| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #23, Spring 1994
Abstract of the Honor Council
April 30, 1994
Members Present: Alex Cestero, Sam Cole, Dan Grossman, Cormac
Flanagan, Andrea Johnson, Lauren Kern, Katie Krolikowski, Snehal
Patel, Kevin Reed, Michael Munson (observing).
Ombudsman: Lan Huynh, Scott Ruthfield (observing).
Background
Honor Council Case #11 involved the accusation of two
students in a lower-level science course. They were accused by a
roommate of cheating on a take-home exam. The Council found
them to be In Violation of the Honor Code. This case has been re-
opened, and expanded, into Case #23 due to the discovery of a large
number of additional comparison exams and the possibility of a
larger collaboration conspiracy as delineated in the letter of
accusation.
Letter of Accusation
Upon examining the highly correlated exams of two students
in Case #11, several Honor Council members noted an extremely
unusual answer where both students had answered twice, marking
the same two incorrect responses, on a multiple choice question
that only asked for one answer. The letter explained that these
members looked at the original set of comparison exams to see if
any other students made this mistake. The two tests that did
contain this same unusual response were strikingly similar to the
tests involved in Case #11 in many other ways as well. The
responses on all four tests correlated almost exactly. Three Council
members decided that the matter needed to be investigated further.
The letter accused four students, Students A, B, C, and D, of
collaboration on an exam in a lower-level science course.
Evidence Submitted
¥ Letter of accusation from Case #11, with addendum
¥ Abstract of Case #11
¥ Transcript of proceedings from Case #11
¥ Analyses of two expert witnesses in Case #11
¥ Two memos from the professor of the course in question, with
analyses - one from Case #11, one new
¥ Statements as to why Student A and Student B did not attend the
re-opening of Case #11
¥ Investigative statements from all four students
¥ Exams of all four students
¥ Depositions from the accuser in Case #11, Witness #4, Witness #7,
the Assistant Dean of the department in question, and two
other students in the class
¥ Additional statements from all four accused
¥ Statement from Student A voluntarily waiving his right to question
witnesses
¥ 50 comparison exams
¥ Combined list of answers for four students
¥ Combined data for 65 comparison tests, including the answers of
Students C and D
¥ New statistical analysis by expert witness
¥ New analysis by professor of course
¥ Information on course in question
¥ Homeworks, quizzes, and class notes for all four accused
¥ Graph made by Student A, comparing his test to those of the
sample group and to the test of Student B
Plea
Students A, B, C, and D each entered a plea of Not In Violation.
Opening Statements
Student B first read aloud Student A's written opening
statement. The statement explained that Student A could not attend
the trial because of emotional duress. Student A denied cheating,
conspiring, or colluding on the exam. He cited the professor's
second analysis and noted that he and Student B were study
partners, had similar mathematical backgrounds, and were tutored
by the same person. He notes differences between his own
incorrect answers and those of Student B, comparing both sets to
the sample set of tests. Student A refuted the analysis of the expert
witness, stating that he was not familiar with the construction of the
test nor the knowledge of the students in the class. He did not agree
with the witness's use of only statistical probability. Student A
questioned the testimony of the accuser in Case #11 and stated that
he did not know Students C and D.
Student B's opening statement made many of the same points
as Student A's letter. He cited the analysis of the professor of the
course and the professor's point concerning the similarities of
essays in open-book exams. He said that he and Student A studied
together, and noted other incidents in which students gave the same
incorrect answers to various questions. He claimed the testimony of
Case #11's accuser was unsubstantiated. Student B then read a
letter that he had written to the Council, again denying all
allegations and explaining that he couldn't justify the way other
students answered questions on the exam. He also noted the
possibility of someone taking his exam out of the return box after
he had turned it in.
Student C explained the terms of the exam and said that he
took it in Fondren library using only his notes and his books. He
expressed resentment and confusion at being accused falsely so long
after the exam.
Student D said that he understands the Honor System and that
he took the exam at home with his parents present. He explained
that he turned the test in the following day. He entered signed
statements saying that he did not know either Student A or Student
B and that he did not cheat on the exam.
Witness 1,2,3 - Accusers
The accusers explained that after finding a very unusual
response on both tests in Case #11, they wondered how many other
students came up with that response. When asked what was so
unusual about the response, they said the accused marked two
answers where the test only called for one. They found two other
exams with the unusual double-response. They said that they did
not compare the four tests in question with all of the sample tests
point-by-point. They explained that the unusual response simply
prompted them to look further at the four exams in question. When
they did, they found the exams to be almost identical.
