to your linked post, I advised you against single-handedly inventing an investigatory procedure after an exam had taken place. The key point, though, is that the burden of proof and the investigation procedure is to be worked out in advance by the institution as a whole. Personally, I prefer the second, but it probably varies by school some schools have so much cheating that more drastic measures have to be taken. So, either of the first two seem to be justifiable. This is required for criminal convictions in the US, but from a quick search, I cannot find any universities that use this standard. It needs to be reasonably clear that that the misconduct occurred - i.e., not just more likely than not, but substantially likely. This is what is used by New Mexico State University. It needs to be "more likely than not" that the misconduct occurred. This is what is used by the University of California. There are basically three possible burdens of proof:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |