Of course, all off-campus and out of sight work is subject to the risk that it is not the original work of the candidate. This is true of a PhD, a MSc, a MBA project or an undergraduate project or essay. Even an invigilated (protored) exam, though the supervisiory arrangements of such an exam minimise cheating, is sbject to some always try to beat the system. EBS is an onc ampus Bricks and Mortar University as well as one of the world's largest DL Schools, and our Disciplinary Committee deals with several cases per exam Diet of cheating. Most exam system managers are well versed in every known form of cheating, now added to by mobile phones and texting. Risk assessment grades the risks and adjusts the system to minimise lapses. My point, often made here, is that where exam regimes are relaxed by faculty the risk increases and with the risk so does the incidence of cheating. There is also 'collusive cheating' by faculty, which (accidentally) permits relaxation to ensure higher pass rates in order to raise the 'completion ratio' for purposes to do with the 'ranking' of the Schools. In the old collegiate tutorial system of Oxford/Cambridge/ Glasgow/Edinburgh, St Andrews universities, formed well before the 18th century and maintained until recent years, the faculty student ratio was very low. Thus, over the three/four years for a Bachelor degree, the incidence of 'cheating' was minimal because the supervision was too intense. Change that ratio and the relationship weakens until in the modern classes of 1:40 or worse it is less possible to spot plagiarised work. With the Internet it has moved beyond acceptable risks. Hence, grading systems that rely to a larger extent on out of sight and off-campus work are less reliable as a measure of a named student's performance than those that rely on rigorous, indepentally invigilated, written exams with no choice of questions. It has been pointed out to me here that certain subjects cannot be examined in the manner of the MBA subjects because they require considerable work to produce anything worth examining. I accept that point and I have no ready answers to it. But I do not accept the point that we must relax the MBA exam regime because some students 'cannot write by hand', 'are no good at exams', 'suffer from stress', and 'we must test more than their final exam performance'. Recently, I graded two exams dictated by a blind student to a stenographer, several similarly prepared by a student with severe dyslexia. There are ways of adjusting the system within the overall regime but experts in the subject area would be best able to suggest how. In the case of a PhD disertation this comes down to close supervision. The supervisor must be a subject expert and must closely supervise the student's progress. In my experience of supervising PhD dissertations it does not take long to recognise the signs that a student is 'faking it'. But this is back to the faculty ratio. The first of the 141 EBS DL DBA students are passing through their DL taught MSc classes to their disseration stage. We will see how confident we will be with the original nature of their work. The history of the adoption of the dissertation/project system in British MBAs is interesting. It boils down to it being adopted (though it was not common in the US) from what appears to be immitation - early Schools had a dissertation (influenced I believe by the habits of consultancy firms in UK industry and executive Management programmes, hence followers copied. It is now established as 'necessary'. Durham has a dissertation and I have some experience of its quality - my son-in-law has his MBA from Durham (part-time). I have no reason to suspect his project's provenance. This does not undermine my comments on the system in general (anecdote is not data).