| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #42A and #42B, Spring 1992 (carry-over to Fall) Abstract of the Honor Council 20 August 1992
Members present: Case #42b: Steve Tran, Tobey Blanton, Sam Cole, Marc Elliot, Chad Fargason, Crystal Gobble, and Korbin King. Case #42a: above members plus Abigail Martin and Suzanne Angele.
Ombudsman: Steve Hackney
The Honor Council received an accusation from a professor in an upper lever human performance and health sciences class. The accusation concerned the take-home final exam for that class. The exam was divided into a part that was the same for all students and a section that was individualized for each student. The professor claimed that the students involved, henceforward referred to as Student #1 and Student #2, had exam answers too similar to be coincidental and that they must have worked together on the exam despite directions indication that no help from other students or class notes from other students were allowed. The use of other material such as books and individual class notes were acceptable, however. The professor provided the Council with a copy of Student #1's test, Student #2's test, and a random sampling of tests from other students. Class notes from Student #2, a first draft of the exam in question by Student #1, a few pages of class notes from Student #1, and a text recommended as an aid for this test were also submitted as evidence.
Student #1 entered a plea of Not Guilty. Student #2 entered a plea of Guilty.
Student #2 began his opening statement explaining how he often could not attend the class in question because of a scheduling conflict. He would then copy someone else's notes from the class that he missed. Oftentimes, he copied Student #1's notes. He stated that he and Student #1 took the exam at the same apartment, and that he had used Student #1's notes without Student #1's permission. However, since he had missed class the day the exam was handed out and had never seen a copy of the test, he did not realize that using someone else's notes for this test was not allowed by the professor. He said that he understood that ignorance under the Code is not an acceptable excuse so he had no choice but to plead Guilty to an Honor Code violation.
Student #1 began his opening statement stating that he had given Student #2 notes for the class period where material on the exam was covered before the professor had announced that other student's notes could not be used for that examination. He stated that the professor had gone over some answers almost word for word, and that many students in the class probably have very similar responses because of this. Student #1 also noted that his exam was in well on time, and that he had made three rough drafts of the exam before his final version that he typed on a computer. He went on to say that he originally had no idea why he was accused. When he later saw a copy of Student #2's test, he saw that a number of answers were very similar or identical. Since he knew that both he and Student #1 had typed the test on the same computer, he went back and searched the three or so disks that had been at the apartment that night for Student #2's work. He could not find it. He then stated that he loaded up what he thought was his test, saved separately as the test and bibliography, only to find that Student #2's test and bibliography had overwritten both files. He stated that he had no idea how this happened.
The Council then began question both Student #1 and Student #2. Student #2 explained that since he and Student #1 had taken the test at the same location and on the computer, he had access to what he thought were class notes Student #1 had left next to the computer after he was done taking the test. However, since he had never seen a copy of the test, he did not realize that those notes were actually a final draft of Student #1's test. He also said that when he had started work on the test, the computer was still on and had Student #1's files still loaded up on it. He said that he erased both files by holding down the delete key before starting his exam. This would account for the fact that his work was saved over Student #1's. Student #1 could not remember if he left the computer on, but he said it was possible. Student #1 stated that he had three drafts of the test, all of which but his original he thought he had thrown out when he discarded his class notes after the test was completed. Only the draft before he typed the exam contained the part of the test unique to each student. Student #2 was asked why there was an identical typing error on a heading in both his and Student #1's exams. He stated that he really could not remember the details of how he deleted the files that were already on the computer and that it was possible that he deleted all parts of the files except the headings.
The professor of the class was sworn in to testify. When grading the exams submitted by Student #1 and Student #2, the professor noticed that they had been printed off the same printer because the printing was alternately dark and light throughout the works. Upon further review, the professor found a substantial amount of similarities between the exams. Some answers were, in fact, identical. The professor was asked whether or not the way he lectured made it possible that answers were similar. The professor stated that he did not give answers out word for word but concentrated more on examples. Student #1 questioned the professor as to whether he remembered the student's grade going into the test. Although the professor could not recall, Student #1 explained that he had been doing well in the class and that his grade before the final was no worse than a B. After some further questioning, the professor was excused.
The Council then continued questioning Student #1 and Student #2. Student #1 stated that at no time after the professor had given out the exam did he tell Student #2 that he could use Student #1's class notes. Student #2 claimed that he used the notes that he found next to the computer, the ones that turned out to be, he said, Student #1's rough draft, only for a few answers. The council asked Student #2 if he had remembered seeing the answers to the individualized section on the rough draft he used. He said that he had not. The council asked if he would have realized that the work was a actually a draft test if the individualized part of the test was present. Student #2 responded in the affirmative. The questioning then centered on numerous similarities between the way he answered his individualized section and the way Student #1 had answered his. In some answers, entire sentences were identical. The council had no further questions.
Student #2 then made his closing statement. He claimed that he remembered using only three or so answers from the rough draft he found next to the computer. He did not look at any of the information that was on the computer that he realized was Student #1's test. He also stated that he did not remember seeing the individualized portion of the test on the draft from which he took a few of his answers.
Student #1 closed by saying he didn't know that Student #2 had been using a draft copy of his test, and that at no time did he ever give Student #2 permission to use either his notes or his test.
Deliberation on Case #42a, Student #1 The council found no evidence whatsoever that Student #1 had done anything wrong. After some discussion, a straw poll was taken.
Results of Straw Poll #1, Case #42a: Guilty: 0 Not Guilty: 9 Abstentions: 0
Straw Poll #1 was made binding.
The Honor Council therefore finds Student #1, Case #42a Not Guilty of a violation of the Honor Code.
Deliberation on Case #42b, Student #2 Two members of the Council were dismissed for the Hearing. The Council's discussion centered on the strong correlation between the individualized portions of the tests. While a sentence in Student #1's individualized portion made sense in regards to his test, it was copied exactly in Student #2's test and did not seem to fit at all. The Council discussed numerous incidence where the individualized portions were extremely similar in nature and far more than three incidence where the framework if not the wording was identical on both tests. The Council also discussed how many typing mistakes were present in Student #2's test, but in those places on his test that were identical to Student #1's, the typing was identical to Student #1's, and no errors were present. After much discussion, the Council decided that Student #2 had lied to the Council and had used Student #1's test knowingly.
Since Student #2 had entered a plea of guilty, the Council began deliberating on a penalty. Since, despite Student #2's claim, the Council believed that Student #2 had knowingly cheated on a take-home test, the Council believed a harsh penalty was in order. The consensus penalty of an F in the course plus a two semester suspension and a suspension clause was proposed. After some discussion, an F in the course plus a one semester suspension and a suspension clause was also put on the table. The Council took a Straw Poll.
Results of Straw Poll #1, Case #42b: 2 semester suspension + F in course + suspension clause: 7 1 semester suspension + F in course + suspension clause: 0
With no objections, the results of Straw Poll #1 were made binding.
The Honor Council thus recommends to the Dean of Students that Student #2, Case #42b be suspended from Rice University for 2 semesters with a suspension clause and receive a failing grade in the course in question.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sam Cole Trial Clerk