Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #14. Fall, 2001
February 7, 2002

Members Present:
Joshua Barron, Geneva Rhee, Candice Hance, Ricardo Vargas, Tamara Blaha, Sally Anne Gutting, Evan Van Ness, Rebecca Daprato, Laura Derr (presiding).

Ombuds:
Joan Shreffler.

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor of an undergraduate level engineering class that accused Student A of copying Student B's final exam, which is a violation of that class's honor code policy.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Both Student A and Student B plead Not In Violation.

Opening Statement:
Student A - She noted that she and Student B had studied together extensively for this class and worked all the homeworks together. She also noted that two of the three problems on the test were identical to problems the professor had worked in review sessions. She said this is why their tests were so similar.

Student B - This student admitted the tests were similar, but said that was expected because of the way they worked together on the class work. She said since she and Student A had developed the tools to solve the problems by working homework and practice questions together, it was understandable their test answers would be similar.

Discussion:
The students were first asked general questions by the Honor Council about where and when they took their exams. Student B said she took her exam in the basement of her college on Tuesday or Wednesday of finals week and that she turned her exam in on Saturday. Student A said she took her exam in her room on Thursday of exam week and turned it in on Monday. Both students were asked why they took so much time to turn in their exam after finishing it. The students both stated they did not leave their colleges very often during exam week. Student A noted that she turned in all of her exams around the same time just before leaving for the break. Student A said she kept her test in the bottom of her desk until she turned it in and Student B said she kept hers in her desk drawer.

The students were asked to elaborate on how they studied for the exams. Both students said that together they worked problems from the previous year, went to review sessions, and worked handouts.

Next the Council examined the letter of accusation point by point, giving the accused the opportunity to respond to each point. The letter of accusation listed several reasons the professor felt Student A had copied off of Student B's exam. During this time the Council also examined and allowed the students to comment on the deposition of the expert witness, which also stated several reasons why she thought Student A copied from Student B. The students explained that similarities on the exams were due to studying together or from having worked practice problems virtually identical to those on the test.

Closing Statement:
Student B stated that she did not cheat and did not collaborate on the exam. She said she did not give her test to Student A and did not leave it out for Student B to find.

Student A stated she sat at her desk by herself and took the exam. She reiterated that she and Student B worked closely during the semester and that accounted for the similarity between the tests.

Deliberation:
The Council felt that the students were believable, but there were strong points made by the professor and expert witness that indicated a violation may have occurred. The Council went back through the points of the letter of accusation that they felt raised the most suspicions. They examined these points thoroughly and discussed them at length.

Straw Poll #1 - Did a violation occur?
Violation: 9
No Violation: 0

Next the Council discussed the explanations given by Student A regarding these suspicious points. Members determined that only copying could account for the striking similarities.

Straw Poll #2 - Student A
In Violation: 9
Not in Violation: 0

The Council then discussed Student B. Members considered possibilities of what could have occurred between Students A and B: the students could have worked together, Student B could have given Student A his exam, or Student A could have taken the exam from Student B's room. The council felt there was not enough evidence to support that Student B had given Student A his exam or that she had helped Student A copy.

Straw Poll #3 - Student B
In Violation: 0
Not in Violation: 8
Abstentions: 1

One Council member still thought that Student B could have helped Student A. Though the Council could not discount that possibility, members felt they did not have evidence to find Student B In Violation.

Straw Poll #4 - Student B
In Violation: 0
Not in Violation: 9

The consensus penalty for this violation is an F+2 because the test was worth more than 10% of Student A's grade. The Council discussed possible mitigating circumstances. One council member felt severity applied because she felt Student A may have worked a significant amount of the exam by herself. Other Council members did not feel that severity applied because Student A had copied something from Student B's test on every problem and the exam was a final worth a significant portion of the student's final course grade. Cooperation was also brought up as a mitigating circumstance because Student A was very cooperative when dealing with the Council. Other members did not feel Cooperation applied because Student A did not plead In Violation and she may have lied to the Council. Because the decision of how much to weigh mitigating circumstances is left to each individual member, other penalties besides the consensus were placed on the table.

Straw Poll #5 - Student A
F + 2: 2
F + 1: 2
F in the course: 3
Loss of credit in the course: 1
Loss of a on the assignment: 0
Abstentions: 1

Some council members felt that there were no reasons to mitigate the penalty. Some members felt that cooperation did apply so they mitigated down slightly. Other members felt that severity applied because it couldn't be known if Student A took the exam or if Student B had showed her the answers.

Straw Poll #6 - Student A
F + 2: 2
F + 1: 1
F in the course: 5
Loss of credit in the course: 0
Abstentions: 1

Again some council members had concerns about the mitigating circumstances. These members claimed that cooperation means full disclosure and that this student did not do that. They also felt that severity did not apply.

Straw Poll #7 - Student A
F + 2: 2
F + 1: 2
F in the course: 5
Loss of credit in the course: 0
Abstentions: 0

After further discussion, straw polls 1, 2, 4, and 7 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A In Violation of the Honor Code and Student B Not In Violation, and recommends that Student A be given an F in the course. Additionally, a suspension clause will be attached to Student A's records.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 3 hour and 20 minutes.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca C. Daprato
Trial Clerk

Back to 2001-2002 Case Abstracts.
Back to Rice Honor Council main page.
Last modified Thursday, May 9, 2002. 9:30 AM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu