Has anyone had a hearing? If so, what was it like? I`m not sure what`s in store for me. Edit: This is my first time, my teacher sent me step 1, but I refused. Their description was that for much of the test, I looked to the right, even though I scanned the room and tracked everything else correctly. I got out of ADHD treatment and couldn`t pay attention while I took the test, but I`m not sure they still find me responsible. If you`ve ever been to Stage 1 with your course manager, it`s unlikely you`ll get anything worse than what you already had to do. But it`s all going to go in your record, and if you get caught, you`re going to be in a lot deeper. If your course manager sent you directly to Step 2 (EDIT: or if you`re going to step 2 because you were offered an agreement after Stage 1 and it was refused), you`re already in deep trouble. The person who authorizes you to send directly to Stage 2 chooses one of the faculty members, so that both faculty members are already highly “guilty.” Edit: This person is also the Tie-Break-Vote. So, again, if you think you fucked badly enough to deserve to jump straight to an audience, they probably already have an opinion on your case. If a student observes a violation of the academic policy of honor, he must report the incident to the course director. When a teacher feels that a student has violated the academic honor policy in one of the professor`s courses, he or she must first contact the office of the vice president responsible for the development and promotion of the faculty to determine whether the student has a prior registration of academic dishonesty to determine whether he or she should continue with a Step 1 agreement (for instructors based in Panama City, the Dekanat on the Panama City campus will also assist). The instructor must also inform the department head or dean. (Teaching assistants should be advised by their head of the faculty and teachers should be advised by their department head.) However, faculty members or others who do not have the authority to administer the academic policy of honour should not be informed of the allegation unless they have identified a legitimate need for knowledge.

If the continuation of an agreement after Stage 1 is considered possible, the trainer should discuss the evidence of dishonesty with the student and consider the possibility of an agreement after Stage 1 (see fda.fsu.edu/academic-resources/academic-integrity-and-grievances/academic-honor-policy). Four possible outcomes of this discussion may occur: the role of the screening committee is exclusively to determine whether the student has provided sufficient evidence to warrant further examination. Within five days of the course following this meeting, the screening committee will make its decision in writing (stating that they recommend/do not recommend a new review) to the head of department, head of school or delegate, student and teacher. A negative decision will end the complaint. A positive decision triggers the next step in the process. The hearing takes place in a non-contradictory manner, with a clear emphasis on fact-finding in the academic context of academic work. The student is presumed innocent when he entered the trial. After hearing all the available and relevant information from the student and teacher, the board will decide whether or not the student is responsible for the alleged violation using the “predominance of evidence” standard.

If the student is held responsible for the violation, the panel is informed of any prior recording of violations of the academic instructional policy and sets an academic sanction (and, if necessary, disciplinary sanctions).