Comments on the Handbook are welcome.
The Academic Handbook is a practical introduction for new faculty and students. It is not meant to be comprehensive; rather it is meant to be short enough to provide an overview of academic topics relevant to enrolled students and faculty engaged in teaching.
The Woolf Academic Handbook
For Information about Academic Records please contact help@woolf.university or dena@woolf.university.
Contents
- Introduction
- Mission Statement
- Teaching
- Research
- Assessment
- Doctoral Thesis Examination Regulations
- Plagiarism
- Colleges
- Compensation
- Student Support
- Discipline, Complaints, and Appeals
- Technical Support
I. Introduction
The Academic Handbook is a practical introduction for new faculty members and students. It is not meant to be comprehensive; rather it is meant to be short enough to provide an overview of academic topics relevant to enrolled students and faculty members engaged in teaching.
For information about a specific course of study, see the course description for that course.
For matters of governance and quality assurance, see the Policy of Quality Assurance, to which this handbook is subordinate (link).
For guidance on specific policies not addressed in the above, contact:
II. Mission Statement
Woolf exists to promote academic excellence, broaden access to higher education, and guard values that are humane, democratic, and international. Above all, Woolf values freedom of thought, freedom of enquiry, and freedom of expression.
Background. Talent may be evenly distributed but opportunity is not – we are working to widen the horizon of opportunity by connecting students and teachers across the world.
Education. Woolf prioritises an education that will serve its students both in the near-term and in the long-term. Woolf seeks to provide a personalised, bespoke education. In all fields, Woolf seeks to instil values of curiosity, intellectual discipline, and clarity of expression.
Research. Woolf prioritises research-driven teaching that uses the latest academic scholarship, and Woolf encourages its faculty members to engage in groundbreaking research.
Collegiate organisation. Woolf’s collegiate organisation strengthens the institution through diversity, competition, and loyalty. Colleges bear responsibility for the support of their members, including both faculty members and students.
Society. Woolf encourages partnerships with governments, educational institutions, research centres, schools, and businesses of all kinds – provided these partnerships do not infringe on the values of Woolf.
Technology. To the extent that existing or new technologies can improve the educational outcomes for students, widen access to the Woolf global network, improve the career experience of academics, better secure credible governance, lower the costs of institutional management, and generally support the mission of Woolf – these are embraced.
In all things, Woolf values excellence and measures itself against the highest international standards. Woolf seeks to raise those standards further.
III. Teaching
Woolf uses various teaching styles, including small group synchronous meeting teaching, large synchronous lectures, and supervised research.
Colleges
All teaching is provided by Woolf colleges. Any Woolf college can offer a course if a faculty member in the college is also a member of the course. A college can offer a degree or lower learning outcome if the college is approved by Woolf to offer the degree, and it is able to offer the requisite courses for that degree.
Degrees, courses, cohorts
Degrees and other awards are composed of courses (sometimes called “modules”). A course is taught at a specific time to a group of students – this is called a cohort. Cohorts contain lessons with content, assignments, deadlines, and synchronous meetings. When students apply to a course, they may be given the opportunity to select which cohort they want to enrol in (for example, a cohort taught in the mornings and another taught in the evenings, potentially with different faculty or instructors, as listed on the cohort profile).
Optimal format for accreditation
Many pedagogical styles and course formats have value. Those which are optimal for accredited learning on the Woolf platform consist of courses divided into lessons, where each lesson contains:
- asynchronous content;
- an assignment to be completed and graded by an instructor;
- a synchronous session to meet with an instructor and other students.
This creates a strong, auditable record of compliance with the standards of accreditation required of all colleges at Woolf.
Learning outcomes
All learning styles, including self-directed study, synchronous sessions, and examinations – count towards the hours required for earning credit in appropriately accredited courses.
Learning outcomes depend on the number of credits a student earns; once a student has enough credits, the student must apply to Woolf to have their credits converted to the learning outcome.
