| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #25, Spring 2006
September 6, 2006
Members Present:
Becky Thilo (presiding), Laura Campo (clerk), Ryan Stinnett, Farhan Katchi,
Court Jackson, Teresa Monkkonen, Amber Raley, Jonathan Jackson, Jacqui Cacan,
Josh Levin (observing)
Ombuds:
Pete Choo
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in an undergraduate
science course accusing Student A of submitting an exam for a re-grade after
the exam had been altered in an attempt to regain undeserved points.
Evidence Submitted:
Plea:
Student A pled “In Violation.”
Testimony:
Student A opened his testimony by saying that he pled in violation because
the exam re-grade policy made it clear that no changes were allowed to be
made to the exam and his resubmitted exam had been altered. Student
A also testified that he did not make these changes himself. He said
he attended a help session to go over the exam with a TA and other students
in the course, and he believed that another student wrote on his exam without
his knowledge. Student A also said that he felt he deserved more points
on the questions that had been altered and that several other students had
touched the exam between the time that it was handed back and when he submitted
it for a re-grade.
A member of the Council asked Student A if the altered questions could be his handwriting. Student A responded by saying that the handwriting was very similar, but he did not recall making changes on his exam before submitting it for a re-grade.
Another Council member asked Student A why someone would write on the exam if they knew that Student A thought he deserved more points on the exam and was considering submitting it for a re-grade. Student A responded that he did not voice his intent to submit for re-grade and that there was a possibility that another student could have accidentally marked on the exam.
A Council member asked Student A if he looked at the exam key before submitting his exam for a re-grade, and Student A responded that he had not seen the exam key before requesting a re-grade.
Another member of the Honor Council asked Student A why he referred to specific parts of his answer for which he thought he deserved more credit when these parts of the answer were not present in the original graded exam. Student A responded that he wrote the cover page (on which he explained the specific questions that were mis-graded) by memory and that he thought his answer was right to start with.
Student A testified that there were a few pieces of text marked out on the scratch work pages of the regarded version of the test that were not marked out on the original graded exam. Student A used these marks, which he said he did not make, as evidence that the exam had been written on by other students.
In closing, Student A stated that he did not know that someone had written on his exam before he submitted it for re-grade and that a violation occurred because his re-graded exam was altered, but that it had happened because of carelessness, not because of an intent to regain undeserved points on the test.
Verdict Deliberations:
In their initial impressions, Council members agreed that a violation
had occurred since Student A’s exam had been altered before it was submitted
for re-grade, which was clearly prohibited by the exam re-grade policy outlined
in the course syllabus. Members also noted that the letter of accusation
stated that these changes were substantial and would have earned more credit
than the answers that were originally submitted.
Straw Poll #1: Is there clear and convincing evidence that a violation occurred?
Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding vote
No: 0
Abstentions: 0
Most members of the Council were convinced that the handwriting of the altered portion of the exam was the same as the writing on the rest of the exam, and that it was in fact Student A’s handwriting. One member noted that some of the altered writing was smaller than the original writing, but that this was likely due to space constraints, not because it was another person’s handwriting. It was also noted that there were a few other questions where Student A did not score well and these were neither altered nor marked for re-grade.
Council members also discussed the revisions to the scratch work pages, and most felt that these marks could have been made by another student, but that the handwriting on the relevant portions of the answers was Student A’s writing.
At least one member voiced the concern that they were not positive that Student A had made the changes on the exam and would need to think about it more.
Straw Poll #2: Is there clear and convincing evidence that Student A is In
Violation?
Yes: 7 + 1 non-binding vote
No: 1
Abstentions: 1
Members discussed the handwriting further, and decided that it was very likely Student A’s writing, and that even if it were not his handwriting, Student A did submit an altered exam for re-grade, which was against the Honor Code policy. Before submitting the exam to be re-graded, Student A should have checked to be sure that there were no alterations, especially if he knew that other students had been looking at it, and possibly marking on it.
Straw Poll #3: Is there clear and convincing evidence that Student A is In
Violation?
Yes: 9 + 1 non-binding vote
No: 0
Abstentions: 0
Straw polls #1 and #3 were made binding.
Penalty Deliberations:
Honor Council members agreed unanimously that Student A did not make a self-accusation in good faith. Also, no members felt that the violation qualified as heinous, and therefore the CPS F and 2 semester suspension would be the starting point for deliberations.
When discussing the nature of the violation, some Council members believed the violation to be intentional with the purpose of gaining undeserved points, and others were not sure about the intent behind the violation. Council members did agree that they were fairly sure that the handwriting on the altered portion of the exam was in fact Student A’s handwriting. A Council member also brought up the fact the exam in question was worth one sixth of Student A’s final grade, and that the number of points to be regained by altering the answers was very small.
Some Council members believed the plea of in violation to be in good faith, but others said that they believed that Student A pled in violation to a lesser violation than the one stated in the letter of accusation. They said that he told the Council that he was in violation because someone else had made changes to his exam, not because he had changed his exam to get more points.
When discussing cooperation, some members also voiced concerns that although Student A brought forth evidence and answered the Council’s questions, they were not sure that Student A disclosed fully and truthfully. They said that Student A had been deceptive because all of his testimony was based on the idea that someone else wrote the altered answers. A few Council members did not believe there was deceit of the Council regarding who made the changes and therefore would not be applying as it an aggravating circumstance.
Straw Poll #4: What is an appropriate penalty for Student A?
F in course & 2 semester suspension: 0
F
in course & 1 semester suspension: 2
+ 1 observing
F in course: 5
2
letter grade reduction in course: 1
Abstentions: 1
The member who voted for 2 letter grade reduction voiced their opinion that Student A would not have gained a lot of points from the re-grade, and the fact that the violation occurred on a re-grade instead of on the original exam made it a lesser violation. Another member replied that violating the Honor Code on the exam or on the re-grade was the same, even though there were fewer points at stake.
Another member also pointed out that Rice students enjoy freedoms like re-grades on exams because of the Honor Code and that abusing a re-grade policy is detrimental to the trust between students and faculty. Other members said that Student A showed a small amount of cooperation and pled in violation, but they doubted that his testimony was entirely truthful. One member suggested that it was unlikely that Student A would have simply forgotten that he changed his answers before submitting the exam for re-grade since there was only a week from the time that it was handed back until it had to be resubmitted.
Straw Poll #5: What is an appropriate penalty for Student A?
F in course & 1 semester suspension: 4
+ 1 observing
F in course: 5
2
letter grade reduction in course: 0
Abstentions: 0
Members voting for F + 1 semester suspension said that they believed Student A resubmitted the exam with the intention of trying to get undeserved points back, and that his testimony was deceitful. One member who voted for F in the course voiced the opinion that they were fairly sure, but not undoubtedly convinced, that the handwriting was Student A’s, and that this was why they felt that suspension was too severe of a penalty for the violation.
Straw Poll #6: What is an appropriate penalty for Student A?
F in course & 1 semester suspension: 2
F
in course: 7
+ 1 non-binding
2 letter grade reduction: 0
Abstentions: 0
The Council reached it’s required 2/3 majority, and asked the members who still voted for F in the course & 1 semester suspension if they felt that they could move to F to strive for unanimity. These members replied that they felt strongly in their positions at F & 1 semester suspension and felt that all the issues had been thoroughly discussed, so they would not move to a penalty of F in the course.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A in violation of the Honor Code and recommends that he receive an F in the course. A prior violation flag is also attached to his record.
Time of Hearing and Deliberations: 1 hour, 31 minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
Laura Campo
Clerk