In About ULIP:

• Dean's Welcome
• University of London
• University of London Institute in Paris
• Essential information
  • General Information for Students
  • Policies and Strategies
• Contact us

• Academic Standards and Quality Assurance
• IT Facilities and Code of Conduct
• Plagiarism and Other Academic Offences
• Student Discipline
• Students Complaints Procedures
• Procedure for Consideration of Representations Concerning Decisions of Board of Examiners
• Procedure for Consideration of Appeals by Candidates for Research Degrees
• Equal Opportunities
• Safety and Security

To top

The Institute Quality Assurance Officer is responsible to the Dean for monitoring academic standards and quality assurance procedures.

ULIP is a central institution of the University of London and offers programmes leading to the award of University of London degrees.  The University of London is responsible for assuring academic standards and the quality of the teaching and learning which ULIP delivers.  The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education http://qaa.ac.uk/, is the body responsible for defining and reviewing academic standards and quality across the UK higher education sector.

The review and enhancement of provision in academic departments is a continual process carried out through activities such as peer observation of teaching and engagement with student feedback. The Annual Review provides an opportunity to consolidate and reflect upon the overall success of these activities at a strategic point, when information on student progress and achievement becomes available.

The objectives of the Annual Review process are:

• to create an opportunity for teachers to reflect on the delivery and outcomes of programmes, juxtaposing the views of teachers, students and external specialists in a manner which through year-on-year comparison contributes to improvements in provision;
   
• to provide a clear, consistent and timely assessment of programme delivery which enables the Dean to identify points for action and plan programme developments from a sound knowledge base;
  
• to demonstrate an open and effective engagement with the maintenance of academic standards and with quality assurance and enhancement.

Each review uses the following information:

• data on student progress and achievement (e.g. course marks, award profiles, progression and completion rates), provided by Student and Academic Services;
• student feedback, gathered through questionnaires and the Student-Staff committee;
• comments from external examiners, whether made in their formal reports or in discussions with staff during the assessment process;
• recent external review reports from organisations such as the Quality Assurance Agency;
• general issues identified through departmental mechanisms such as peer observation of teaching.

Where appropriate for the programmes under review, feedback from employers and industry professionals may also be used.

All students enrolled at the Institute have access to computing facilities to support their learning and research. Students must present a valid ULIP student card to be able to gain access to the Learning Resources Centre and student workstations.

All students are provided with a ULIP address and mailbox. Official communications from the Institute to the student will use this mailbox and the department will require course work submitted electronically to come from this address. Students may forward mail from the ULIP address to a personal mailbox of their choice and personal mailboxes will be accessible from Institute systems where technically possible.

Computing facilities are provided primarily for use in pursuit of academic study, enabling students to:

• Create, store and print documents using the pre-installed software (primarily Microsoft Office)
• Use other software installed by the IT service
• Search the internet
• Access your ULIP and other web-based e-mail accounts

Students must not:

• Use or attempt to use another user’s account
• Allow your account to be used by someone else
• Make any attempt to change the computer configuration
• Download or install any software
• Engage in any commercial use of the computer facilities
• Access pornographic, violent or abusive web sites
• Access local or on-line games, joke or amusement web sites
• Access chat and instant messenger services
• Bring food or drink into the Learning Resources Centre
• Engage in conduct to the disturbance of other users

All computer users in the Institute must take precautions to ensure that devices are kept free from "computer viruses" and must not knowingly introduce any virus, trojan horse, or other 'nuisance' program into the network. In this context, a 'virus' is a computer program which can 'infect' other computer programs by modifying them in such a way as to include a (possibly modified) form of itself. A 'trojan horse' is a computer program which deliberately and secretly performs some function which the person running the program does not wish to happen.

Actions which deliberately render Institute computer systems unusable (whether by physical damage or otherwise) are not permitted and may result in disciplinary action and/or suspension of student accounts.

As the purpose of requiring students to produce written assignments is to test both their knowledge and their ability to construct a reasoned argument on a particular topic, it is naturally important that each assignment is entirely the work of the person who submits it. Resorting to plagiarism prevents academic staff from assessing your work and progress, and therefore from guiding you best through your studies.

What is plagiarism? It consists in using someone else's ideas or phrasing and representing those ideas or phrasing as your own, either with the intention to deceive or through carelessness. It is a serious offence, and you will be treated very seriously.

"Ideas or phrasing" includes written or spoken material, of course – from whole papers and paragraphs to sentences, and, indeed, phrases – but it also includes statistics, artwork, etc.

"Someone else" can mean a professional source, such as a published writer or critic in a book, magazine, encyclopaedia, or journal; an electronic Resources such as material you discover on the Web; another student at your institution or anywhere else; a paper writing "service" which offers to sell written papers for a fee.

One type of plagiarism is very obvious and easy to detect: this is where one person submits another's assignment as his or her own work.

A more common but less obvious form, however, is where an assignment contains unattributed passages from books, articles or lecture handouts. Although sometimes this may occur because the author is dishonestly seeking an easy short-cut to the production of assignments, very often it happens because the student concerned either thinks this is what is required, or is unclear about how to use quotations.

Any passage used in a written assignment from another writer (or verbatim notes from a lecture) must be enclosed within quotation marks and attributed to its author, otherwise it will be considered as plagiarism.