Undergraduate level
| 25 hours | 1 ECTS | Award |
| 750 hours | 30 ECTS | Undergraduate Certificate |
| 1500 | 60 ECTS | Undergraduate Diploma |
| 2250 | 90 ECTS | Undergraduate Higher Diploma |
| 4500 | 180 ECTS | Bachelor’s Degree |
Graduate level
| 25 hours | 1 ECTS | Award |
| 750 hours | 30 ECTS | Postgraduate Certificate |
| 1500 | 60 ECTS | Postgraduate Diploma |
| 2250 | 90 ECTS | Master’s Degree (MBA, MA, MSc, etc.) |
Course creation
Any verified Woolf Faculty member in a valid college can create a course and submit it to Woolf for review. The first time a course is submitted for review, it must contain full and complete course content meeting the criteria for approval. Upon successful completion of the review, the course will appear in public and can admit students and other faculty members. All courses offered on the Woolf platform must meet the exact same quality assurance standards, regardless of whether it is offered with external regulatory accreditation applied to the course.
Purchased research materials
Courses must state clearly, in the course description, whether students are required to purchase outside resources. Most taught courses should include all of the necessary academic resources, including all texts, in a digital format with the course. However, specialist research or other courses may require access to, or purchase of, outside materials, so students should check the course description before enrolling. If a student is uncertain, contact the college offering the course.
Student application flow
When students apply to a course, the application is visible to the college Dean, Admins, and the Academic Board – after their approval, the application is received by those faculty members offering the specific course in the college. Each faculty member can either decline the student application, or send the student an invitation to enrol. The student can review the cohort of the course to which they have been invited, including the profile of the instructors, and the student can accept the one they deem suitable.
Course roles
All courses and their curriculum must be approved by the Academic Board of the college. All courses are taught under the supervision of the college’s Academic Board. Academic board members must have a verified identity and doctorate.
Faculty, Instructors, and Professional Experts
Only Faculty members can create and lead a course, but many others contribute to its success. Faculty members must have verified PhDs, Instructors must have verified graduate degrees, and Professional Experts have at least 5 years of verified industry experience.
Course Editors
Colleges can appoint Course Editors to provide support for building and maintaining courses up to the point of their approval by the college’s Academic Board. Course Editors are not able to see or modify student grades.
Students
Students must meet the entrance requirements for a course, have their application approved, and must accept an invitation for enrolment for a specific cohort; after paying and accepting an enrolment agreement, students are given access to their cohort’s version of the course. (For more on courses and cohorts see §VI “Teaching, Degrees, Courses, Cohorts” below.)
IV. Research
Faculty are encouraged to engage in research and to include research in their teaching. Woolf is a licensed Higher education Institution in Europe, and all faculty are encouraged to engage in Funding and Tender opportunities hosted by the European Commission (link).
Please write to support@woolf.university for grant hosting support and Woolf’s EU Participant Identification Code.
The Woolf library
The Woolf library (link) maintains open access to digital collections with over 200m academic articles and scholarly resources. Faculty are encouraged to engage in original research on primary and secondary materials, including peer reviewed academic articles published in the last 5 years – and to encourage their graduate students to do the same.
Public engagement
Faculty are encouraged to host seminars and free courses that are open to public participation by creating a course and setting it to “freemium” – this will allow members of the public to register at no cost with 1-click, and remove the need for ID and education verifications for participants. For advice on launching a public seminar or free course contact support@woolf.university.
V. Assessment
1. General Assessment Procedures
Academic assessment at Woolf is of two kinds: general assessment and cumulative assessment. general assessment applies to the continuous, lesson-by-lesson evaluation of student progress. Students receive a grade that encompasses their submitted assignment and ability to respond to issues raised during the teaching session.
Cumulative assessment applies to the examinations, portfolio submissions, long essays, oral examinations, completed dissertations, and theses – typically occurring at the end of a course. These assignments require the students to deepen and extend the scholarly engagements initiated in their prior work.
Degree-seeking students who fail any one section of a degree, cannot progress to complete the degree, and will by default fail the course. Failed modules may be re-taken solely at the discretion of Woolf’s faculty.
2. Cumulative Examination of Courses
Cumulative examination may consist of a final project, written examination, multiple choice questions, or oral examination.
For examination by final project (long essay, portfolio, technical project), not more than 50% may be material taken from general assignments. The topic must be agreed in advance with the faculty member. The scope of the assignment must be aligned with the textual materials already available to the student. Academic examination essays are expected to be of a high standard and must be well-structured, well-crafted, and contain extensive and appropriate citations to the primary and secondary literature of the course.
