| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #2. Fall, 2000
October 30, 2000
Members Present:
Aaron Martz, Theo Yaung, Alex Chen, Kelly Bolen, Arnaud Chevallier, DJ
Brasier, Laura Derr, Michael Cassavant, Jeremy Dorsett, Virginia Thompson,
Jeff Charbeneau (presiding)
Ombuds:
Shannon Fink
Letter of Accusation:
The honor council received a formal letter of accusation via email from a
grader of a science course that accused students A and B of collaborating on
a pledged assignment.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of Accusation
Written statements of the two students involved
Course syllabus
Students A's pledged homework
Student B's pledged homework
Student A's previous pledged homework
Student B's previous pledged homework
Copies of pledged homework from five different students in the class
Plea:
Both students plead Not in Violation
Testimony:
Student B started the testimony by describing the process by which she does
her homework. She consistently does them at the last minute on the day it
is due, often completing them before her afternoon course. In high school,
she had taken an AP course in the subject matter and knows it well enough so
that she does not need to attend class or study the book. Student A studies
with B, and unlike B, she studies the book and takes longer time on the
homework. Both of them emphasized that they had no reason the cheat on the
assignment since it is worth only a small percentage of the final grade and
they are able to recover points lost on these through practice problems. .
Student B tutored A on the concepts in the course. Therefore, they
attributed the extreme similarities in the papers to having studied together
extensively. The errors were the handling of a variable, failing to
compensate for another variable, switching the use of sine and cosine, and a
fairly common algebra error. Student B noted that she constantly makes
mistakes and student A often needs to correct her. Nevertheless, she feels
comfortable about her algebra. Neither could remember the exact time or
location they did this particular assignment, nor could they recall who
turned them in.
The roommate of Student B testified that on many occasions she saw Student A
doing the problems at least a day or two before the deadline, while she
could remember seeing Student
B doing them on the due date. Again, she could not recall when or where the
accused had done this particular assignment.
Two professors from the course offered their testimony. They were surprised
at the 4 unique errors which were found in both papers. In addition, the
solutions for both papers used an approach very different from the approach
taken by the vast majority of the other students. They noted that the
problem was fairly difficult and involved, and the chances were "damn slim"
for both papers to coincidentally have the same errors. The professors gave
rough statistical estimates for the coincidence, and the figures ranged from
1 in several hundred to 1 in several thousands. Both professors believed
that paper B seemed to demonstrate a better understanding of the problem.
In addition, the omission of a negative sign that was added at the end also
caused some suspicion. This was a fact observed on the other problem on
paper A.
Finally, another student was called in to testify. She had observed the
accused doing the problems at separate times and separate locations. She,
too, could not recall when or where they accused had worked on this
particular assignment.
Deliberation:
Several council members initially expressed their doubts
regarding whether a violation had taken place. The situation was
suspicions, and the similarities in the papers were plausible, given the
fact that they worked and studied together.
Several other council members were troubled at the sum of all
the seemingly minor mistakes that appeared in identical form in both papers.
The mistake in algebra, the mistake in geometry, the unique approach by
itself would raise no concerns, but the presence of 4 identical mistakes in
both papers was very suspicious. Paper A was also missing a few lines. The
evidence seemed to suggest that A might have copied from B. On the previous
homework, student A showed much more work, writing out all the formulas and
showing many steps in the calculations. The homework in question seemed
inconsistent since it had a few lines of work omitted.
Straw Poll #1- Did a violation occur?
In violation: 6 + 2 observing
Not in violation: 2
Abstentions: 1
After more deliberation, with particular emphasis the on the
identical errors and approach, another poll was taken.
Straw Poll #2- Did a violation occur?
In violation: 8 + 2 observing
Not in violation: 0
Abstentions: 1
The council member who abstained from the vote wanted some more
discussion before deciding either way. More discussion took place.
Straw Poll #3- Did a violation occur?
In violation: 9 + 2 observing
Not in violation: 0
Abstentions: 0
Straw Poll #4- Can directionality be found?
Yes: 4 + 2 observing
No: 4
Abstentions: 1
The council then proceeded to determine whether student B was in
violation.
Straw Poll #5- Did student B commit a violation?
In violation: 0
Not in violation: 9 + 2 observing
There was much debate over whether there was clear and
convincing evidence that student A committed a violation. The evidence
pointed to the fact that student A might have taken paper B and copied from
it, omitting a few lines in the process, and making minor variable name
changes. Council members disagreed on whether that evidence was strong
enough.
Straw Poll #6- Did student A commit a violation?
In violation: 2 + 1 observing
Not in violation: 4
Abstentions: 3 + 1 observing
More debate over the evidence. There was debate over who might
have copied whose diagram. There was good reason to suspect that A copied
B's diagrams because B had 2 diagrams which, according to the expert
testimony, demonstrated a better understanding of the problem, while A only
had a single diagram, one that a few council members asserted was a
combination of A's diagrams.
Straw Poll #7- Did student A commit a violation?
In violation: 3 + 1 observing
Not in violation: 5 + 1 observing
Abstentions: 1
The one abstention came from a council member who had a
difficult time deciding whether the evidence carried enough weight to be
clear and convincing. The member then decided to vote not in violation.
Straw Poll #8- Did student A commit a violation?
In violation: 3 + 1 observing
Not in violation: 6 + 1 observing
Abstentions: 0
Straw polls 3,5, and 8 were made binding.
Thus the Honor Council finds that the honor code was violated but could not
come to a unanimous agreement in determining who had committed a violation.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 5 hours, 30 minutes.
Respectfully Submitted,
Alex Chen
Trial Clerk