NationStates Jolt Archive

Clicky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3753065.stm)

In the UK, a kid caught plagiarizing at the University of Kent is thinking of suing the University because they didn't catch him cheating until it was time for him to get his degree.
A student who admits down-loading material from the internet for his degree plans to sue his university for negligence....

Michael Gunn, a 21-year-old English student, told the Times Higher: "I hold my hands up. I did plagiarise. I never dreamt it was a problem.

"I can see there is evidence I have gone against the rules, but they have taken all my money for three years and pulled me up the day before I finished.

"If they had pulled me up with my first essay at the beginning and warned me of the problems and consequences, it would be fair enough.

"But all my essays were handed back with good marks and no one spotted it."

That, I think, is the definition of audacity. And I hope to god the university tells him to go take a long walk off a short pier.

Nah, they should let him get it, then come down double plus strong on the next group of people who try it. That would be funnier. Besides. You gotta respect a brass neck like that.

I think that kid should be shot.

Not literally, but seriously there should be some sort of punishment for wasting public courtrooms and stuff on this crap....

As outrageous as his claim sounds, he does have a point. If he can prove that someone was at least suspicious of his papers earlier then he's definitely got a case for negligence, or even fraud and theft. If he can't prove that anyone knew then he's just really really unlucky.

Part of his argument is the whole "nobody told me cheating was against the rules." First off, that's utter crap, and secondly, it's not an excuse. It's like appearing in court to defend against a charge of robbery and arguing that the police never dropped by and read the rule of law to you and so you should go free.

Part of his argument is the whole "nobody told me cheating was against the rules." First off, that's utter crap, and secondly, it's not an excuse. It's like appearing in court to defend against a charge of robbery and arguing that the police never dropped by and read the rule of law to you and so you should go free.

Certainly he should be punished for breaking the rules, but if there was inpropriety on the part of the school as well then it is reasonable for him to sue for the cost of his tuition at least.

I guess my question would be where's the impropriety on the part of the school? In the fact that they didn't catch him the first time? I'm sorry, but just because a person managed to avoid being caught doesn't excuse the original crime in my book (and as a former university teacher, I do consider plagiarism a crime in my classroom).

that guy is weird. Unless there is like something where you can get off if you aren' caught for a certain amount of time.

I guess my question would be where's the impropriety on the part of the school? In the fact that they didn't catch him the first time? I'm sorry, but just because a person managed to avoid being caught doesn't excuse the original crime in my book (and as a former university teacher, I do consider plagiarism a crime in my classroom).

The question becomes whether anyone at the school knew about it but didn't report it with the intent to take more of the student's money before discharging him. If honestly no one noticed until just then there's nothing the guy can do, but if he can prove that someone did know and intentionally didn't report it then he's got a case.

Honestly, let's compare to a decent parallel shall we?

Let's say a murderer gets away with murders for 3 years. After 3 years and several murders, he is caught by the police. Should he be able to sue the police for the cost of living and food etc that he incurred during those 3 years since if the police had caught him the first time he would have been in jail and not had to pay for food/cost of living etc.?

The kid and the university have a contract: to abide by the rules of the unviersity.

The kid broke the rules of the university by plagarising.

The university did not break its own rules by not catching him immediately.

Sorry, kiddo, you're out of luck.that would have failed a typical course anyhow...

Honestly, let's compare to a decent parallel shall we?

Let's say a murderer gets away with murders for 3 years. After 3 years and several murders, he is caught by the police. Should he be able to sue the police for the cost of living and food etc that he incurred during those 3 years since if the police had caught him the first time he would have been in jail and not had to pay for food/cost of living etc.?

That is not a reasonable analogy because as a student you are required to pay for a service, while a murder is not. It is also not a reasonable analogy because the cost of living is not payed to the police in exchange for a service while tuition at a school is payed to the school for a service. Also, the same basic problem would occur in the case of the murderer if a police officer knew about the crime but chose not to report it in order to make more money, thus allowing the person paying that money to sue the officer for negligence.

The kid and the university have a contract: to abide by the rules of the unviersity.

The kid broke the rules of the university by plagarising.

The university did not break its own rules by not catching him immediately.

Sorry, kiddo, you're out of luck.that would have failed a typical course anyhow...

You are all ignoring the possiblity that there was wrong doing on the part of the school. The student cannot argue against his dismissal, but he can argue against its timing. If no one found that he was cheating until the last minute then you're right, he's out of luck, but if someone did know then he can recoup some of his money that he would not have payed had he not been in attendance, having been removed from the school earlier.

Quit Talking about me :evil:

This kid doesn't have stones, he has BOULDERS! For brains, and I don't see how boulders are any different in intelligence than stones.

The kid and the university have a contract: to abide by the rules of the unviersity.

The kid broke the rules of the university by plagarising.

The university did not break its own rules by not catching him immediately.

Sorry, kiddo, you're out of luck.that would have failed a typical course anyhow...

You are all ignoring the possiblity that there was wrong doing on the part of the school. The student cannot argue against his dismissal, but he can argue against its timing. If no one found that he was cheating until the last minute then you're right, he's out of luck, but if someone did know then he can recoup some of his money that he would not have payed had he not been in attendance, having been removed from the school earlier.

According to the report he is attempting to sue them for negligence, which suggests that he is arguing they were not checking up on him enough, rather than that they knew he was cheating, but did not act on it immediately.

As a side issue: the fees he paid were for the access to university facilities and the chance to attend lectures/seminars/whatever, they were not to purchase a degree.

He shouldn't have cheated anyway. But it is a part of his past I suppose.

The kid and the university have a contract: to abide by the rules of the unviersity.

The kid broke the rules of the university by plagarising.