For written exams, essay prompts are provided and questions may include gobbets or photographic evidence with prompts to elicit commentary. Online proctoring techniques are at the discretion of the college. Multiple choice questions are provided at the discretion of the college.
For oral examinations, a student must field questions about a pre-submitted and already graded dissertation or other assignment in order to demonstrate mastery of the subject matter. Oral examinations must be conducted by a faculty member other than the immediate teacher or supervisor that has overseen the student’s submitted essay. In undergraduate or master’s-level courses, oral examinations are typically used to shift the established grade of a long essay or dissertation, according to the viva voce examination template in this handbook.
For undergraduate or master’s-level dissertations and final projects: both the supervising faculty member and another faculty member of Woolf grade the work independently of each other. Their grades are averaged, but any spread greater than ten points that cannot be immediately resolved by the two graders will trigger a review by a third faculty member for final decision. MA-level dissertations are normally examined by viva voce, and the examiner will be a faculty member different than the supervising faculty member.
3. Weight of Grades
The final grade on a course is determined by the weighting rules stated in the course offering. Unless otherwise stated, all courses are weighted as follows: 50% of the grade derives from the average of the general units, and 50% of the grade derives from the cumulative examination.
The final grade on a degree is weighted in proportion to the ECTS points of the component courses. For example, a degree composed of 5 ECTS and 10 ECTS courses will weigh the 10 ECTS courses proportionately more, according to the number of ECTS credits.
4. Woolf’s International Grade Classification
Woolf’s faculty members are trained in a number of different grading scales; these scales are cross-referenced and linked to each other. This handbook employs American grades and classification, with US grades as the default on the Woolf platform [1]. US grades are granular, and they are distributed with the least number of gaps, which is why they have been selected as the default grading scheme for transcripts. Woolf’s international conversion scheme is as follows:
|
US GPA |
US Grade |
US Percent |
UK Mark |
UK Classification |
Malta Grade |
Malta Mark |
Malta Classification | Swiss Grade |
| 4 | A+ | 97-100 | 70+ | First class honours | A | 80-100% | First class honours | 6.0 |
| 3.9 | A | 94-96 | 67-69 | Upper-second class honours | B | 70-79% | Upper-second class honours | |
| 3.7 | A- | 90-93 | 65-67 | Upper-second class honours | 5.5 | |||
| 3.3 | B+ | 87-89 | 60-64 | Lower-second class honours | C | 55-69% | Lower-second class honours | |
| 3 | B | 84-86 | ||||||
| 2.7 | B- | 80-83 | 55-59 | Lower-second class honours | 5 | |||
| 2.3 | C+ | 77-79 | 50-54 | Third class honours | D | 50-54% | Third-class honours | |
| 2 | C | 74-76 | ||||||
| 1.7 | C- | 70-73 | 45-49 | Third class honours | 4.5 | |||
| 1.3 | D+ | 67-69 | 40-44 | Ordinary / Unclassified | ||||
| 1 | D | 64-66 | 35-39 | Ordinary / Unclassified | ||||
| 0.7 | D- | 60-63 | 4 | |||||
| 0 | F | Below 60 | Below 35 | F | 45-54% | 1-3.5 |
5. Woolf Grading Criteria, Definition of Grades, and Classification
Grading (marking) of student work keeps in view the scale of work that the student can reasonably be expected to have undertaken in order to complete the task.
a. The assessment of work for the course is defined according to the following rubric of General Criteria:
i. Engagement:
- Directness of engagement with the question or task;
- Range of issues addressed or problems solved;
- Depth, complexity, and sophistication of comprehension of issues and implications of the question or task;
- Effective and appropriate use of imagination and intellectual curiosity.
ii. Argument or solution:
- Coherence, mastery, control, and independence of work;
- Conceptual and analytical precision;
- Flexibility, e.g. discussion of a variety of views, ability to navigate through challenges in creative ways;
- Completion leading to a conclusion or outcome;
- Performance and success of the solution, where relevant.
iii. Evidence (as relevant):
- Depth, precision, detail, range and relevance of evidence cited;
- Accuracy of facts;
- Knowledge of first principles and demonstrated ability reason from them;
- Understanding of theoretical principles and/or historical debate;
- Critical engagement with primary and/or secondary sources.
iv. Organisation and presentation:
- Clarity and coherence of structure;
- Clarity and fluency of writing, code, prose, or presentation (as relevant);
- Correctness of conformity to conventions (code, grammar, spelling, punctuation or similar relevant conventions).
b. US grades for the course are defined according to the following rubric:
97-100
Work will be so outstanding that it could not be better within the scope of the assignment. These grades will be used for work that shows exceptional excellence in the relevant domain; including (as relevant): remarkable sophistication and mastery, originality or creativity, persuasive and well-grounded new methods or ideas, or making unexpected connections or solutions to problems.
