Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #10. Fall, 2002
March 20, 2002

Members Present:
Aaron Martz (presiding), Chris Conrad, Ayse Celikkol, DJ Brasier, Joan Shreffler, Ravi Patel, Laura Fitzmorris, Elspeth Simpson, Kevin Arceneaux, John Pitcher (non-binding vote).

Ombuds:
Anna Ahrens.

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a formal letter of accusation from the professor of a graduate level business class stating that students A and B had very similar midterms.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Students A and B both plead Not In Violation except to the final problem to which they plead In Violation.

Testimony:
Student A stated in her opening statement that she and student B ran into each other in the hall about 30 minutes before the exam was finished while both were taking a bathroom break. She stated that Student B asked her what she got on the last problem, and that she told B what her answer was.

Student B confirmed this in her opening statement. She added that the exam is very formulaic and that similar inputs will yield similar outputs. She also stated that she and Student B worked closely together in studying for the exam and in preparing the cheat sheets that they were allowed to take into the exam. She concluded by stating that neither of them thought at the time that what they had done was a violation.

During questioning, both students stated that they had taken their exams in different rooms. They agreed that they met for less than a minute in the hall and merely exchanged numerical answers to the final question.

Student A concluded by pointing out the different steps that they had taken in approaching each problem and by stating that both she and Student B are good students and had no reason to cheat. Student B echoed these sentiments in her closing statement.

Deliberation:
The Council discussed whether there was evidence to suggest that the two students had collaborated more than they had stated in their testimony. It was decided that their answers to the final question were more similar than the rest of the exam, but that the evidence that they may have collaborated more was not conclusive.

The Council then debated whether confirming the answer to a problem on an exam before turning in the exam constituted a violation, even if the answer was not ultimately changed. It was decided that it did.

Straw Poll #1: Did a violation occur?
In Violation: 9 + 1 (non-binding)
Not in Violation: 0

Straw Poll #2: Did Student A commit a violation?
In Violation: 9 + 1 (non-binding)
Not in violation: 0

Straw Poll #3: Did Student B commit a violation?
In Violation: 9 + 1 (non-binding)
Not in violation: 0

The consensus penalty for such a violation is an F in the course and a 2 semester suspension. Other penalties proposed included reduction of final grade in the class by one letter, reduction of the letter grade on the assignment by one letter, loss of credit on the last question, loss of credit on the part of the last question on which a violation occurred, and a letter of reprimand. An initial straw poll was taken:

Straw Poll #4: Penalty
F in the Class and 2 semester suspension: 0
Loss of a letter grade in the class: 2
Loss of a letter grade on the exam: 6 + 1 (non-binding)
Loss of credit on the last question: 1
Loss of credit on the part of the last question in question: 0
Letter of reprimand: 0

It was decided that a loss of a letter grade on the exam and a loss of credit on the last question were very similar. There was also discussion about which was a more appropriate way to respond to the violation.

One member summarized the argument for a loss of a letter on the exam by pointing to the lack of harm caused by the violation and the cooperation that the accused put forth. Another member pointed out that even confirming answers on the last question could cause problems for the entire exam because it could change how the students used the last half hour on the exam.

Straw Poll #5: Penalty
Loss of a letter grade in the class: 4
Loss of a letter grade on the exam: 5 + 1 (non-binding)
Loss of credit on the last question: 0

Straw polls 1, 2, 3, and 5 were made binding.

Thus the Honor Council finds Students A and B in Violation of the Honor System and recommends that they each receive a loss of one letter grade on the exam. A suspension clause is also attached to their records.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 1 hours and 15 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

DJ Brasier,
Honor Council Secretary

Back to 2001-2002 Case Abstracts.
Back to Rice Honor Council main page.
Last modified Thursday, March 21, 2002. 5:40 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu