Contract cheating

The request was refused by Goldsmiths, University of London.

Wan Ulfa Nur Zuhra

Dear Goldsmiths, University of London,

Dear Goldsmiths, University of London,

This request is under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:

1. Please inform me of the number of disciplinary actions taken against students resulting in a fine and/or expulsion in the last five academic years (2012/2013-2016/2017) under the Academic Misconduct, the reasons for such action being taken, and the results of any appeal.

2. In those academic years (2013 to 2017), How many of those are the case where classified as the contract cheating? (for ex: assignment or dissertation were written by somebody else)

I would request this data in either Excel or CSV format or searchable PDF.

If you need any clarification then please contact me via email. Under your section 16 duty to provide advice and assistance, I would expect you contact me if you find this request unmanageable in any way.

Yours faithfully,

Wan Ulfa Nur Zuhra

Yours faithfully,

Wan Ulfa Nur Zuhra

Goldsmiths Information Access, Goldsmiths, University of London

Dear Wan Ulfa Nur Zuhra,

I am writing to formally acknowledge your Freedom of Information (FOI)
request received on 19 March 2018.

We will respond promptly but in any event by 18 April 2018, this being 20
working days following the receipt of your request and is in accordance
with the time limit set out in the FOI Act.

Yours sincerely,

Information Governance

Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross,
London, SE14 6AF

www.gold.ac.uk

Goldsmiths Information Access, Goldsmiths, University of London

Dear Wan Ulfa Nur Zuhra,

 

I am writing in response to your Freedom of Information request received
on 19 March 2018 entitled “Contract cheating”. You asked:

 

1.Please inform me of the number of disciplinary actions taken against
students resulting in a fine and/or expulsion in the last five academic
years (2012/2013-2016/2017) under the Academic Misconduct, the reasons for
such action being taken, and the results of any appeal.

 

2. In those academic years (2013 to 2017), How many of those are the case
where classified as the contract cheating? (for ex: assignment or
dissertation were written by somebody else)

 

I have reviewed your current request in light of the Freedom of
Information request received from you on 4th Mar 2018 entitled
“Ghostwriter in the university” in which you asked for:

1.Please inform me of the number of disciplinary actions taken against
students resulting in a fine and/or expulsion in the last five academic
years, the reasons for such action being taken, and the results of any
appeal.

 

2. In those academic years (2013 to 2017), How many of those are the case
where a ghostwriter involve? (for ex: assignment or dissertation were
written by somebody else)

 

3. How to find out that ghostwriter involvement since many ghostwriter
organisations offer the plagiarism checking?

 

4. Is there any case where your staff involved in that unfair practice,
being a ghostwriter for the student?

 

The University advised you on 5 March 2018 that it estimated that it would
take longer 18 hours to determine whether we hold the information, locate,
retrieve and extract it in respect of your request entitled “Ghostwriter
in the university”. As Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FOIA) states that a public authority is not obliged to comply with a
request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of
complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit of 18 hours
your request was refused.

 

I need to advise you that Section 14(2) of the Freedom of Information Act
states:

 

“Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for
information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to comply with
a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that person
unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the
previous request and the making of the current request.”

 

I have concluded that the request received from you on 19 March 2018
entitled “Contract cheating” and the request received from you on 4th Mar
2018 entitled “Ghostwriter in the university” are substantially similar.
Therefore, I need to inform you that, in accordance with Section 14(2) of
the Freedom of Information Act, your request will not be processed
further.

 

In order to be helpful to you I am able to advise you that on the basis of
an anecdotal poll of individuals within departments who are likely to have
an awareness of cases the university has identified as potential instances
of contract cheating we have estimated there have been somewhere between
5-10 investigations that have taken place in total across the University
over the past several years.

 

I hope this information satisfies your Freedom of Information request.
However, if you are dissatisfied with this response, you may ask for it to
be reviewed by either contacting us by email: [1][Goldsmiths, University of London request email] or by
writing to:

 

Information Governance Manager

Room M1, DTH Building

Goldsmiths, University of London

New Cross, London, SE14 6AF

 

Please describe the original request, explain your grounds for
dissatisfaction, and include an address for correspondence.

 

If you are still not satisfied following the internal review, you have a
right to appeal to the Information Commissioner who can be contacted at
the following address.

 

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545 700

[2]www.ico.gov.uk

 

With regards,

Julian Spain

Interim FOI Manager

Goldsmiths, University of London

 

show quoted sections

Wan Ulfa Nur Zuhra

Dear Goldsmiths Information Access,

I made this different second request because on my first request about ghostwriting in the university, you said that you cannot provide the data due to overtime. So, that is why I made this second request more simple and it was different in the number of questions, and also different data.