94-96
Work will excel against each of the General Criteria. In at least one area, the work will be merely highly competent.
90-93
Work will excel in more than one area, and be at least highly competent in other respects. It must be excellent and contain: a combination of sophisticated engagement with the issues; analytical precision and independence of solution; go beyond paraphrasing or boilerplate code techniques; demonstrating quality of awareness and analysis of both first principles or primary evidence and scholarly debate or practical tradeoffs; and clarity and coherence of presentation. Truly outstanding work measured against some of these criteria may compensate for mere high competence against others.
87-89
Work will be at least very highly competent across the board, and excel in at least one group of the General Criteria. Relative weaknesses in some areas may be compensated by conspicuous strengths in others.
84-86
Work will demonstrate considerable competence across the General Criteria. They must exhibit some essential features of addressing the issue directly and relevantly across a good range of aspects; offer a coherent solution or argument involving (where relevant) consideration of alternative approaches; be substantiated with accurate use of resources (including if relevant, primary evidence) and contextualization in debate (if relevant); and be clearly presented. Nevertheless, additional strengths (for instance, the range of problems addressed, the sophistication of the arguments or solutions, or the use of first principles) may compensate for other weaknesses.
80-83
Work will be competent and should manifest the essential features described above, in that they must offer direct, coherent, substantiated and clear arguments; but they will do so with less range, depth, precision and perhaps clarity. Again, qualities of a higher order may compensate for some weaknesses.
77-79
Work will show solid competence in solving problems or providing analysis. But it will be marred by weakness under one or more criteria: failure to fully solve the problem or discuss the question directly; some irrelevant use of technologies or citing of information; factual error, or error in selection of technologies; narrowness in the scope of solution or range of issues addressed or evidence adduced; shortage of detailed evidence or engagement with the problem; technical performance issues (but not so much as to prevent operation); poor organisation or presentation, including incorrect conformity to convention or written formatting.
74-76
Work will show evidence of some competence in solving problems or providing analysis. It will also be clearly marred by weakness in multiple General Criteria, including: failure to solve the problem or discuss the question directly; irrelevant use of technologies or citing of information; factual errors or multiple errors in selection of technologies; narrowness in the scope of solution or range of issues addressed or evidence adduced; shortage of detailed evidence or engagement with the problem; significant technical performance issues (but not so much as to prevent operation); poor organisation or presentation, including incorrect conformity to convention or written formatting. They may be characterised by unsubstantiated assertion rather than argument, or by unresolved contradictions in the argument or solution.
70-73
Work will show evidence of competence in solving problems or providing analysis, but this evidence will be limited. It will be clearly marred by weakness in multiple General Criteria. It will still make substantive progress in addressing the primary task or question, but the work will lack a full solution or directly address the task; the work will contain irrelevant material; the work will show multiple errors of fact or judgment; and the work may fail to conform to conventions.
67-69
Work will fall down on a number of criteria, but will exhibit some of the qualities required, such as the ability to grasp the purpose of the assignment, to deploy substantive information or solutions in an effort to complete the assignment; or to offer some coherent analysis or work towards the assignment. Such qualities will not be displayed at a high level, and may be marred by irrelevance, incoherence, major technical performance issues, error and poor organisation and presentation.
64-66
Work will fall down on a multiple General Criteria, but will exhibit some vestiges of the qualities required, such as the ability to see the point of the question, to deploy information, or to offer some coherent work. Such qualities will be substantially marred by irrelevance, incoherence, error and poor organisation and presentation.
60-63
Work will display a modicum of knowledge or understanding of some points, but will display almost none of the higher qualities described in the criteria. They will be marred by high levels of factual or technology error and irrelevance, generalization or boilerplate code and lack of information, and poor organisation and presentation.
