Honor Council Rice University  
 

Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #8, Spring 2003
February 4, 2003

Members Present:
Joan Shreffler (presiding), Anna Ahrens, Ryan Bergauer, Chris Conrad, Jason Love, Andrea Melton, Kathleen Milazzo, Matt Mino, Elspeth Simpson, Alex Garcia (non-binding vote), John Stevens (non-binding vote), Harold Troxel (non-binding vote)

Ombuds:
Anshu Duggal

Letter of Accusation:
A professor of an upper level social sciences course submitted a letter of accusation concerning similar answers on two students' take-home exams.

Evidence Submitted:

Plea:
Student A: Not in violation
Student B: Not in volation

Testimony:
Students stated they had studied together intensively. Student A had done poorly on the first two exams in the class and needed to raise his grade. Student B had done very well on previous exams so student A and B worked together. Students A and B studied together on the three nights previous to taking the exam. Student B took the exam the evening before the exam was due. The morning the exam was due Student A called Student B and told him he needed some more help on the exam. Student B met Student A in a public area and they studied for the exam for a few more hours. Student B brought the notebook containing the notes he used for the class to the public area so that they could study. The notebook contained Student B’s completed exam. Student A started working on the exam in the public area, during this period student B was called out of the area and was gone for 20 minutes, leaving his notebook in the public area. Both students received identical grades on the exam, but did have different answers for one question, out of the four they got wrong.

When asked about the similarities on their exams, both students responded that they were due to them studying together. When questioned about some of the concepts on the exam, student B responded in great detail, while student A said that it had been last semester and he could not remember many details of the course.

Deliberation:
Most members felt that the exams were similar beyond coincidence and were certain a violation occurred. Initially some members were not sure absolute evidence of a violation existed, but after examining one of the questions where an intermediate algebraic step was omitted on student A’s paper, yet he had the same mistake as student B, all members felt more comfortable to make a decision.

Straw Poll #2: Did a violation occur?
Yes: 9 + 2 Observing
No: 0
Abstain: 0 + 1 Observing

The discussion moved on to the individual students. All members felt Student B had been very convincing in his details about the concepts on the exam. Although some members felt that it would be difficult for a violation to occur without Student B’s knowledge, it was felt that without more evidence there was no way to implicate Student B.

Straw Poll #3: Is student B in violation?
Yes: 0
No: 9 + 3 Observing
Abstain: 0

Discussion moved on to Student A. Although the individual reasons were different for each member, ranging from the intermediate algebraic error to the similarities in layout of the exams, the members felt comfortable voting on Student A.

Straw Poll #4: Is Student A in violation?

Yes: 9 + 2 Observing
No: 0
Abstain: 0 + 1 Observing

Discussion moved onto the penalty for Student A. The consensus penalty for the violation is an F in the class and a two-semester suspension from the university. Each of the mitigating circumstances was discussed, and the only one that applied was severity. The Council was split on the severity of the offense. Some felt that it was not a very severe violation, since it was felt that Student A may have only copied a portion of the exam. Others felt that it was a very severe violation, since it was a take home exam and a conscious decision to cheat seemed to have been made.

Straw Poll #5: Penalty for Student A
F+2: 3 + 1 Observing
F+1: 2 + 1 Observing
F: 3
Abstain: 1 + 1 Observing

Further discussion of the severity of the offense was made. It was pointed out that the student was already failing the class, so giving him an F was no worse penalty than what would have happened if he had not cheated.

Straw Poll #7: Penalty for Student A
F+2: 3 + 1 Observing
F+1: 5 + 1 Observing
F: 1
Abstain: 0 + 1 Observing

Straw Polls 2, 3, 4 and 7 were made binding.

Thus the Honor Council found Student A in violation of the Honor Code and recommends a punishment of an F in the course and a one semester suspension. Student B is found to be not in violation.

Time of Trial and Deliberation: 2 hours, 26 minutes

Respectfully Submitted,

Jason Love

Clerk

Last modified Wednesday, March 6, 2003 09:44 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu