| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #20. Spring, 2001
September 22, 2001
Members Present:
Aaron Martz (Presiding), Ricardo Vargas, Ayse Gelikkol, Evan Van Ness, Samrat Sarker, DJ Brasier, Randy Meissen, Rebecca Daprato, Ravi Patel.
Ombuds:
Joan Shreffler.
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a lower level engineering class. The letter stated that Students A and B collaborated a project.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of Accusation
Copy of Assigment
Student A's Solution
Student B's Solution
Copy of Differences between the Solutions
Student A's Statement
Student B's Statement
Copy of Correspondence between the Grader and Student A
Copy of Correspondence between the Grader and Student B
Letter from the Grader
Plea:
Student A pleads In Violation. Student B pleads In Violation
Opening Statements:
Student A did not feel that she was violating the honor code at the time that the work was done, however, she feels that she has strayed into a gray area in the honor code policy for the course and beyond the area that was clearly allowed under the honor code. She notes that the assignment was in two parts, and that she felt that any violation committed would be restricted to the second part of the assignment. She stated that she was prepared to provide any information as needed. Student B felt that everything she needed to say was in her written statement, but offered to provide further information as needed.
Discussion:
Student A presented a narrative of the layout of the assignment, explaining the division into two parts. She noted that the first part was completed consulting mainly with official resources, but not with much consultation with Student B. The second part was completed with discussion with Student B on certain issues, and also with consultation of official resources for certain portions.
One council member asked to what degree the TA's and other students were consulted as resources. Student A responded that she did not consult during formal hours, but at some point got help from TA's during less formal encounters while working. She also consulted with other students in solving one of the problems within a part. Student B went to visit the TA's during formal hours at least once and also used other resources. Another council member asked the accused to comment on a particularly similar section of the assignment. Student B noted that both students wrote the section at the same time, and consulted each other in their explanations.
The professor for the class was brought in as a witness. She noted that basic ideas and approaches could be discussed in solving the problems, but that each student's work should be her own. She further noted that if stuck, students could go to the TA's or other students for general help. Such help did allow for looking at specific problems, but only to a limited extent.
Student B, when asked to comment on the professor's testimony, noted the hazy line created by the honor code policy. She also noted the presence of differences between their solutions to the first part and the explanations of their solutions. One honor council member asked to what extent the students looked at each other's specific solutions. Student B responded that she did not recall, but noted that many of the solutions were repeated applications of the same expression. She reiterated the belief that each did her own work, but that they just worked too closely together.
The grader was brought in as a second witness. She commented on the layout of the assignment, stating that there was less room for variation in the first part, but that in the second part, there was more of a possibility for variation in the solutions. She also noted that there was one problem that was shared by both assignments, which alerted her to the collaboration. She also noted that the structure of the solutions were very similar. Furthermore she noted that both solutions were graded separately with several other students' assignments in between. A council member asked if the similarities in the first part solutions were seen in the second part would the solutions appear to indication collaboration or if the parts were not comparable. The grader noted that even if there were similarities in the first part, they would be more expected in that part. She reiterated that the second part has more leeway to be different. Student B asked if in her current position, she felt that there was evidence of collaboration in the first part. The grader stated that it was possible.
A council member asked if they worked together phrasing the explanations of the solutions. Student B responded in the affirmative. She also restated a distinction between the two parts: that the first has very little room for variation and the second had more room. She also reiterated that the similarities in solutions come from repeated application of certain expressions. An honor council member revisited the similarity in the explanations of the solutions for each part. Student B noted that they wrote the explanations at the same time, and likely came up with phrasing together.
Closing Statements:
Student B states that she plead in violation because she believes that she did something wrong, and went beyond the scope of collaboration allowed. She highlights the differences between the two parts. She also reiterated the grayness in the course honor code policy. Student A states that she went too far and transgressed too far from the scope of work that is clearly allowed under the honor code policy. She also notes that she was involved in a previous issue with the honor council in a concurrent class, and that after that experience has learned to stay away from the gray areas of the honor code, and has done so in subsequent assignments. She also requested that the two parts be considered separate assignments.
Deliberation:
The council discussed to what degree a violation occurred and to discuss the two parts separately. Straw Polls were conducted.
Straw Poll #1 - Whether a Violation Occurred.
A violation occurred: 7
A violation did not occur: 0
Abstention: 0
Straw Poll #2 - Whether Student A is In Violation with respect to Part 2
In Violation: 7
Not In Violation: 0
Abstention: 0
Straw Poll #3 - Whether Student B is In Violation with respect to Part 2
In Violation: 7
Not In Violation: 0
Abstention: 0
Thus the Honor Council finds that both Student A and Student B committed violations of the Honor Code on Part Two.
The Council discussed the similarities in the explanations for the first part. Members agreed that the similarities were widespread. More Straw Polls were taken.
Straw Poll #4 - Whether Student A is In Violation with respect to Part 1
In Violation: 7
Not In Violation: 0
Abstention: 0
Straw Poll #5 - Whether Student B is In Violation with respect to Part 1
In Violation: 7
Not In Violation: 0
Abstention: 0
Thus the Honor Council finds that both Student A and Student B committed violations of the Honor Code on Part One.
Penalty Phase:
Student B - Council members discussed various mitigating factors including cooperation, severity, and unintentionality. The consensus penalty was an F in the course with a 1 semester suspension. In addition, penalties of loss of credit in the course and a two letter reduction in their course grade were suggested. A Straw Poll was conducted.
Straw Poll #6 - Penalty for Student B
F in the course & 1 semester suspension: 0
Loss of credit in the course: 5
2 letter reduction in grade: 1
Abstain: 1
The council discussed the severity of the violation, and attempted to resolve how strong the penalty was required in the light of the violation. Penalties of an F in the course, a 3 letter reduction in the grade, and an 8/3 letter grade reduction in the course were suggested. The consensus penalty was decided to be too strong, and was removed from the discussion. A Straw Poll was conducted.
Straw Poll #7 - Penalty for Student B
F: 1
3 letter reduction in grade: 0
2 letter reduction in grade: 3
8/3 letter reduction in grade: 1
Loss of credit in the course: 2
Abstain: 0
The council members then discussed what their second choice penalties were and how strongly their penalty decisions were. Another Straw Poll was conducted.
Straw Poll #8 - Penalty for Student B
F: 0
3 letter reduction in grade: 1
2 letter reduction in grade: 5
8/3 letter reduction in grade: 1
Loss of credit in the course: 0
Abstain: 0
Student A - The council considered the same mitigating factors as with Student B and further considered that she had been previously found in violation, and discussed the ramifications of this. A straw poll was conducted.
Straw Poll #9 - Penalty for Student A
F in the course & 1 semester suspension 0
F: 1
3 letter reduction in grade: 2
2 letter reduction in grade: 3
8/3 letter reduction in grade: 1
Loss of credit in the course: 0
Abstain: 0
The council discussed to what degree the penalty should be influenced by the student's previous encounter with the council. Given that the accused had no knowledge of either accusation at the time that she was working on the assignment in question, it was generally concluded that the previous accusation should not have much, if any, bearing on this penalty. A Straw Poll was conducted.
Straw Poll #10 - Penalty for Student A
F: 0
3 letter reduction in grade: 1
2 letter reduction in grade: 5
8/3 letter reduction in grade: 1
Loss of credit in the course: 0
Abstain: 0
Straw polls 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10 were made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A and B In Violation of the Honor Code, and they be given two letter reductions in their course grade. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to their records.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 3 hours 35 min
Respectfully Submitted,
Ravi V. Patel,
Trial Clerk