– I’m no cheater, claimed Baadshaug in interviews with several media when the University of Bergen accused him of cheating on the exam in administrative law in 2012.
law student, who is now working as an associate at a law office in the Oslo region, responded by taking legal action against the university. In court he lost, but he got fully upheld in the Court of Appeal, which concluded that cheating concept is not “suitable as indication of an objective work content” and also pointed out that the law lacks a definition of cheating.
– This can by the appellate court’s view, constitute a significant legal issue, it was said in the judgment. It was appealed by the university and the Attorney General (who is the state’s attorney’s office) to the Supreme Court, which will consider the matter Tuesday.
– We believe that the interpretation that the Court of Appeal assumed, was improper. It will mean that it will be harder for colleges and universities to ensure a proper liquidation of the exam. It will be difficult to enforce, and we run the risk that there will be reacted against students who unjustifiably has benefited from aids, says lawyer Havard Holdø of the Attorney General.
– Was an oversight
The actual events of the matter is there is no disagreement about. It confirms both parties. Then seal Baadshaug graduated in administrative law in 2012 at the University of Bergen, he and the other students – such practices are – enter the examination room 40 minutes before the start. Then the students were asked to leave the premises for a bokkontroll – which are carried out as spot checks. During the assessment, it was found a note with information on different judgments on the desk of Martin seal Baadshaug, and when he came back there was a note on the desk that said that the note was confiscated.
– I raised my hand and asked what this would mean. I was answered that I had not allowed to use this and replied that I knew it, and that it never was the intention, he told the student newspaper at height, which first publicized case in February 2013.
Martin seal Baadshaug would not comment on the Supreme Court case before it is processed. There he will wait for the final judgment falls. But the student newspaper he explained in his time event:
– I always have with me a sheet with relevant judgments which I read on until graduation. This day I packed out pens and chocolate and that I would otherwise have on the desk during the exam. On the way out before bokkontrollen I spoke with a buddy. As I sat in the dressing room I thought I should have had the sheet mine but did not think about it lay on the desk, in your purse or if I had lost it on the light rail.
No definition in the Act
Universities and Colleges Act states that an examination may be canceled if the student has intentionally attempted to cheat or willfully or through gross negligence has cheated in connection with the examination. But the law provides no definition of what is cheating and what might be described as gross negligence or not. It is possible that the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to come up with some guidelines.
– The specific question in this case will receive a clarification. Then attach it in addition a certain excitement to the principal Supreme Court is going to be in the final judgment, says Halfdan Mellbye, Martin seal Baadshaugs attorney.
There are different practices at the various universities in terms of reactions by forgotten notes before bokkontrollen … At the University of Bergen, seen from the student’s side, reacted very harshly.
It may be time, will some assert. There have been some cheating cases in the Supreme Court if we go far enough back in time – in the 1960s. But in what could be described as “modern times” this is the first time the Supreme Court receives such an issue on the table. According Mellbye it also has a principled side: He knows about ten similar cases at Norwegian universities – most of Bergen.
– There are different practices in the different universities in terms of reactions by forgotten notes before bokkontrollen . I know for example not to similar cases from the University of Oslo. At the University of Bergen, seen from the student’s side, reacted very strictly, says Mellbye.
Also read: There are no examinations I dread most, but the characters are published and fellow students asking what everyone else has gained
gross negligence – or not?
The University of Bergen accuses not law student to have had the intention to use the note under examination. The Attorney General has also not assumed that he deliberately did this. The question is therefore, for the Supreme Court, about this kind of oversight can be described as grossly negligent – and hence punishable. Attorney mean it.
I do not plead the case of the newspaper, but it is essential that the student has not made any self-inspection before bokkontrollen
– We agree that the student in this case takes some advantage of the aids under examination – in that the notes were discovered under bokkontrollen before the examination questions were dealt. But we believe the law requires that it provide a benefit, and that there had been consummated cheating in that we consider that the exam starts taking control starts, says Håvard Holdø of the Attorney General.
– What is the reason why you think this can be described as gross negligence?
– I do not plead the case of the newspaper, but it is essential that the student has not made any self-inspection before bokkontrollen.
The routines can be modified
The Court of Appeal concluded, however, that the student had done, had no element of “fraudulent or dishonest behavior suitable to achieve an undue advantage”. University is of the opposite view, describing the incident as “a serious case” which does not occur often. If the judgment of the Court of Appeal remains, it introduced new exam procedures at the university.
– If we compromise is diligence requirement for students, this must be compensated by stricter control, says Christen Soleim, director for the Division of Student Affairs at the University of Bergen. He elaborates on this as follows:
– It could lead to that we have to introduce more thorough check of the students before they enter the examination room, which in turn could mean more guards and previous attendance for students. This is an undesirable situation, both because it would increase the cost of the examination arrangements and – just as important – because it will inflict students an additional burden during the examination.
Published:
No comments:
Post a Comment