If you are unsure at any time about how to judge the boundaries of plagiarism, you should speak to the course tutor. The following site give details of plagiarism and other offences and the associated penalties:
www.rhul.ac.uk/Registry/academic_regulations/Examination_Assessment_Offences

University of London Ordinance 26 sets out the Code of Student Discipline and provides for the determination of an allegation of an offence of misconduct against a student.  This Code is applicable to every student at an Institute or activity, and to every student whose terms of access to, or use of, an Institute or activity places them under the jurisdiction of this code.

Complaints Procedures in University Institutes are governed by University of London Ordinance 27 which states that the following matters are excluded from the procedures:

• Academic Matters
• Complaints about the University of London Union
• Discrimination and Harassment

General
The emphasis in this Procedure is on informality, with the object of solving problems quickly, simply and fairly. It is hoped that the great majority of issues can be settled amicably at the First Stage, and that complaints will only exceptionally reach the Third Stage.

1. First Stage (Mention of Grievance)

The object of this First Stage is to resolve problems quickly and simply with the minimum of formality.

1.1 A Student should initially raise the grievance with the member of staff concerned. If the Student feels unable to approach that person, s/he should raise it with his/her Personal Adviser. Issues of a non-personal nature – for example, problems with a particular practice within a department – might be raised at the Student-Staff Committee.

2. Second Stage (Informal Complaint)

If the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily at the First Stage, the Student may refer it to the Academic Coordinator as an informal complaint. The Academic Coordinator has discretion as to how the complaint is investigated and determined. The Academic Coordinator will keep an informal record of each complaint - the name of the complainant, the nature of the complaint, and how it has been resolved.

3. Final Stage (Formal Complaint)

3.1 If the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily at the Informal Stage, the Student may make a formal complaint to the Dean. Only in exceptional circumstances will the Dean consider any complaint which has not been through the two previous stages.

3.2 If the Dean comes to the conclusion that there is substance in the complaint, the Dean may either:

(i) seek to resolve the complaint, in discussion with the Academic Coordinator, or

(ii) by agreement with the complainant appoint a person from amongst the external members of the ULIP Board whose decision shall be binding on all concerned.

4. Public Interest Disclosure
Complaints which are allegations of malpractice or concern some other matter which the Student believes he or she is unable to raise in the institute or activity shall be made in accordance with the University's Public Interest Disclosure Procedure.

5. Disciplinary Action
There shall be no disciplinary or other adverse implications for a Student who makes a complaint or allegation providing the Student acts in good faith, within the law, and not vexatiously, or with malice, and in accordance with established procedures including those above. Victimisation of a complainant and deterring anyone from making a proper complaint are serious disciplinary offences.

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education
The Procedure detailed above completes the University’s consideration of the matter. Attention is, however, drawn to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIAHE). The OIAHE provides an independent scheme for the review of student complaints about a final decision of a University’s disciplinary or appeal body. Full details of the OIAHE and how to make a complaint are available from the Head of the Academic Office of the University, or on the website of the OIAHE http://oiahe.org.uk. The postal address is: Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, Fifth Floor, Thames Tower, Station Road, Reading RG1 1LX. Telephone: 01189599813.

 

The University of London regulations made under paragraph 10 (17) of Ordinance 15 and the Procedure for Consideration of Representations concerning Decisions of Boards of Examiners is applicable in respect of examinations for first degrees and postgraduate taught degrees and diplomas organised on a federal basis (where the candidates may be drawn from several Colleges and for which the arrangements have the agreement of the relevant Colleges and there is a single Board of Examiners); and for first and postgraduate taught degrees and diplomas offered by the central Institutes.

The University of London regulations made under paragraph 11 of Ordinance 15 sets out the Procedure for Consideration of Appeals by Candidates for Research Degrees.

The University of London was established to provide education on the basis of merit above and without regard to race, creed or political belief and was the first university in the United Kingdom to admit women to its degrees. 

The University of London Institute in Paris (hereafter ‘the Institute’) is proud to continue this tradition, and to commit itself to equality of opportunity in employment, admissions and in its teaching, learning and research activities.

The Institute is committed to ensure that:

• All staff, students, applicants for employment or study, visitors and other persons in contact with the Institute are treated fairly and have equality of opportunity, without regard to race, nationality, ethnic origin, gender, age, marital or parental status, dependents, disability, sexual orientation, religion, political belief or social origins
• Both existing staff and students, as well as applicants for employment or admission, are treated fairly ; and individuals are judged solely on merit and by reference to their skills, abilities, qualifications, aptitude and potential
• Teaching, learning and research are free from all forms of discrimination and continually provide equality of opportunity
• It creates a positive, inclusive atmosphere, based on respect for diversity within the Institute
• It conforms to all provisions as laid out in legislation promoting equality of opportunity

The Institute shares premises with the British Council and all users of the building must be vigilant about security issues:

The police have instructed us not to allow bicycles to be chained to the barriers, or other street furniture, at the front or side of the building. Security guards have been asked to ensure that this instruction is observed. Parking space for bicycles is available on the Esplanade.

The security guards must to be able to control access to the building. They may, therefore, have to ask groups of students to move away from the main entrance.

When entering the building staff and students must show their staff/student card when requested to do so.

Within the building it is essential to keep all emergency exits, and the corridors that lead to them, clear of obstruction at all times. Restricting access to these exits could cost lives.