0-60
Work will fail to exhibit any of the required qualities. Candidates who fail to observe rubrics and rules beyond what the grading schemes allow for may also be failed.
c. Synchronous Meeting Discussion and Viva Voce Examination
Synchronous meeting discussions and viva voce examinations are conducted on the same format: written work is submitted in advance, and a discussion follows. This provides students an opportunity to clarify and explain their written claims, and it also tests whether the work is a product of the student’s own research or has been plagiarised.
For undergraduate and master’s-level viva voce examination, the submitted work is graded, and the grade is recorded prior to the oral examination.
The synchronous meeting discussion and viva voce examination acts to shift the recorded grade on the submitted essay according to the following rubric:
+3
Up to three points are added for excellent performance; the student displays a high degree of competence across the range of questions, and excels in at least one group of criteria. Relative weaknesses in some areas may be compensated by conspicuous strengths in others.
+/- 0
The grade is unchanged for fair performance. Answers to questions must show evidence of some solid competence in expounding evidence and analysis. But they will be marred by some weakness under one or more criteria: failure to discuss the question directly; appeal to irrelevant information; factual error; narrowness in the range of issues addressed or evidence adduced; shortage of detailed evidence; or poor organisation and presentation, including consistently incorrect grammar. Answers may be characterised by unsubstantiated assertion rather than argument, or by unresolved contradictions in the argument.
-3 (up to three points)
Up to three are subtracted points for an inability to answer multiple basic questions about themes in the written work. Answers to questions will fall down on a number of criteria, but will exhibit some vestiges of the qualities required, such as the ability to see the point of the question, to deploy information, or to offer some coherent analysis towards an argument. Such qualities will not be displayed at a high level or consistently, and will be marred by irrelevance, incoherence, error and poor organisation and presentation.
0
Written work and the oral examination will both be failed if the oral examination clearly demonstrates that the work was plagiarised. The student is unfamiliar with the arguments of the essay or the sources used for those arguments.
6. Woolf Late Submission of Assignments
All assignments (including homework, labs, quizzes, exams, projects and any and all summative and cumulative assignments or assessments) must be submitted no later than the due date stated on the module or course, unless an alternative arrangement has been made with the instructor and a new due date is established in writing prior to the deadline.
Extensions or exceptions are at the discretion of the college. Unless a college has a specific academic policy the default penalties for late work will be as follows:
- If a student submits an assignment after the established deadline they may be subject to a penalty at the instructor or faculty member’s discretion, up to and including failure for the assignment.
- By default, late assignments will have their final score reduced by the equivalent of ⅓ of a letter grade on the US system as described in §4 above, for every 24 hours that the assignment is late. The college has the authority to set an alternative penalty–greater, lesser, or no penalty at all–provided that the policy has been documented in writing prior to the commencement of the course.
Exceptions may be made for students with mitigating circumstances, and students who anticipate being in such circumstances are encouraged to submit a Mitigating Circumstances report using Woolf’s Red Flag procedure. (For more on Mitigating Circumstances see §IX; 2 “Mitigating Circumstances and the Escalation of Issues and Appeals” above.) It should be noted that the Mitigating Circumstances report would need to be filed in advance of the deadline.
Unless the college has an alternative policy, coursework will not be accepted after the last day of the module or course.
VI. Doctoral Thesis Examination Regulations
Over the course of doctoral study a student, working closely with a faculty supervisor, becomes progressively more independent and autonomous. The culmination of this three-year process is the doctoral thesis, an original work of 80-100,000 words (exclusive of appendices, and in any case not over 120,000 words) that advances knowledge in the candidate’s field.
Doctoral Thesis Viva Voce Examination Rules
Doctoral theses at Woolf are defended by viva voce examination. The purpose of such examinations are to explore the claims made by the doctoral thesis as well as to ratify the doctoral candidate’s knowledge of their scholarly field. Viva voce examinations vary in length but are often between one and three hours–though a rich or enjoyable conversation may well extend beyond this.
- The examiners consist of one faculty member of the College other than the thesis supervisor, who will Chair the meeting; and one external examiner from outside of Woolf. The candidate and the supervisor will agree on the examiners before scheduling the viva. The thesis supervisor will always be present at the examination, and the Dean of the College may be, ex officio.
- Students may elect whether they wish to allow a public audience to attend the viva voce examination, in which case the meeting Chair may open the discussion to questions at the end of the formal examination.
