How is this a form of cheating? This was her work. I don’t get it. Was there a prohibition anywhere in the syllabus or otherwise that using work previously composed by the student was prohibited? If not, I don’t see how this is a problem, particularly in these circumstances where it was a draft, and just a piece of a draft.
I think the argument your daughter needs to make is that she requested and obtained approval to expand on the prior work. While she may have implemented this poorly, it does not rise to the level of academic integrity as she was never trying to hide the fact that she was using prior work.
It is reasonable for your daughter to assume that the approval from the professor was communicated to the TA. While mentioning this in the email to the TA would have helped, the TA would have needed to discuss this with the professor at that point. If the professor approved the variance from stated school policy, he should have communicated this with the TA.
Are we clear that it is current prof she got the ok from and not the prior?
@suzy100
From post #6: “the university policy states that you cannot reuse your work if you got credit for it in another course.”
That is the basis for the academic integrity issue.
@profparent, thank you, I missed that.
@mathprof63 , Thanks for mentioning the process at your university which seems to slightly different from here.
This is order in which things happened -
1.D sent prof an email asking her to recommend a topic between two, one of which is from a previous paper and prof replied back asking her to elaborate on the previous work since it is an interesting subject
2. They were supposed to turn in 10 pages of draft before thanksgiving which does not have any weightage in the overall grade. D was busy with other courses and did not turn it on time. But when the TA reminded her, she turned in 10 pages 5 of which are reused from previous course
3. TA/prof caught the TurnItIn flag and reported to the dean. (TA or the prof later told her that they are obligated to report and not inform her personally since they would get into trouble if the prof/course was audited)
4. Assitant dean sent an email and had a meeting with D. D showed him the email from prof asking her to elaborate on the topic and tried to explain to him that since it is an ungraded assignment she did not think it would be an issue and she wanted to tell the TA in person that she reused a previous paper but anyway planned to change it in the final paper. But he kept asking her if she is telling the truth about informing the TA and D kept insisting on it. During these meetings is when he said that a line in the email to the TA mentioning that she resued would have avoided all this mess. He took a long time (6 days) to conclude that it is a violation and said that even though he cannot judge if she is telling the truth or trying to get away with it but because she turned it in late it makes him wonder what her real intentions were.
5. After she was given the letter of reprimand, D talked to prof and TA. While prof said she would give a letter of reco for later use, but cannot be part of the appeal process since she is involved in reporting. But the good sign is that TA agreed to be a witness in the appeals process saying that she believes that D would have told her in person since they have a good rappo
@happy1 Thank you so much for taking the time to list out the points. It is very very helpful! Appreciate it so much! Thanks for the nice words about my daughter too. We have been behind her solidly and keep telling her not to be embarrassed or blame herself. Life is not fair at times but in the long run everything would be ok.
@suzy100 unfortunately, that is considered as violation of academic integrity policy 
@compmom yes, the policy is clear that double dipping is wrong even though I and quite a few people do not know about it. But here the arguement is that since it is an ungraded draft assignment, double dipping should not apply. If it is the final paper or a graded assignment, the case would be different. Do you agree with the logic ? I want to know if that would make sense for the appeal committee where more than one person is involved in making a judgement call on whether to overthrow the letter of reprimand.
@TempeMom ofcourse 
she got the ok from the current prof, not the previous prof. But the prof gave permission to elaborate on the previous paper not to reuse.
@bp0001 I really like how you worded it -
While she may have implemented this poorly, it does not rise to the level of academic integrity as she was never trying to hide the fact that she was using prior work.
Thank you, we will definitely use it
Thanks to everyone for all the responses. Any comment whether you agree or disagree that will strengthen her appeal case is appreciated.
I think that the fact that it is an ungraded draft v. graded assignment is not compelling, because from a committee standpoint, I would think either
a- the draft was intended (as it normally is) to be turned into the final paper, where the previous material would have been found, or
b- she hurried through the assignnment (which, while ungraded, was required) and was trying to do less work in order to make a deadline.
I think what has been mentioned upthread about not understanding the difference in what the professor meant when they allowed her to “elaborate on” a previous draft, and that she would have mentioned it to the TA at the meeting when she was discussing her work, and because she thought she had the professor’s permission, she didn’t mention it in the original submission.
I don’t see the relevance of whether it was grade or not graded. Sorry, I just really don’t grasp that at all.
The fact that it was late and she threw the 5 pages from a previous paper in with 5 new pages makes it look worse, sport of opportunistic. Not saying it was, but it looks that way.
Other students had to write 10 pages, she only wrote 5. To me, it is her work versus the other students’ work that is most compelling. It was not fair, and I think that would be clear to anyone who wasn’t in a hurry and stopped to think.
