Summarizing the case, NSO leader Oline Sæther believes that the regulations for cheating vary too much from university to university, which creates confusion about what “cheating” really is. Sæther calls for common national regulations for students, and points out that this already exists for researchers. She believes the regulations should define the difference between cheating and sloppiness, in addition to ensuring that students and researchers are assessed according to the same ethical requirements. Student representative Karsten Olav Aarestrup confirms that the rules for cheating vary greatly between different universities. Chairman Ernst Nordtveit of the Joint Complaints Board believes that different practices are not a major problem today. Nordtveit admits that some universities have stricter requirements locally than others, but thinks this is because “cheating” is a broad term. He will not take a position on the proposal for a national regulatory framework. The summary is made by an AI service from OpenAi. The content is quality assured by news’s journalists before publication. – Because universities have different subjects, there must be a certain scope for action. At the same time, I don’t understand why the premises for cheating should be different, says Oline Sæther to news. She is a leader in the Norwegian Student Organization (NSO). Sæther believes that the regulations for cheating vary too much from place to place. – They all have recognizable elements, but different wording. Then the room for interpretation becomes too large, believes the NSO leader. In a debate post at VG, she wrote, among other things, that it could explain why professionals disagree about whether Health Minister Ingvild Kjerkols (Ap) cheated in her master’s thesis or not. No national cheating law At the end of the month, a proposal to increase the maximum penalty for student cheating will be considered in the Storting. It is basically the Universities and Colleges Act that regulates students’ rights and obligations in trial situations. In addition, the study centers have their own local regulations. But there is no national law that defines what cheating is. Researchers, on the other hand, have their own research ethics law regarding this. The NSO leader believes that a similar national regulation for students must be in place. – Sloppyness is human, cheating is wrong. The law must define the difference between cheating and sloppiness. It must ensure that students and researchers are assessed according to the same ethical requirements, she tells news. Different guidelines Karsten Olav Aarestrup is the student representative for both the University of Bergen (UiB), the Norwegian School of Economics (NHH) and the Bergen School of Architecture (BAS). He points out that the rules for cheating vary to a great extent only at the three universities for which he himself is the representative. At NHH, they refer to several examples of what cheating is. They don’t do that at UiB. BAS, on the other hand, has other examples of cheating than NHH. NHH: Extract from regulation Chapter 5 – Cheating Section 5-1. Cheating (1) Cheating is a serious breach of trust towards NHH, fellow students and society in general. NHH therefore reacts strictly to all forms of cheating during the implementation of subjects and assessments at NHH. (2) Cheating is considered, for example: a. to act contrary to chapter 5 of supplementary provisions issued in accordance with the regulations b. to have illegal aids available during assessment c. to present other people’s work as one’s own d. to present one’s own previous work as something new (self-plagiarism) e. to cite sources or otherwise use sources in written works without sufficient source references f. to have gained access to assessment by cheating on a test or the like which are conditions for carrying out assessment g. on incorrect basis to have received approval for participation in compulsory education or other compulsory activities h. unregulated collaboration or contact with others under assessment i. manipulation of an answer after it has been submitted j. fraudulent actions or conditions that aim to give or may give the candidate an unjustified advantage in connection with the fulfillment of a mandatory activity (work requirement) or in an assessment k. actions that may in other ways contribute to the candidate’s knowledge and skills not being tested and assessed in an impartial and professionally reassuring manner (cf. § 4-1). (3) Attempts at and complicity in cheating can be sanctioned in the same way as cheating. UiB: Excerpt from regulation Chapter 8 – Examination attempts § 8-1. The number of attempts (…) (4) The faculty: (…) d. must, upon application, allow new delivery of bachelor’s and master’s projects after exclusion as a result of cheating, unless the cheating is of a nature that makes it impossible. The faculty must ensure that the cheating is rectified. The student cannot deliver until after the exclusion period has ended, cf. University and College Act § 4-8 (3). Section 8-2. Counting attempts (1) The student uses an exam attempt if he: a. completes the exam, regardless of whether the result is passed, b. cancels the exam, c. does not appear for the exam, d. withdraws after the deadline or e. cheats or attempts to cheat BAS: Excerpt from regulation Chapter 4 – Examination § 4-9. Cheating (1) If during the examination there is suspicion of cheating or attempted cheating, the student must immediately be made aware that he/she will be reported. The student can then choose whether he/she wants to cancel the exam. (2) The consequence for the student of cheating/attempted cheating is cancellation of the exam and up to one year’s exclusion from all higher education institutions, cf. Act on Universities and Colleges § 4-7 (1) and § 4-8 (3). The censorship result must be set to “Not passed” where there is documented cheating or attempted cheating. All cases where cheating or attempted cheating have been discovered must be submitted to the Board for a final decision. The board checks the evidence and cancels the exam if this is tenable, and makes a decision to expel the student as a result of cheating/attempted cheating at the exam. Decisions by the Board on exclusion can be appealed to the ministry’s special national appeals body, cf. Act on Universities and Colleges § 4-8 (5). He points out that the universities also inform students to varying degrees about what is considered cheating. – It would probably have been appropriate to clarify and define in the Universities and Colleges Act what cheating actually is, he says. In addition, Aarestrup believes that it is unclear whether the various tribunals treat complaints related to cheating in the same way. – In some places, for example, they only publish how many cases have been processed and of what type, but nothing about the assessment topic and which elements are emphasized in a cheating case. The student representative in Oslo has also called for more transparency regarding practice when it comes to cheating: – Transparency about how cheating rules are practiced is primarily important for the students’ legal security: it opens up for control from outside as well, in addition the student himself or the student’s lawyer will gain a better understanding for how the case stands and what should be emphasized in a possible “defence”, says Marianne Høva Rustberggard. – Follows the same practice The Joint Complaints Board has pointed out that there are some examples of different treatment in student cases. “Unjustified different reaction practices challenge the principle of equal treatment,” says the report from 2022. Khrono has also previously discussed different practices between educational institutions. They told, among other things, that text similarity of around 20 percent led to the exclusion of a student for one semester at one university, while it only led to cancellation at another. Ernst Nordtveit, head of the Joint Complaints Board, still does not have the impression that different practices are a major problem today. – There is no big gap in what we get in, he says. Nordtveit nevertheless admits that some of the universities have slightly stricter requirements locally than others. He believes that this is about the fact that “cheating” is basically a broad term. – Precisely the definition of what the students are allowed to do in an exam is a concrete regulation that the institutions make themselves. It can vary from exam to exam, from subject to subject, and students must familiarize themselves with it in advance. Nordtveit will not take a position on whether national laws on cheating should be updated. – The Ministry of Education is responsible for the regulations, and we practice them in accordance with case law, preparatory statements and administrative practice.
ttn-69
– The law must define the difference between cheating and sloppiness – news Norway – Overview of news from different parts of the country
