| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #7. Spring, 2001
February 17, 2001
Members Present:
Muneeza Aumir, Jeff Charbeneau (presiding), Jeremy Dorsett, Sean Kannegeiser, Andrew Lee, Aaron Martz, Neilanjan Nandi, Deanna Smith, Elaine Thompson
Ombuds:
Joan Shreffler
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter from a professor in an upper level science class. The letter stated that there may have been collusion amongst Students A, B, and C on an exam.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of Accusation
Written Statements from Students A, B, and C
Deposition from Students A, B, and C
Class Syllabus
Original Exam
Copies of Exam for Students A, B, and C
Written Statements from Students A, B, and C
Professor's Solutions to Exam
Expert Analysis of Exams A, B, and C
Copies of Past Exams
Class Textbook
Plea:
Students A, B, and C plead Not In Violation.
Testimony:
Students A, B, and C all testified that they worked together throughout the semester on homework and when studying for exams. This was used as an explanation for using the same strategies they practiced on homework, and as taught to them by their common tutor, on the exam in question. The tutor was not available for inquiry.
The professor testified that he was open to the possibility of coincidence, but wanted to further investigate through the procedures of the Honor Code. The professor pointed to several instances of peculiar coincidence on problems 1 and 2 that were replicated by Students A, B, and C on each of their individual exams. In particular, the professor showed that each student ignored information clearly given in the exam and, instead, used entirely different information to complete the problem. This false information, however, was peculiar because it was exactly identical amongst all three students. Since the text was an open book, open note exam, Student A saw a similar problem in the textbook and claimed that he accidentally incorporated information from the similar problem in the textbook into his exam solution. Students B and C both explained their logic in obtaining their false information. The professor considered Student A's explanation plausible, but was unable to follow the logic of Students B and C. The professor then went on to outline consistent, conceptual and technical errors made by the students in problem 2. Each of the students cited that they had each incorrectly applied a different method of solution strategy than the professor, taught to them by their tutor. In addition, they cited similar problems in their textbook which they used to design their solutions. The professor could not recall if these same errors were made by other students for sure. He thought it unlikely, but that it was possible that other students may have made these errors.
Throughout the testimony, an independent expert's written analysis of the similarities inherent amongst the exams was used as a resource to supplement the testimony and analysis of the professor. Also, a witness was called by Student B to testify that he had seen Student B take his exam in the given three hour time limit alone in his room.
Deliberation:
Most members found the scenario of the three students independently and incorrectly arriving to the same false information from problem 1 of the exam, that was already given in the problem, curious and suspect; however, not entirely implausible either. In problem 2, a consistent error was made by each student from the similar problems found in the textbook which they themselves cited as resources or templates to solve their exam problems. There was also a very similar structure to how their solutions were submitted. However, this similarity was not given much weight. One reason to dismiss this similarity was because the fact that the nature of the class emphasized a scientific methodology which might explain the similar structures of the solutions. However, most council members did express concern over the consistent errors found in solutions submitted by Students A, B, and C that was dissimilar from the problems they had used as templates. Little weight was given to the witness testimony that stated that she had seen Student B take the test alone because it was deemed that after that time period, any number of plausible scenarios could be imagined. Therefore, the Council focused on physical evidence submitted in the case in the form of exams.
A straw poll was taken to assess the general feeling of the Council.
Straw Poll #1
In Violation: 8
Not in Violation: 1
Abstentions: 0
Further discussion followed that focused on assessing the written testimony of the expert who analyzed and compared each of the students' exams. Some debate occurred on how much weight to give to the independent expert. Members exercised caution and thought when considering the expert testimony. When comparing one exam to another and all three together, the expert consistently indicated that a violation had occurred as extremely probable on a spectrum for a violation occurring that ranged from extremely probable to extremely improbable. Since the nature of this independent testimony was of such an extreme nature, most council members thought that this was of important consequence. In addition, the professor could not follow or be convinced of the logic and explanations the students had provided in showing how they had obtained the information they had used in problem 1. The members of the Council also found their explanations for problem 1 suspect and highly implausible as well.
Straw Poll #2
In Violation: 8
Not in Violation: 1
Abstentions: 0
A consensus could not be reached by all 9 members of the Council for a verdict of In Violation. The conflict could not be resolved and the opinions of the members were both strong and steadfast. Hence, Straw Poll #2 was made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A, B, and C Not In Violation of the Honor System.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 3 hours, 45 minutes
Respectfully Submitted,
Neilanjan Nandi
Trial Clerk