What if students used papers over and over again for different classes? Often students can choose topics, so it is conceivable this could be done. Do people think this is okay?
I don’t see that is a plagiarism case, but I do see it as a cheating case.
And it would have been much better if the paper had been done deliberatively, and passed in early!
I do wonder what the actual text of the professor’s e-mail was. Did he (was it a he?) suggest elaborating on an idea, or expanding the previous paper itself? I seriously doubt he meant the latter but he might have been fuzzy in his articulation. In that case, he is in a bit of a corner needing to report a student for doing what he suggested!! Hmmm. This will depend on the professor’s character. He may need to cover his you know what and then privately support the student, who knows.
Again, was the choice of the same topic covered in a previous paper a result of hurry and convenience? I have never heard of a student expanding a paper from one course for an assignment for another one, but maybe I am not in the know, seriously.
So I am being honest. This was not a smart move on the student’s part, and also, in my opinion, not ethical. She did less work than others for the assignment. It’s too bad she intended to tell the TA but she didn’t- lesson learned. And if she had told the TA, I still think it was a dicey thing to do.
Sorry, being honest, and hope it helps. It isn’t that I don’t feel for her. One of my kids has made some errors like this. She learned the ways of the world and that unlike in the family home, the world doesn’t always bend for you, so think things through, cover yourself, and don’t be too trusting. And in this case, do the same amount of work as everyone else.
@purpleacorn Thanks for the pointers
@compmom thanks for the analysis. It is obvious that the dean was thinking on the same lines as you and hence gave her the letter of reprimand. BTW, the topic is not picked due to hurry or convenience since it was decided way back in September. Regarding the actual wording in the email - “While it is entirely up to you what direction you choose, I want to encourage you to consider extending your research. This is a topic that you already have background in so you’ll be able to move forward fairly quickly in the course…” .Again, extending research does not mean reuse of paper. That is not in contention here. The Q is if a committee of minimum 3 faculty and 1 student thinks she deserves a break and would give her a benefit of doubt and overthrow the sanction.
Maybe they will feel she has been through enough with this episode already and overthrow it. Maybe they have to stick to policy even if they like her and feel for her. Hard to say.
But yes, that e-mail does not imply at all that she should submit a paper from a previous course. I do think there is a good chance the reprimand will stick.
She’ll be smarter in the future, regardless!
Wow. I would never have guessed that getting prior permission from a professor to expand upon your own previous work and then providing a draft that did indeed expand upon the previous work could be construed as academic dishonesty. I agree with the way @happy1 framed it. I hope reason prevails.
I understand @compmom’s perspective but I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the thinking. I used to tell my children that writing 5 pages can be more difficult than writing 10. I would never use the length of the draft as a measure of effort or conclude that the inclusion of the prior paper was motivated by a desire to get away with something. Expanding upon the previous paper may well have taken more effort than someone else’s 10 page, more loosely written draft. I guess I’m also still stuck on the fact that the professor knew she was using the previous work and was developing it–which she did. Did he think she didn’t take it far enough? I suppose that might make some sense.
Let me tell you, I will be warning my daughter about this.
OP - Were there substantive changes made to the formatting or font size of the original that might further confuse the issue of whether your daughter submitted five pages of substantive, new work?
(You’ve said nothing to suggest this is the case, but it could further undermine a case that seems to be one of error due to miscommunication and misinterpretation. Better to ask the question and know the answer before it is suggested that she took steps to deceive in one area, and therefore loses credibility before the committee.)
@3girls3cats Thanks for the support and please warn your kids. The least we can hope out of this ordeal is that someone else can be more informed on self plaigarism.
@Waiting2exhale All she is can say now is that she took it lightly since it was a draft and she planned on telling the TA.
I’m in the minority who totally sees where the reprimand is coming from, and I think it’ll probably stick. I’ve taught classes that involved papers before.
When a student asks me if they can reuse a topic that they’ve covered in a previous class, I readily agree to that. That is a very different question from whether you can reuse a paper that you’ve already written. “Elaborating” on a topic you’ve already written on means approaching the work from a different angle, delving more deeply into the work, or investigating a different or related aspect of the work. You can use some of the ideas from earlier work but not the same content.
It’s actually incorrect that this kind of thing is done all the time in academic work. Academics do often use earlier work to inspire, guide, or inform later work. They may even use substantially similar sections when things don’t change (like the methods section of an old paper for a new paper based on the same set of experiments) as a base in a new paper. But it would be completely unacceptable and inappropriate for an academic researcher to use 5 pages of previously published work in a different paper he intended to publish. It wouldn’t matter that he wrote it himself. It also wouldn’t matter that the 5 pages was a small percentage of the final product. At most journals these days, you have to sign a certification stating that no part of your work has been published anywhere else. The same is true when revising from article to book or vice versa. You have to substantially revise and expand upon the previously written work.