The university did not break its own rules by not catching him immediately.

Sorry, kiddo, you're out of luck.that would have failed a typical course anyhow...

You are all ignoring the possiblity that there was wrong doing on the part of the school. The student cannot argue against his dismissal, but he can argue against its timing. If no one found that he was cheating until the last minute then you're right, he's out of luck, but if someone did know then he can recoup some of his money that he would not have payed had he not been in attendance, having been removed from the school earlier.

According to the report he is attempting to sue them for negligence, which suggests that he is arguing they were not checking up on him enough, rather than that they knew he was cheating, but did not act on it immediately.

I don't know enough about it to say for sure, but I believe that simply assuming that he has no case is bad.

As a side issue: the fees he paid were for the access to university facilities and the chance to attend lectures/seminars/whatever, they were not to purchase a degree.

This is true, although I don't think it's enough to stop a court from passing the lawsuit if demonstrable negligence is found.

All together now-

"Plagiarize, let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize..."

from "Lobachevsky" by Tom Lehrer

According to the report he is attempting to sue them for negligence, which suggests that he is arguing they were not checking up on him enough, rather than that they knew he was cheating, but did not act on it immediately.

I don't know enough about it to say for sure, but I believe that simply assuming that he has no case is bad.

I'm only going on the information in the first posting here, so I know no more than your good self, but it seems to me that the tuition fees will be small potatoes compared to his legal fees when his case gets chucked out of court.

Honestly, let's compare to a decent parallel shall we?

Let's say a murderer gets away with murders for 3 years. After 3 years and several murders, he is caught by the police. Should he be able to sue the police for the cost of living and food etc that he incurred during those 3 years since if the police had caught him the first time he would have been in jail and not had to pay for food/cost of living etc.?

That is not a reasonable analogy because as a student you are required to pay for a service, while a murder is not. It is also not a reasonable analogy because the cost of living is not payed to the police in exchange for a service while tuition at a school is payed to the school for a service. Also, the same basic problem would occur in the case of the murderer if a police officer knew about the crime but chose not to report it in order to make more money, thus allowing the person paying that money to sue the officer for negligence.

Sorry, but I'm going to say that if he's willing to cheat his way through 3 years to get a degree, when other people slog their guts out to get the same degree, he's a low-life who's willing to trade on the value of a qualification that he didn't deserve to get, and one which only has value because of the work that other people do. He's a phony, a liar, a kind of parasite. If he had succeeded do you imagine he would have felt bad for all the people who did real work? It's a measure of the kind of person he is that he wants to blame others for his own lack of character and integrity. He didn't have the guts to face up to doing honest work, and now he doesn't have the guts to face up to the consequences of being a cheat.

He deserves whatever goes wrong for him as a result of getting caught. I doubt they really chose to wait, and let him pay out the 3 years before catching him. It's more likely they still care about people's reputations enough that they wanted to be careful not to smear his with mere suspicions and without firm proof that he really cheated, and that it wasn't a one-off that he never repeated. In fact, it's likely that they cared more about his reputation than he did, since he's the one who gambled away his reputation by being a cheat.

But supposing they did carry out a "sting" operation on him? It would be no more than he deserved. When he chose to be a fraud, he gave up his right to any high moral ground where honesty is concerned. "Hoist on his own petard" is, I think, the name for that. He shouldn't be a crybaby now.

Three cheers for the University of Kent. They've showed more integrity and courage than a university in California over a certain sociologist who faked his field research with a so-called Yaqui sorcerer...

PT

P.S. -- I think you meant, "This guy had stones." He's singing alto now.

Sorry, but I'm going to say that if he's willing to cheat his way through 3 years to get a degree, when other people slog their guts out to get the same degree, he's a low-life who's willing to trade on the value of a qualification that he didn't deserve to get, and one which only has value because of the work that other people do.

The idiot in question claimed that he didn't know his plagiarism would be a problem. He may not be lying here, but if not then he is displaying sufficient stupidity to be failed on that alone.

End result: no degree, no refunds.

I'm there with you BWO. When I taught at the University of Arkansas, I had a run of five straight semesters where I caught someone plagiarizing in every course I taught. I gave them an option--I could fail them and let them retake the course with no black mark on their academic record, provided they didn't try to drop the course, or if they decided to try to challenge me, I could try to get them suspended from the University. They all took the Fs. And it was the smart play, too, because they could retake the class and have the F removed, but you can't get an F for academic dishonesty removed.

But if any of them had pushed the matter, I'd have tried to get them expelled.

Sorry, but I'm going to say that if he's willing to cheat his way through 3 years to get a degree, when other people slog their guts out to get the same degree, he's a low-life who's willing to trade on the value of a qualification that he didn't deserve to get, and one which only has value because of the work that other people do.

The idiot in question claimed that he didn't know his plagiarism would be a problem. He may not be lying here, but if not then he is displaying sufficient stupidity to be failed on that alone.

End result: no degree, no refunds.

You've reminded me that he claims not to have known that plagiarism is frowned upon. :lol: :lol: :lol:

*wipes tears from eyes*

I'm amazed he expects anyone to believe this. The word "chutzpa" comes to mind.

Mr. Gunn, please return to your own pathological universe where you are the deity and nothing you do is ever wrong. Thanks.

PT

Part of his argument is the whole "nobody told me cheating was against the rules." First off, that's utter crap, and secondly, it's not an excuse. It's like appearing in court to defend against a charge of robbery and arguing that the police never dropped by and read the rule of law to you and so you should go free.

Agreed, this guy's only tying up the court system. I think pretty much everyone knows from the first grade that copying someone else's work is cheating. Dump a cup of hot coffee in his lap and send him on his way.