Witness 4 - Tutor
This witness explained that he was a good friend of Student A
and helped him when he didn't understand the material in the
course in question. He was not aware of how often Student A and
Student B studied together, but said Student A sometimes brought
Student B with him when he came for help. He said that he mainly
helped them throughout the semester and gave them no specific
tutoring before the final exam. He often saw them making the same
mistakes with the material because they usually worked together
before coming to him. He said that Student A and the Case #11
accuser did not get along, and in his opinion it would not be below
the accuser to falsely accuse Student A.
Witness 5 - Professor of Course
The professor explained that the exam was an open-book take-
home exam. He explained that he thought it impossible to do an
accurate statistical analysis on this test because there was not
enough data to find a good Gaussian distribution curve. All the
questions have different statistical distributions. He looked instead
at where the answers of the accused students fell in relation to the
sample set. The professor found many similarities that he thought
were explainable, but some that were rather strange.
He said that the essay responses of the students were very
similar, but he explained that he thought the answers needed to be
similar in order to be correct. Each student followed the
chronological order of the course and took their points directly
from the texts.
After looking over the analysis of the second expert witness,
the professor said that there were two major problems with it: the
analysis assumed that any answer was equally probable and it did
not compare the answers of the accused to those of the sample
group. He agreed that so many questions answered incorrectly in
the same way was unusual, but he would not give a specific
probability for it. He reiterated the idea that each individual
question is not that unusual.
Witness 6 - Parents of Student D
These witnesses explained that Student D took the exam in the
evening at home. They said that they were in the room the whole
time, and could have seen someone else's test if Student D had had
one. They stated that he did not talk on the phone that night and
that he returned the test the next day. When asked if Student D
studied with anyone else, they said that he hadn't mentioned
anyone.
Witness 7 - Friend of Student B, Student in Class
This witness said that he never studied with Students C and D,
but he shared notes with both Students A and B and others. He
stated that he did not study with anyone specifically for the exam in
question, and that he did not turn in any exams beside his own. He
said that Student B went home very early in the exam period.
Witness 8 - Case #11 Accuser
This witness explained that he saw Students A and B taking
their exams while sitting on the floor in the same room. He said
that they were talking over answers, sharing notes, and obviously
doing the test together. When pressed for details, he explained that
he could not remember any specific examples, but he was absolutely
sure that they were working together. When he confronted Students
A and B about the way they took the exam, they said that they were
not supposed to be doing it together. He said that a few days later
he heard Student B telling Student A as they were flipping through
the pages of the test that he had obtained some more answers from
other people.
Questioning
The accused students were first asked about answering two of
the questions twice. Student B explained that he found the second
answer to one question (which the professor said during questioning
was also acceptable) by looking in the index of one of the texts.
Student C said he remembered talking to other people about it
before the test. Student D said he just thought it was somehow
related. On the other question with two answers (one of which is
correct, and the other was intended by the professor to be
facetious), all four accused simply guessed on the second answer.
They explained that due to the instructions at the beginning of the
test they believed that some of the problems should have more than
one answer. They knew that all of the other answers were incorrect.
They said that looking at the incorrect answer they marked now, it
does indeed look "stupid."
Each student was asked to go through their essay answer,
explaining their thought processes and their sources.
Student B was asked to explain the manner in which he took
the test. He explained that Student A had started taking the exam
about two hours before he arrived at Student A's room. Student B
came in and began working on the floor across from Student A. He
explained that they each had some notes that they had copied from
each other, but that they each had separate piles. There was no
passing around of notes. He said they decided to work together
because they were comfortable around each other and they thought
it would make the test less stressful. Student B said they talked
during the test, but not about the test problems. He said that when
Student A finished the exam he remained in the room and got ready
to go out. Student B reiterated the points that he and Student A had
worked together on almost every homework, had similar
educational backgrounds, and worked with the same tutor. When
asked about the distance between he and Student A during the
exam, Student B answered that cheating was possible in terms of
space but Student A was much farther ahead of him on the exam.
Student B said he helped Student C on two homeworks and
indicated that they shared notes. Student C said that he knew
Student D a little, but has never worked with him. Neither Student C
or D knew Student A at all. Asked about their actions after they
took the exam, all said that they didn't talk to anyone about the test
in specifics. Students B and C said that they understood that they
could not look at the test again after the test period was over and
that they kept the tests in their folders in their rooms until they
turned them in.
