Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case 47, Spring 2002
December 4, 2002

Members Present:
Joan Shreffler (presiding), Anna Ahrens, Chris Conrad, Teresa Fu, Sally Anne Gutting, Jason Longoria, Matt Mino, John Pitcher, Evan Van Ness

Ombuds:
Travis Youngblood

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a grader accusing Students A and B of collaborating on an open-book, open-note, take-home final exam in a lower-level science class.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Students A and B plead Not In Violation.

Testimony:
Student A expressed that this accusation was a surprise. He said that he believed in the Honor System and gave his word that he did not violate the Honor Code. Student B gave no opening statement.

Student A said he took the exam in his room, and took several breaks while staying within the three-hour time limit for the exam. Student B said he took his exam alone without taking breaks and finished early, using the remainder of the three hours to check his work. When asked about how the exams were turned in, Student B said that he turned it in to the professor's mailbox. Student A said that he turned it in to a secretary who probably put it into the mailbox.

Council members then asked each student how they answered the questions on the exam. Each student pointed to specific pages of the course handouts and textbooks which they used for several problems on the exams. For many questions, Students A and B said that they did not use the same source of information. They explained that the similarities on the exams could be due to the fact that they had studied together and worked on homework together. They also said that some of their lecture notes were the same because they would copy the notes from each other if they missed a class, which was permitted by the professor. For a multiple choice section of the exam, Student B explained that there were very few answers that would make sense for each blank, so it was not improbable that two students would independently have the same answers. Student A said that the vocabulary words were easy to confuse because they were often very similar.

In closing, Student B reiterated that on his honor he didn't cheat, and that he recognizes the seriousness of any Honor Code violation. He restated that the similarities on the two exams were due to the type of questions asked and the fact that he and Student A had studied together in the course. Student A stated that his grade on the exam in question was consistent with his grades on other coursework in the class. He pointed out that he was able to explain how the questions on the exam were answered, and he gave his word that he did not cheat.

Deliberation:
Some members felt that since the students were able to explain many of their answers, it was difficult to determine whether or not a violation had occurred. Some members felt that the identical answers on some portions of the exam were beyond coincidence or having similar notes or studying together. Members were suspicious of the fact that these similarities would arise after the students used different sources of information when answering the questions. Both students used abbreviations that were not commonly used by other students in the class. Some members were not convinced by the explanations given about how the students answered some of the questions, and felt that the similarities were not explained.

Straw Poll #1
Violation Occurred - 9
No Violation Occurred - 0
Abstentions - 0
The Council then discussed whether the violation was due to collaboration between both students or due to the copying of one student's exam by the other. It was pointed out that Student B showed less detail on the free-response section than Student A did. Margin notes on the multiple-choice section of Student A's exam suggested that Student A did original work on this portion of exam, which is where many of the similarities were. Members then examined Student A's exam, and noticed several erasures that suggested copying off of Student B's exam. The format of some answers on Student A's exam further suggested that the answers were copied off of Student B's exam.

Straw Poll #4
Is Student A In Violation?
Yes - 9
No - 0
Abstain - 0

Straw Poll #5
Is Student B In Violation?
Yes - 9
No - 0
Abstain - 0

Penalty Phase: The exam was worth more than 10% of the course grade, so the consensus penalty was an F in the course and a 2-semester suspension. Cooperation was discussed as a mitigating circumstance because both students made an effort explain how they answered the exam problems and answered all of the Council's questions. However it was felt by most members that since the students did not admit to the violation, their answers and explanations were deceptive and used to cover up the violation. Severity was then discussed as a mitigating circumstance. Some members thought it was possible that Student A gave aid without receiving aid, which would receive a lesser penalty. Other members felt that giving aid is as bad as receiving, so severity would not be an issue in such a scenario.

Straw Poll #8
Penalty for Student B
F+2 - 8
F+1 - 0
F - 1
Abstain - 0

Straw Poll #9
Penalty for Student A
F+2 - 8
F+1 - 0
F - 1
Abstain - 0

Straw polls 1, 4, 5, 8, and 9 were made binding.

Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A and B In Violation of the Honor Code and recommends that they each receive an F in the course and a 2-semester suspension. A suspension clause is also attached to their record.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 2 hours and 35 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jason Longoria,
Honor Council Secretary

Back to 2001-2002 Case Abstracts.
Back to Rice Honor Council main page.
Last modified Thursday, April 24, 2003. 7:30 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu