Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #11, Carried over from Fall, 1994
January 25, 1995

Members present: Fawn Burns, Alex Cestero, Sam Cole (presiding), Carolyn
Gill, Dan Grossman, Heather Morschauser, Michael Munson, Snehal Patel, and
Christopher Stokes.

Ombuds: Lan Huynh
Investigator: Kevin Reed

Letter of Accusation
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor,
accusing a student (Student A) of submitting altered exams for regrades for
all three exams in a lower-level science class.
Regarding the first exam, the letter explained that Student A
approached the professor and argued that he had been graded too harshly on
one of the problems because he was given no partial credit. The professor
agreed that Student A deserved some credit and gave the graded exam to
the grader responsible for the particular problem. The grader, however,
was certain that he had not made the correction marks on Student A's
exam because of three reasons.
First, the grader always wrote the total score for the problem
immediately to the left of the problem number. This was not done on
StudentA's exam. Second, the grader always explained what the students did
wrong. Many other students made similar errors and the grader wrote
comments on all such exams. There were no remarks on Student A's
exam. Third,the grader never marked an"X" over incorrect answers. An "X"
had been marked on Student A's exam.
The professor verified that the grader conformed to this method by
examining other exams. He also asked if any of the other graders had
accidentally graded the particular problem. None of them had done so. The
professor subsequently noticed that the relevant problem was worked on the
last page of the bluebook with written material. The page immediately
preceding it had been torn out of the bluebook. A closer examination of
the submitted problem showed that it incorporated the primary concept
tested by the question and should not have received zero credit, but at
least half credit. The professor found it hard to believe that the grader
could make such an obvious mistake. The professor suspected that Student A
may have altered his exam before making the regrade request, but did not
have a photocopy of the original exam and decided to photocopy his next
exam before returning it.
The letter went on to explain that student A earned a high grade on
the second exam. The professor looked over Student A's exam before
returning it, but failed to photocopy it because Student A performed well
and the professor did not anticipate a regrade request. After class,
however, Student A approached the professor about a missed question on the
exam. The professor immediately realized that Student A had added some
information to his exam and was possibly going to ask the professor for a
regrade. The professor, however, blurted a statement indicating his
suspicion that Student A had altered his exam and Student A walked away
without submitting the exam for a regrade.
Regarding the third exam, the letter explained that the professor
photocopied Student A's original exam before grading it. On the day that
the professor returned the third exam, he also distributed the answer key.
Student A approached the professor after class while a group of students
was asking about regrades. They were discussing the time frame for
regrades when Student A asked the professor if he photocopied the exams
before returning them to the students. Surprised by the question, the
professor quickly responded "no" and continued answering questions.
After talking with several other students, a conversation took
place during which Student A asked if the professor had looked over his
exam (Student A was holding his exam and trying to get the professor's
attention). When the professor responded that he had not, Student A walked
away, giving the professor the impression that he would not request a
regrade. Moments later, however, Student A and another student gave their
exams and written regrade requests to the professor. By comparing Student
A's submitted exam with a photocopy of Student A's original exam, the
professor noticed that the exam had been changed. The alteration was very
discrete, indicating to the professor that Student A had tried to make the
revised exam appear to be his original.

Evidence Submitted
* Letter of accusation
* Deposition statement made by Student A at investigatory hearing
* Student A's first exam (after the regrade request)
* Solutions for the first exam
* Student A's second exam
* Student A's third exam
* Solutions for third exam
* Photocopy of Student A's original third exam before being returned
to Student A
* Student A's alleged regrade request
* Many copies of other students' second exam
* Many copies of other students' third exam

Plea
Student A entered a plea of Not In Violation.

Opening Statement
Student A explained that he went to the professor's office after
the first exam seeking additional points on his exam. He testified that he
did not tear a page out of the bluebook.
Student A explained that he did not alter his second exam or even
ask for a regrade.
Student A explained that he corrected his third exam for the
purpose of studying
for the final exam. He gave the corrected problem to the professor to look
over and determine if the problem was correct as revised by Student A. He
was not requesting a regrade, but the professor falsely assumed that
Student A turned in the exam for the purpose of receiving extra points.
Student A summarized his argument by reiterating that he never tore
a page out of the first exam. Furthermore, he would have copied the
grader's original marks precisely onto the following page if he had torn it
out. Also, he explained that he changed another question of the third exam
and that both changes were made with the intention to facilitate studying
for the final exam.