Closing Statements
Student B said that he knew of no conspiracy and that he did
not cheat with Student A. He explained that he had no reason to
cheat as he was passing the class. He emphasized the point that the
course professor's analysis should be weighed much more heavily
than that of the expert witness as he knows the test and the material
better.
Student C again said that he didn't cheat and that he has tried
to explain his answers to the Council.
Student D said that he has not violated the Honor Code and
that he understands it and what it represents. He said that he
doesn't know the other accused students and did not work with
them on the exam. He said he took the exam at home and didn't
cheat.
Deliberation
The Council discussed how the testimony of the Case #11
accuser and the statistical analyses were to be weighed. One
member noted that normally the Council would take a letter of
accusation and then look at the tests, or material evidence, for
confirmation. In this case, the multiple choice answers on all four
tests are so similar, both in their incorrect and correct answers, as
to suggest collaboration.
It was noted that the analysis of the expert witness gave a .01%
probability of getting these correlated answers randomly, but as the
professor of the course pointed out, guessing is not random on most
of the questions on the test. Another problem with using the
similarities in the multiple choice answers alone was Student D's
alibi. Student D had only three multiple choice answers different
from those of Student B, while Student A had five different answers.
Student B and Student C had every answer identical except one,
which was unanswered by Student C.
Many members of the Council felt that they were able to find
evidence of cheating between Student B and Student C without
considering the similarities in their multiple choice answers because
of the amazing similarities in their essays. Though the professor
expressed his belief that the essays should be similar in order to be
correct, the essays in the comparison set were markedly different
both from the essays of the accused and from each other. Students
B and C chose the exact same material to discuss, made the same
points about the material, presented the points in the exact same
order, and used identical wording throughout. With a few minor
exceptions, they were identical essays. A straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #1
In Violation Not In Violation Abstentions
Student A 0 5(+1 observing) 4
Student B 0 0 9(+1observing)
Student C 3 0 6(+1observing)
Student D 0 6(+1 observing) 3
There was much discussion about plausible scenarios and the
direction of cheating between Student B and Student C. Both
Students B and C had agreed that Student C took the exam after
Student B. In fact, Student B left town before Student C had taken
the exam. Another straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #2
In Violation Not In Violation Abstentions
Student A 0 7(+1 observing) 2
Student B 2 2 5(+1observing)
Student C 9(+1observing) 0 0
Student D 0 8(+1 observing) 1
Though the Council believed that Student B was probably In
Violation also, there was insufficient proof that Student B knowingly
participated in the transfer of the essay information to Student C. A
straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #3
In Violation Not In Violation Abstentions
Student A 1 8(+1 observing) 0
Student B 2 6 1(+1observing)
Student C 9(+1observing) 0 0
Student D 0 9(+1 observing) 0
The abstaining members expressed a feeling that it was somehow
unfair of the Council to convict only one student when they felt that
at least one more was involved. They were reminded that the
person found In Violation has still violated the Honor Code and
deserves the penalty that the Council recommends. As for possible
collaboration between Student A and Student B, based on the fact
that they were originally accused by someone who allegedly
witnessed them cheating as well as the striking similarities in their
answers, the Council believed that it was likely Student A and
Student B also violated the Honor Code. However, for most
members the evidence was not clear and convincing. A straw poll
was taken:
Straw Poll #4
In Violation Not In Violation Abstentions
Student A 1 8(+1 observing) 0
Student B 2 7(+1 observing) 0
Student C 9(+1observing) 0 0
Student D 0 9(+1 observing) 0
Penalty Deliberation
Because the exam was worth more than 10% of the course
grade, the consensus penalty for this violation is an F in the course
and a suspension from the University for two semesters. It was
clear to the Council that there were no mitigating circumstances.
One straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #5
F in course + 2 semester suspension 9(+1 observing)
Abstentions 0
With no objections, the results of Straw Polls #4 and #5 were made
binding. The Honor Council thus finds Students A, B, and D Not In
Violation of the Honor System. The Council finds Student C In
Violation of the Honor System, and recommends to the Dean of
Students that Student C receive an F in the course in question and a
two semester suspension from the University. The Council also
recommends that a suspension clause be attached to Student C's
record.
Time of trial and deliberation: 10 hours.
Respectfully submitted,
Lauren T. Kern
Trial Clerk