| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #14, Spring 1993 (carry-over to Fall) Abstract of the Honor Council September 28, 1993
Members present: Crystal Gobble (presiding chair), Steve Hackney, Sam Cole, Abigail Martin, Larkin McReynolds, Heather Morschauser, Alex Cestero, Carolyn Gill, Cormac Flanagan, Marc Hirsh (observing), Dan Grossman (observing).
Ombudsman: Lan Huynh.
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from the professor of an upper level science class concerning two students who were suspected of cheating on the open-book section of the take-home final exam during the spring of 1993. While grading the exams the professor noted several similarities in two of the finals. In addition to the two exams, the sign in sheet, the exam itself, six sample exams from other students in the class, the homework and notes of the accused and the textbooks from the course were entered as evidence.
Both accused students (student A and student B) pled not in violation.
Both students made very brief opening statements. They restated their innocence and said they preferred to move on to the questioning. Both students thought it would be better to go through the exam point by point to explain and counter the similarities that the professor had noted in the letter of accusation. Before the actual questioning began, Student B explained that much of his work had been thrown away, as it was scratch work.
There were four problems mentioned in the letter of accusation. In the first problem mentioned, both of the accused claimed that the similarities in their errors stemmed from a basic misunderstanding of the function needed to solve the problem. Also, both said the similarities in work style (indentation, notation and the number of lines needed to solve) were standard and logical. In looking at other sample tests from the class, one other student made the same mistake with the function.
The second problem that was mentioned by the professor was odd because both students started at the wrong point using a method which had not been covered in class. Because of the way that the question was phrased, student A thought he was using the correct method. Student B claimed that he started out (in his scratch work) using the correct method, but when it didn't work he looked for another way to solve the problem. Both students pointed out other tests where that same incorrect method was used. The professor mentioned the third problem because both students made identical wrong assumptions about the problem and yet both were able to answer correctly the last part of the problem. Both students said they approached the problem in the same way. Student B simplified the problem too much because he was used to great simplifications in doing work for his major. Because the two accused had a general idea of what the answer should be, they testified that they had manipulated the problem and their conclusions to fit their assumptions. In the last problem, the professor noticed exactly the same number of lines in parts of the problem and an overall uncanny similarity. The professor also didn't know where the students got the equation to solve the problem. Student A found a similar equation in his notes from only a few days earlier. Student B had been pressed for time at that point on the exam and was unclear on how he had done the problem, but he thought that he probably remembered the example from class, too.
The first witness was also a student in the class. He simply stated that he was with student A when he turned in his test.
The next witness was the professor of the class. The professor began by explaining that he grades all the tests one problem at a time. He began noticing several unusual and rare similarities in the students' mistakes. After turning the accusation in, the professor testified that he had spoken on the phone with both of the accused. The conversation with student A lasted only about 10 minutes, in which time the professor simply explained which problems he suspected cheating had occurred on, and why. The conversation with student B took about an hour. The accused said that the reason why much of his work and answers seemed unexplainable was because he had not included his scratch work.
The professor proceeded to go through the exam with the Council, step by step, to point out the extent of the similarities and methods and to state their rarity. When asked, the professor said that the notation tended to be fairly standard. The professor stressed repeatedly that the fact that the errors were identical was extremely unusual.
After going over the exam one more time both students gave their closing statements. Student A stated the time at which he had taken and turned in his exam. Student B stated the time at which he had taken and turned in his exam. He then repeated that none of the similarities were outstanding and that most were unavoidable since the steps taken to solve a problem, once the method was chosen, had to follow in a certain way. He went through each problem again, explaining his work, and restated his innocence. Both felt they had said all that could be said that was relevant.
When the accused were excused, deliberation began. First the council took a straw poll to decide if student A was in violation or not in violation. After another examination of each point mentioned in the letter of accusation, student B's case was discussed. The Council noted that the professor's testimony failed to bring up any glaring similarities that weren't explainable. Many Council members felt that student B was able to explain logically his reasoning in the exam. Several Council members dismissed the standard notation which led to inter-relatedness of the problems and found the incorrect assumption and wrong method choices to be understandable. The fact that there was no real substantive difference in the exams and the sheer bulk of odd similarities was a concern. A few Council members expressed concern because Student B failed to give a plausible explanation for the last problem, also. At this point, straw poll #2 was taken. More discussion ensued and a major point of concern was the level of guilt needed to convict. A third straw poll was held. After some time to think, the final straw poll occurred. Poll # 4 was made binding for Student B, as was straw poll #l for student A (with the 1 abstention moved to not in violation).
Results of the straw polls are as follows:
straw poll #l (student A):
10 not in-violation (2 non-voting)
O in violation
l abstention
straw poll #2 (student B):
6 not in-violation (2 non-voting)
O in violation
4 abstentions
straw poll #3 (student B):
6 not in-violation (2 non-voting)
3 in violation
l abstention
straw poll #4 (student B)
6 not in-violation (2 non-voting)
4 in violation
0 abstentions
Both Student A and Student B were found not in violation.
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn Gill