- The thesis examination should be coordinated by the thesis supervisor, and should ordinarily be arranged within one month of receipt of the thesis. Except for confirming the date of the examination, the student will not contact the examiners beforehand.
- The examination should be within two or three months after the thesis has been submitted. Examiners must have a minimum of four weeks to read the thesis before the examination, unless by mutual agreement.
- Before the examination, the examiners may write the thesis supervisor indicating any areas of special concern that are likely to arise. This is most appropriate if the examiners feel any outcome beyond “minor corrections required” is likely; the supervisor may notify the student in order for the student to research the areas of concern and better prepare verbal answers to the matters raised in preparation of undertaking major corrections.
- After the examination, the examiners will complete the post-viva form (below) and return it to the supervisor. If the examiners cannot agree, then the matter will be referred to the Dean of the College for consideration, and if either the examiners or the student disagree with the Dean’s judgement, it will be escalated to the Quality Assurance, Enhancements, and Technology Alignment Committee (QAETAC) for final resolution.
- The post-viva form should give a detailed description of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate’s performance at the examination as well as the thesis itself, making clear the stakes of the candidate’s research. If there are any concerns that warrant either minor correction or major revisions, these should be spelled out in detail.
- Possible outcomes of the viva examination are:
- The student will receive the doctorate for the thesis as written;
- The student will receive the doctorate, subsequent to minor corrections;
- The student should pursue revision and resubmission;
- The student can receive a Master’s degree in their subject for the thesis as written or with minor corrections;
- The student will fail.
- Minor corrections should be completed by the student within one month of receiving the list of corrections from the supervisor.
- Students pursuing revision and resubmission will ordinarily have six months to complete revisions before standing for examination again.
- If a student has been referred for a Master’s degree with minor corrections, they have two weeks to complete them.
Post-Viva Examiner Report Form
Examiner Report Form 2022-23
| Name of Student | |
| Title of Thesis | |
| Degree Sought | |
| Date of Viva Voce Examination | |
| Name of Internal Examiner | |
| Name of External Examiner | |
| Home Institution of External Examiner | |
| Name of Thesis Supervisor |
Performance at the Viva
Please assess the candidate’s performance during the viva voce exam. If there were any concerns about the quality of the thesis in advance, please explain how those concerns were addressed by the candidate.
Recommendation
The examiner will please tick the appropriate box.
| The thesis is accepted as written. | |
| The thesis is accepted, subsequent to minor corrections (listed below) | |
| The candidate should pursue major revisions, and resubmit the thesis for examination. | |
| The candidate should receive a Master’s degree for this work. (If any corrections are required, please specify them below.) | |
| The candidate should fail the degree. |
Corrections (if required)
In the event that minor corrections are required, please detail these here.
Referral (if applicable)
If the candidate is required to revise and resubmit the thesis, please explain what must be done to bring the thesis to the requisite standard. Likewise, if the candidate is to fail the degree, please indicate the grounds.
Signatures
| Name | Institution | Signature |
VII. Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the use of someone else’s work without correct referencing [2]. The consequence of plagiarism is the presentation of someone else’s work as your own work. Plagiarism violates Woolf policy and will result in disciplinary action, but the context and seriousness of plagiarism varies widely. Intentional or reckless plagiarism will result in a penalty grade of zero, and may also entail disciplinary penalties.
Plagiarism can be avoided by citing the works that inform or that are quoted in a written submission. Many students find that it is essential to keep their notes organised in relation to the sources which they summarise or quote. Course instructors will help you to cultivate professional scholarly habits in your academic writing.
Depending on the course, short assignment essays may not require students to submit a bibliography or to use extensive footnotes, and students are encouraged to write their assignments entirely in their own words. However, all essays must acknowledge the sources on which they rely and must provide quotation marks and citation information for verbatim quotes.
There are several forms of plagiarism. They all result in the presentation of someone’s prior work as your new creation.
Cut and Paste
Material taken verbatim from any source should be properly cited and referenced.
Paraphrasing
Even when material has been reworded, the source must still be acknowledged.
Unauthorised Collaboration
Collaboration with other students can result in pervasive similarities – it is important to determine in advance whether group collaboration is allowed, and to acknowledge the contributions or influence of the group members.
