Student Loses College Degree 15 Years after Graduation Due to Plagiarism

After a master's thesis was corrected for plagiarism and a degree awarded, it was examined by a plagiarism checker years later and more plagiarism was identified leading to a professor losing his degree ("Judge Upholds University's Right to Rescind Master's Degree over Plagiarism," Calgary Herald, September 19, 2018). John Measor tried unsuccessfully to get the University of Calgary to let him keep the degree based on the fact that it had already been given to him, so he took his case to court. However, the judge sided with the university because the "power to award degrees necessarily implies the power of rescission." Justice Richard Neufeld in his decision also noted that "institutional integrity" requires a school to uphold the value of its degrees by taking back one that incorporated academic dishonesty.

Discussion Questions:

1. Does this case change your opinion about the importance of academic integrity when you create coursework for your classes? Why or why not?
2. Do you think the university was justified in taking back the degree years after it was given due to plagiarism by the former student? Why or why not?
3. The news story mentions that John Measor also changed his story about the plagiarized thesis during the various hearings. Would you rule in his favor and let him keep the degree if he wasn't clear about what really happened? Why or why not?

Save Your Data (and Your Job) to Prove Your Research Results

An investigation into flawed research brought down a once-noted Cornell University professor who now has had thirteen papers retracted ("This Ivy League Food Scientist Was a Media Darling. He Just Submitted His Resignation, the School Says." The Washington Post, September 20, 2018). One of the problems is that Brian Wansink's results cannot be verified because data in its original form was not kept. Another related article from Vox stated that his lab employees cherry-picked favorable results to support hypotheses.

Discussion Questions:

1. Do you think the professor's reputation has been permanently harmed by these accusations? Why or why not?
2. Vox suggests that professors are under pressure to publish results that support their hypotheses instead of discussing why research didn't work or other questions of significance. If keeping your job depended on only finding statistically significant results in your research would you be tempted to alter results to fit your hypotheses? Why or why not?
3. It was also mentioned that "Wansink had a knack for producing studies that were catnip for the media." Do you think the professor wanted more publicity for his work, so he succumbed to shoddy research practices to get anything and everything published to feed his ego? Why or why not?