My second request is different from the previous one.
Here is my first question on my second request that focused on Academic Misconduct:

1.Please inform me of the number of disciplinary actions taken against students resulting in a fine and/or expulsion in the last five academic years (2012/2013-2016/2017) under the Academic Misconduct, the reasons for such action being taken, and the results of any appeal.

And here is the question from my first request that you rejected (It was more general and not limited on Academic Misconduct):
1.Please inform me of the number of disciplinary actions taken against
students resulting in a fine and/or expulsion in the last five academic
years, the reasons for such action being taken, and the results of any
appeal.

Those two questions will result in two different answers.
Can you please provide a more valid reason for rejecting my second request? If not, I have the right to ask for the internal review.

Many thanks,

Yours sincerely,

Wan Ulfa Nur Zuhra

Goldsmiths Information Access, Goldsmiths, University of London

Dear Wan Ulfa Nur Zuhra,

 

Thank you for your email dated 21 Mar 2018 in which you say:

“I made this different second request because on my first request about
ghostwriting in the university, you said that you cannot provide the data
due to overtime. So, that is why I made this second request more simple
and it was different in the number of questions, and also different data.

 

My second request is different from the previous one.

Here is my first question on my second request that focused on Academic
Misconduct:

 

1.Please inform me of the number of disciplinary actions taken against
students resulting in a fine and/or expulsion in the last five academic
years (2012/2013-2016/2017) under the Academic Misconduct, the reasons for
such action being taken, and the results of any appeal.

 

And here is the question from my first request that you rejected (It was
more general and not limited on Academic Misconduct):

1.Please inform me of the number of disciplinary actions taken against
students resulting in a fine and/or expulsion in the last five academic
years, the reasons for such action being taken, and the results of any
appeal.

 

Those two questions will result in two different answers.

Can you please provide a more valid reason for rejecting my second
request? If not, I have the right to ask for the internal review.”

 

 

 

I have noted the narrowing of the scope in your second request to limit
the information you have requested to disciplinary actions taken against
students as a result of Academic Misconduct.

 

I need to apologise to you that I had not fully re-iterated and clarified
the basis of our refusal to your first request. When the University
advised you on 5 March 2018 that it estimated that it would take longer
than 18 hours to process your request it did so on the basis that granular
information regarding Academic Misconduct is held at a departmental level
across 18 separate departments. We considered that it is reasonable and
realistic to estimate that it would significantly exceed one hour per
department, and consequently exceed 18 hours in total, to locate, retrieve
and extract the information you requested.

 

In order to be helpful to you I am able to offer to you the following
table which provides a summary of all the cases of Academic misconduct
reported in the academic year (Sep to Aug) 2016/17.

Minor or technical 82
Moderate 30
Severe 28
Very severe 78

 

(Goldsmith’s definitions, procedures and penalties in relation to academic
misconduct can be found here:
[1]https://www.gold.ac.uk/governance/assess...).

 

Also I previously advised you that on the basis of an anecdotal poll of
individuals within departments who are likely to have an awareness of
cases the university has identified as potential instances of contract
cheating we are aware there will have been somewhere between 5-10
investigations that have taken place in total across the University over
the past several years.

 

We do not hold a centralised summary of cases of Academic Misconduct prior
to 2016/17 and I need to reaffirm to you that that granular information
regarding Academic Misconduct is held at a departmental level across 18
separate departments. Consequently, we maintain that it is reasonable and
realistic to estimate that it would significantly exceed one hour per
department, and 18 hours in total, to locate, retrieve and extract the
information you requested.

 

Additionally, I need to remind you that Section 12 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOIA) states that a public authority is not obliged
to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that
the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.
As a non-central government department, our appropriate limit is 18 hours
to determine whether we hold the information you request, locate, retrieve
and extract it. Therefore, as we estimate it will exceed 18 hours, your
second request will not be processed further.

 

I hope this information satisfies your Freedom of Information request.
However, if you are dissatisfied with this response, you may ask for it to
be reviewed by either contacting us by email: [2][Goldsmiths, University of London request email] or by
writing to:

 

Information Governance Manager

Room M1, DTH Building

Goldsmiths, University of London

New Cross, London, SE14 6AF

 

Please describe the original request, explain your grounds for
dissatisfaction, and include an address for correspondence.

 

If you are still not satisfied following the internal review, you have a
right to appeal to the Information Commissioner who can be contacted at
the following address.

 

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545 700

[3]www.ico.gov.uk

 

With regards,

Julian Spain

Interim FOI Manager

Goldsmiths, University of London

 

show quoted sections