Table 2 eValuate feedback from 2015 that indicated there was a contract cheating problem with the simulation in the Unit

Sydney – Semester 1, 2015

 - It is a shame that in my semester, I found a lot of people pay someone to do the competition. Means that they pay to the same person to control their market in the competition. Out of 5 groups there are 3 who shows dishonesty. It is pretty clear if you look at the annual report, as the numbers of debt, they play in different segments, The SAME R&D performance, the same TQM where they placed their monies in the segments. I’m disappointed as well to the lecturer as there is no penalty for these groups

 - There should be more checking techniques/assessments to evaluate if the students are doing their own work. I have found that there has been unethical behaviour from a large number of students, where they have gone to a third party to get them to work for them. This becomes unfair on the students who do their own work.

Singapore – Trimester 2A, 2015

 - In taking Business Capstone, I think the lecturer and other parties should be more aware on other students that have the intent to cheat in order to get full marks on the simulation.

Malaysia – Semester 2, 2015

 - Perhaps change the simulation strategy every year because its so predictable and students can ask help from their seniors

 - I am not sure how. But something need to be done to identify the cheaters. There are 3 groups in my class get help from the same senior. Only two group which is our group and the other group that compete fairly. I want to report that they are cheating but then I have not solid proof to provide the lecturer.

 - The marking of the simulation is based on benchmark. Some groups got helps from senior and get full marks. My group put a lot of efforts in the simulation but got low marks because it is based on the benchmark.

 - Serious action taken for student who ask help for seniors