Graduate students do often base published work on parts of their theses and dissertations, but the work is substantially revised. Substantially! I actually turned my dissertation into a series of papers and it was a lot more work than cutting and pasting from the document. Moreover, there are issues with that too; for example, lots of people have to place an embargo on their dissertations from being published in academic databases because having the dissertation show up that way violates the double-publishing rule.
Other arguments that I don’t think will work:
As a teacher, this would make more more irritated and illustrate that the student didn’t understand the problem… If I’m giving you a chance to write an ungraded draft, that means I am giving over my time to help you go through the paper and improve it before you turn it in for a grade. It frustrates me to no end when students don’t take that seriously - and I get students who tell/ask me that all the time. “Oh, I just wrote it like that for the draft.” It makes very little sense to say that you, essentially, just threw something together for the draft that bears little resemblance to what the final paper will be. If you end up substantially rewriting that 5-page section the new five pages become, essentially, a draft. It’s a part of the section I’ve assigned that I’ve never laid eyes on before, and you have thus lost the opportunity for me to help you with that part. The point is for me to help you with a version that you think is at least on the pathway to correct.
I’d rather a student approach me and ask for an extension than just hand in something that’s not up to snuff. (And I have explicitly told my students this - “Don’t turn in crap. Talk to me if it’s crunch time.” They always laugh but they get it.)
Pointing out that it’s ungraded and thus less serious would also frustrate and irritate me and many other academics, because the goal theoretically should be learning and improving the work. Whether or not the work was graded is irrelevant.
Nooooooo, don’t say this. Never say this. This will be perceived as trying to get around the plagiarism filter, and will help nobody.
Besides, plagiarism filters are smarter than this. I can discover plagiarism by Googling a couple of sentences, even if students try to hide it by moving stuff around and changing some words and phrases. An actual paid plagiarism filter can do so much more. Basically if you have to try to move things around or change words and phrases to make something acceptable, consider the idea that perhaps you’re not approaching the assignment in the way it was intended to be approached.
Emphasizing that she (thought she) had the professor’s approval here is also not necessarily a good strategy, since it appears that she misinterpreted the professor’s intent to a relatively large extent.
Um…unlikely to work, I think. I’ve sat in on some judicial hearings, and I’ve had students say similar things when they have clearly and blatantly plagiarized (I mean copied entire sections of their paper from Wikipedia). “I didn’t know!” “I don’t feel like my reputation should be damaged by this one little thing.” (And they say it for lots of non-academic stuff too. And they say it regardless of the seriousness of the actual infraction. I’ve had students ask me to overlook them throwing things at other students, threatening bodily harm on others, entering unauthorized and clearly marked areas of campus, possession of illegal substances…)
Frankly, it gives off a sense of 1) cluelessness, which is especially frustrating given that the policy is so clearly outlined at this school; 2) flippancy, because it implies that the student believes what they did was not serious; this has the potential to make the person who reported the issue feel insulted, because clearly they thought it was big enough to report; and 3) entitlement, since the student seems to be implying they should suffer no consequences for whatever they did.
To me, the best strategy is simple:
- Say that you didn’t initially realize that what you did was wrong - you never realized that you could violate any academic integrity policy by using your own work. Do make clear that you had every intention of telling the TA what you did, which will make it more clear that you didn’t realize that you were doing something wrong. (This is where the TA’s witness statement will help).
- Say that you realize now that it IS wrong, and apologize for the error. Explain that you learned from this experience and it’s not something that will happen again.
- Ask for the opportunity to make it right. She could ask if she can to rewrite the draft in exchange for removing the reprimand letter from her file. (This is where the TA can pipe up and say “…and I’d be happy to help her in that endeavor, and look over the new draft.”)
yes to everything Juillet said!
Juillet nailed what’s been bothering me. I’m also in the apparent minority. I honestly think the student deserves the reprimand. But keep in mind, this experience doesn’t mean the student has no academic integrity or is a bad person. It means she made a mistake, and if the reprimands holds she pays a price for her mistake. That happens.
Telling her she isn’t to blame and life isn’t fair may not be the best things to say. Better to say, she made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes and that’s parti of life (and in the long run everything will be ok).Then discuss what she learned from the experience: one’s work always count, graded/acknowledged or not, etc.
