Obvious and Tangible Cheating…
The Oxbridge Training Contracts saga continues with Oxbridge Training Contracts demanding that Simon Myerson QC pay attention to their demands… I quote from Mr Foster (representing OTC) …“The following comments refer to the blog ‘Integrity and a Suitable Place for It’ posted on your website on March 31st, 2009.The blog is both highly deceptive and defamatory and we demand its immediate removal, the deletion of associated comments and that you print a retraction making very clear the deceptive nature of the comments printed there hitherto.” (See: Integrity – The Man speaks)
 |
Myerson, clearly unruffled by Mr Foster’s demands, refused to comply and responded: Integrity – the deadline passes and Moving on. In his his latest “Moving on” blog post, Simon Myerson makes a number of particularly important points in relation to cheating – first, in relation to paying organisations like OTC to write pupillage application forms and, secondly, in relation to the even more serious issue (in my view) of paying porganisations to provide answers to tailored essay questions. |
The fiction, of course, is that OTC and similar organisations (which they make clear in their terms and conditions) are simply providing students with these answers for their private research. They go further and say that it is a breach of their terms and conditions for students to use these answers for any other purpose than private research and include submission of such answers as their own work for university or law school course work.
Given that these tailored, bespoke, answers cost £200 or even more per answer depending on whether the answer is 2.1 or First class standard, or delivered seven days or seven hours later, it does not take a genius to work out that students are (a) using these bespoke answers and passing them off as their own work or (b) may be tempted to use the material as a substitute for their own research or (c) are using the work as research and then ‘modelling’ their own answers on the answers provided. In all three cases the student is cheating. There is really no other term for it. Many, if not most, institutions make it clear to students that they may not have any third party assistance with assessed coursework.
Myerson, rightly, makes this observation: ” I extend this to the writing of essays – whether by way of ‘model’ answer or otherwise. The test is simple: if the teaching isn’t good enough at your institution then you should be able to recover the cost of your payment to OTC by way of legal action for breach of contract. If you wouldn’t sue then you shouldn’t use what you’ve bought. Try working harder.”
Simon Myerson QC is a member of The Bar Council and is actively involved in the matter of Bar education. His blog posts on this issue are worth reading – as are the comments written by prospective barristers. Myerson’s Pupillage and How to Get It blog is a first class resource for any prospective barrister. I have no hesitation in recommending it.
[I gave Mr Foster the opportunity to talk about Oxbridge Training Contracts in a podcast. If you wish to listen to it – click here]
***
Charon,
In my opinion Simon Myerson seems rather confused on this matter. Yes, he is correct to laugh at the ‘Oxbridge’ boys.
The ‘model’ aplication letter (with all that guff about Decline and Fall) is comedy and hugely damaging.
Where he is wrong, is to ignore the obvious point that they only exist because the bars’ selection process is absurd.
He also has falsely accused them of working from a sandwich bar, and then denies having done so.
Hi James
My concern is more focussed on the use of tailored essays – a very real and serious problem for universities and law schools.
I have no objection to a student buying a tailored esay for genuine private research (although I am puzzled as to how they can afford the breathtaking prices) but not if it is to be used for submission as coursework or if it comes within the concept of third party help for assessed coursework.
OTC and other providers do make it clear that their answers are not to be used in this way – but I have anecdotal ‘evidence’ to indicate that students are misusing the tailored answers in breach of university and law school terms and conditions.
If students get caught doing so – they have only themselves to blame. There really is no substitute for hacking the work oneself.
You can’t go through an entire legal career getting other people to do your work for you! Well, you can… but it may not be cost effective if you have to pay a substantial sum to the ‘devil’ or a fellow lawyer in the firm!
James
I am quite sure you will take the matter up with Simon Myerson – I think you have already made such a point if ,memory serves. Simon is more than able to respond to his own comments as you know.
I am worried about the misuse of essay writing service provider product…
Charon,
Maybe it is just me, but the idea of coursework is ludicrous.
If the second sentance of the quote from Mr Foster is anything to go by, he’s not fit to be writing anything for barristers.
As for not going through an entire legal career getting other people to do your work for you, Charon, surely there is ample evidence of people doing precisely that … or is there invriably a short period at the outset when even the most parasitic has to find his (or her) feet? Perhaps the fact that you say “legal career” holds the answer – there are a lot of lawyers pursuing careers that seem to have little connection with the law.
James,
Read what I said more carefully. You are wrong.
As to the absurd recruitment system, I think you confuse training with recruitment. The recruitment process – interview by prospective Chambers following a set timetable – is reasonable enough.
You have made this point a number of times so let me extend this invitation to you. Email me with your suggestions for a better recruitment process and include details of your own career so that reader’s can assess your stance. I’ll publish it.
Simon
Yes, the recruitment process is remarkably cheap and efficient from the point of view of the prospective Chambers, but not for the poor hopefuls who have to do the training first.
My suggestion would be to have (some of) the selection first and do more of the training afterwards. I have no credentials to back this up, but it appears to be the way everyone else does it.
Perhaps the bar could arrange a version of the Apprentice.
Regards,
James C
‘Perhaps the bar could arrange a version of the Apprentice.’
… with lord bingham instead of alan sugar. i’d pay good money to watch that. and bernard richmond would make great tv – if he wasn’t busy being successful at the bar i could have got him a career in the biz. he is brilliant with an audience and delivers text better than many actors i worked with.