False Authorship (Essay Mills, Friends, and Language Help)
Paying an essay writing service, or allowing a generous friend to compose your essay, is cheating. Assistance that contributes substantially to the ideas or content of your work must be acknowledged.
VIII. Colleges
In line with Woolf’s Policy of Quality Assurance, Woolf is organised into colleges on the model of collegiate universities, including the Universities of Oxford, California, and London.
Digital colleges appear on the Woolf software platform; they consist of groups (free associations) of faculty with verified doctorates and verified identities. Colleges may admit new faculty members. Colleges can enrol students and set tuition prices.
Colleges do not normally specialise in any particular topic, and may admit students in all those fields represented by the Faculty of the college. It is expected that the diversity of colleges at Woolf will increase over time, both geographically and linguistically.
1. College roles
College roles reflect the requirements of Woolf’s Policy of Quality Assurance. The requirements of the roles, and the division of review, maintains an environment of high academic standards.
Deans
All colleges (and schools) have a College Dean, who is the main contact for the college. The College Dean is unanimously elected at the time that the college forms, insofar as the Dean invites the Academic Board and other Faculty to join the college at formation, and these must approve of the Dean and the other members.
Deanships do not have natural term limits. Deans may exit the role by appointing a replacement, which can be done at any time. The only qualifications required to be a College Dean are those required to be a College member.
Administrators
Deans may appoint any college member to be an “Admin”; Admins are able to oversee all aspects of college membership, including assigning roles to members (depending on their eligibility). Admins may remove members from the college or approve applications to join the college. Admins are able to configure other settings in the college, including payment integrations.
The Academic Board
Every college must appoint its own Academic Board with at least 2 Academic Board members approved by Woolf. Academic Board members must have verified PhDs.
The primary purpose of the college’s Academic Board is to uphold the academic integrity of the college. At the start of every new cohort, the cohort’s curriculum is submitted to the Academic Board for approval. Thus only the academic board can approve of the launch of a new cohort in a course, with its curriculum. At the end of the cohort, the teachers must submit the grades to the Academic Board for approval, and only after their approval are the grades added to the students’ transcripts. During this process, students can be graded as failed, or the academic board may ask questions of the lead faculty member on the course.
Faculty, Instructors, and Professional Experts
In line with Woolf’s Policy of Quality Assurance, Faculty must have a verified PhD and be a member of a valid college. Instructors must have a verified graduate-level qualification. Industry Experts must have at least five years of experience in the relevant industry of instruction, and be approved by both Woolf and their college.
2. College ranking
Colleges are an important component in fostering an environment of academic excellence. It is expected that as the number of colleges at Woolf increases, they will compete with each other for standing in collegiate rankings; rankings are public and depend upon a number of metrics of quality assurance, which are subject to review by the Faculty Council.
3. College naming conventions
Pre-existing colleges, schools, or research institutes that join Woolf are encouraged to keep their name, except where this includes regulated terms (such as “university”). For those beginning to offer accredited programmes for the first time, it may also be an opportunity to reflect on the institution’s future and name.
Where college names contain the term “School” or “Institute” or “Centre”, they are still constituent colleges of Woolf.
New Colleges created on the Woolf platform are normally named after a scholar or someone who has contributed greatly to the arts and sciences, using the following format: [NAME] College.
Colleges should not imply an official relationship to an existing institution, except where so endorsed, nor should they inappropriately suggest royal or state patronage. Colleges are encouraged to support the widest diversity of subjects possible, but colleges choosing to concentrate on a specific field use the following format: [NAME] College of [FIELD], such as “Ambrose College of Material Science’.
IX. Compensation
1. Price
Tuition prices (fees) are set by the college. Students may receive various offers to enrol at different prices. These prices are subject to change at the discretion of the college. Colleges may also choose to introduce their own fees for their own purposes.
2. Costs
Woolf supports colleges by charging a percentage of revenue for administration. This charge is invoiced monthly or quarterly to all colleges.
Colleges may choose to distribute funds to their members however they see fit.
Further costs can include books or currency transaction charges. All courses must state whether they require the purchase of outside texts or resources.
Note that copyright licensing through Woolf can cost up to $0.25 per page, per student; Woolf encourages all courses to use open-access academic publications.