I think the best course of action is for her to say her intent was never to deceive anyone, and she did not realize that it was possible to plagiarize herself. Now that she understands that wholesale reuse of material is apparently unacceptable, she would appreciate the opportunity to rework the paper to eliminate that aspect of it (e.g., rework those 5 pages as she apparently should have in the first place) and resubmit it to clear the reprimand from her record. I’d just accept the one-grade letter reduction as the cost of the error and focus on clearing the reprimand; that’s the item that will be held against her long term, not her grade in this class.
Personally, I have used this anecdote to warn my kids. And, personally, I think it is ridiculous. If what she had written previously forms the background/context for her current work and had been previously published as a cite-able source, then there would be not need for her to include it wholesale in her current work; she could provide a brief summary/restatement (as in, a sentence or two) with the citation and move on. But that is not the case here. She is using previous work of her own that is not cite-able and available for someone to go back and review; so the idea that she would need to include substantive content from that previous work to set up her new work is not unreasonable. Even if it was citeable, depending on the content, it is often much better for the reader to include a more substantive discussion of background information if the reader is not familiar with the background/context of the topic at hand.
I’m a technical person, so I completely understand how “expanded work” could easily be, for example, exploring a more subtle aspect of the interaction between two elements of a certain system, one of which you have previously investigated by itself; but to do that, you need to provide the reader with the same background on how the system works and the definition/purpose of each of the individual elements whose interaction you’ll be investigating. Example: Maybe in your previous work you analyzed the resistance of the individual waveforms used by a cellular system to interference. Now you want to look at the potential impact of interference on the handoff processing (how the system uses these individual signals together to provide seamless coverage to the user) and its resulting impacts to the capacity of the cellular system. To properly orient your reader for your new work, you’d need to include background on the cellular structure, signalling, and established resistance to inteference (which would be in your previous paper). Yes, that could easily be 5 pages of information that doesn’t change and doesn’t need to change, with the remaining 15 pages being devoted to exploring the details and consequences of the interactions of these elements. So, by the logic being applied here, she has to go back and essentially rewrite the pertinent sections of her previous work and apply extra effort to make sure it ends up “sufficiently different” (try defining that…) from what she submitted before, and then focus her efforts on the expansion of her topic. Big waste of time and effort. As an alternative, I suppose she could have just included her previous work wholesale as an appendix to which she referred and the focused the entire 20 pages of the paper content on her expanded topic (so the overall submission would be longer than 20 pages). But the result in this case would have been the same – without a chance to discuss the approach of dealing with the topic expansion with the TA, TurnItIn would have flagged her for plagiarism on the Appendix, she would have been reported, and then reprimanded. The only difference is she’d have a slam-dunk argument to overturn the reprimand.
This is illuminating. @julliet’s post offers a perspective I honestly would never have considered. She and others see this as a matter of laziness, cluelessness, or deliberate deception. She has a lot more experience in this than I do. I am not an academic nor am I a teacher of any sort. My experience is limited to my own academic career and to my family’s. I guess I’d have to count myself in the clueless category. Maybe this goes on frequently. Maybe students do it to get around doing the real work that’s assigned. I have no idea. That’s so far outside my way of thinking that I can’t even imagine.
It didn’t even occur to me that the five pages weren’t a base for the five that followed. I can easily see incorporating a paper-perhaps not in one unbroken sweep- into a draft that built on that work. My rusty memory is signaling me that I did that once upon a time and it was not only accepted but accepted enthusiastically. I can also say that I have never written a paper that didn’t demand substantial revision and that using prior work would not have made the task easier. In my mind, it’s about using the research and writing that’s already been done (by ME) to launch a deeper and more sophisticated look at an aspect of that topic. As this professor suggested, it allows me a jump start on the work and allows me to take it further than I would have if I’d been starting from scratch.
From what I understand, the professor and TA were not upset about the draft per se. They both seemed to think it was acceptable and it was only the software that flagged the draft. They also suggested that it wouldn’t have been an issue if the student had warned the TA that-per the prof’s approval-she was reusing the prior paper as part of an original, new paper. The professor is offering to write her a recommendation! All of that leads me to believe that this student’s behavior can’t really be chalked up to naive cluelessness or a deliberate attempt to deceive but to a lack of clarity on both sides.
All that said, as a parent, I’d absolutely urge my daughter to follow the strategy @julliet outlined. It makes sense and it is sincere. She didn’t understand that this was wrong, she understands now that it is, she won’t allow it to happen again, and she hopes that the TA will allow her a chance to make it right. I’d also encourage her to use @happy1’s outline to explain why she didn’t understand that this was wrong and how this mess got to this point.
@3girls3cats: I think everyone here wants your daughter to move on from this with both her dignity and integrity intact.