X. Student Support
Students should seek support, in the first instance, from the Faculty member leading their course or by consulting their College. Additional support is available on the help tab in their account menu or by visiting help.woolf.university.
1. Office Hours
In addition to providing their core lessons, teachers are encouraged to make available a “digital open office hour” that can be booked by their own students, should they require extra academic support that cannot be provided within the normal teaching sessions. New students are especially encouraged to book an extra session during their first week studying with Woolf.
2. College Advisors
Colleges at Woolf exist to support their members and provide helpful resources to students.
Every student should be assigned a College Advisor, and who acts as the first point of contact for non-technical academic issues related to the student’s progress, particularly where these may benefit from an independent point of view.
3. Transcripts
Students are able to download their transcript, and to get a link for sharing, by following these instructions. In situations that require a paper transcript, please email registrar@woolf.university for help.
XI. Discipline, Complaints, and Appeals
Students and faculty should always seek an amicable resolution to matters arising by addressing the issue with the person immediately related to the issue. Students should handle minor misunderstandings or disagreements within a regular teaching session or by direct message, or with their College. If a simple resolution is not possible, or the matter remains unresolved for one party, the steps outlined in this section apply to all groups, colleges, and units of Woolf.
1. The Red Flag System
An issue with a red flag should be submitted in the case that a member of Woolf seeks to make an allegation of serious misconduct about another member, including matters of cheating, plagiarism, and unfair discrimination or intolerance.
Any member of Woolf, seeking to raise a matter of serious concern, should submit a red flag by emailing redflag@woolf.university. Provide a short, clear description of the issue.
If a student submits an issue with a red flag, or if a faculty member submits an issue about a student, it will trigger a meeting with the student’s College Advisor. If the issue is not resolved, the matter will be escalated to the College Dean, or to a committee designated by the College Dean, which will have the power to clear the flag.
If an issue is submitted with a red flag by a faculty member about another faculty member, then the issue is reported directly to the College Dean.
For both students and faculty members, after the Dean’s decision, the one who submits the complaint is provided the opportunity to accept or appeal the decision; if the one submitting the issue appeals the decision, it will be assigned to the Quality Assurance, Enhancement, and Technology Alignment Committee, which is a subcommittee of the Faculty Council.
2. Mitigating Circumstances and the Escalation of Issues and Appeals
When serious circumstances (“Mitigating Circumstances”), beyond the control of a student or faculty member, adversely affect academic performance or teaching support, a Mitigating Circumstances report must be submitted using Woolf’s red flagging system. Mitigating Circumstances may include but are not limited to serious medical problems, domestic and personal circumstances, major accidents or interruptions of public services, disturbances during examination, or serious administrative or procedural errors with a material effect on outcomes.
Mitigating circumstances do not normally include a member’s personal technology problems, including software, hardware, or personal internet connection failures; employment obligations or changes in employment obligations; permanent or sustained medical conditions (unless there is a sudden change of condition); or circumstances where no official evidence has been submitted.
Mitigating circumstances are normally only considered when a red flag has been submitted for the issue before the deadline of an affected written project or assignment, or within one week of a cumulative examination. Proof of mitigating circumstances may result in an extended deadline or examination period, or the possibility to retake an examination; it will not result in any regrading of existing submissions or exams [3].
3. Grade Appeals
Students who dissent from the grades they have received should follow the normal procedure for submitting a red flag.
XII. Technical Support
Students or faculty members in need of technical support for their engagement with the Woolf platform should, in the first instance, consult the digital guide at help.woolf.university. If further technical support is required, email support@woolf.university or the designated support person at the college (if there is one).
All users of the Woolf platform are responsible for the maintenance of their own equipment, including their hardware, software, and internet connection. Users of the Woolf platform, including all enrolled students, must accept the Technology Agreement, which forms part of Woolf’s Terms, by which members attest that they possess the technical infrastructure needed to engage successfully with the Woolf software platform – including the hardware and software necessary to make a video conference call over the internet, compose and submit typewritten work to the Woolf platform, and engage over extended periods of time with digital resources at the direction of their faculty members.
__________
[1] – Cf. the Fulbright Commission, Princeton Review, European Commission and University of Malta.
[2] – This section draws upon statements about plagiarism from the University of Oxford
And, from the University of London.
[3] – In writing this section, we have consulted evidence mitigating circumstances.