Questioning
Student A was asked about the regrade request for the third exam.
Student A's statement attached to his exam was "Please check over #_
because what you wrote down was just what I gave you. If I am wrong,
please let me know why. Thank you very much."
Student A was asked why he wrote in the past tense "what you wrote
down was just what I gave you." Student A admitted that the phrase could
be interpreted as meaning that Student A felt he had been graded unfairly
and that he was requesting a regrade. He explained that he wrote the
regrade request hastily and only meant for the professor to look over the
problem and tell him if he had solved it correctly. He wanted to know the
correct method for use in studying for the final exam. Student A explained
that his intentions were reinforced by a verbal request that the professor
check the answer, but Student A felt that the professor ignored this
request. Student A described that the professor was in a hurry after class
and did not want to discuss the exams any further. He instructed the
students to write their inquiries and attach them to their exams. Student A
hastily wrote the note interpreted by the professor as a regrade request.
Student A never thought that the professor would have interpreted the note
as a regrade request. When asked if he ever picked up his regrade request,
Student A explained that another student had explained the correct method
for solving the problem. Thus, he did not need this exam to study for the
final exam.
Student A explained that he approached the professor about one
question on the second exam because he lost many points without any
explanation. The professor explained why he lost the points and Student A
was satisfied without submitting a regrade request.
.
Witness 1 -- Professor
The professor was initially asked about the conversation he had
with Student A immediately after returning the third exam. Many students
were standing around the professor wanting to discuss their exams and the
grades they received. The professor gave the general instructions to write
a regrade request and to leave the exams with him. The professor recounted
that, prior to submitting his exam for a regrade, Student A had made the
comment "You probably photocopy these exams, don't you?" At no time during
this conversation did the professor look at Student A's exam. He also did
not remember hearing Student A say the specific word "regrade." After this
brief discussion with the professor, both Student A and another Student
stepped away and wrote individual notes attached to their exams. The
professor picked up the regrade requests and returned to his office. Later
in the day, about four hours after the end of class, the professor made notes
of this conversation.
The professor was then asked about the second exam. He explained
that he had closely examined Student A's exam before returning it, but had
forgotten to photocopy it. When Student A approached the professor after
class, the professor noticed that Student A had added a section to his
answer that made the answer correct. When Student A noticed the
professor's suspicion, he retracted and did not request a regrade.
The professor verified that Student A never picked up his third exam.

Witness 2 -- Grader for the Problem on Exam #1
The grader confirmed that he graded all problems consistently and
with a structured method. First, he never marked an "X" on an exam.
Second, he always wrote the point total for the specific problem in the
left margin. Third, he always looked for partial credit.
When it was pointed out to the grader that Student A's first exam
contained an "X," lacked a point total in the margin, and included no
partial credit, the grader explained that he was certain he did not grade
that exam. He explained that the answer was at least one-half correct and
that he would have never given Student A zero points for the problem. The
witness identified questions he had graded on subsequent exams. The
Council verified that the grader followed this procedure on all fourteen
problems to which the Council had access.

Witness 3 -- Student A's Roommate
This witness verified that Student A was not very bothered by the
grade on his first exam and still had confidence in his ability to perform
well in the course. Although the witness heard the professor mention a
vague regrade policy following the first exam, he was not aware of a formal
regrade policy. When asked what he would do if he wanted a regrade, the
witness stated that he would visit the professor and show him the exam.

Closing Statement
Student A recounted his visit to his professor following the first
exam and reiterated that he never tore a page out of the bluebook. Also,
if he did try to cheat, he would not have drawn an "X" where there was not
an "X" originally.
Student A explained that he asked precisely what was wrong with his
response on the second exam and received a satisfactory response from the
professor, requiring no formal request.
On the third exam, Student A explained that he merely wanted to ask
if the revised problem was correct. He did not mean to request a regrade,
but just wanted the professor to review the question. The note was written
hastily without much thought concerning its possible interpretations.

Deliberation for Exam #3
The Council decided to narrow the case by focusing on one exam at a
time and addressing each as an independent scenario. The Council first
considered the third exam. After extensive discussion, the Council came to
the conclusion that Student A's note attached to his exam indicated that he
wanted a regrade. The specific language and general tone convinced the
Council that Student A's intent had been to receive points he had not earned.
Furthermore, Student A claimed that he submitted the revised exam
because he wanted the professor to review the revision and tell him if it
was correct. He wanted a corrected copy to study for the final exam. If
this were the case, then one would expect Student A to have marked his
mistake or to have made a comment explaining his error. On the contrary,
Student A revised his exam only by inconspicuously inserting one piece
of information that made the revised response completely correct. Student
A wrote nothing to indicate to the professor what part of the problem he
wanted to be looked over. If a person were to look over the exam without
knowing the surrounding circumstances, it would appear that no revision had
been made and that Student A's response was correct. The Council believed
that Student A's inconspicuous insertion indicated that he intended to
receive extra points for his exam.
At this point, the Council took its first straw poll.

Straw Poll #1 Regarding Exam #3
In Violation 8
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 1

The Council heard from the abstaining member and outlined the
existing evidence. First, Student A added nothing else to his response except
for the information providing a correct answer. He did not highlight the
revision or include a message directing the professor to check a specific
part of the response. There was no indication that the revision had been
made for studying purposes. If he wanted to know if his revised work was
correct, he would have indicated that something in his answer had changed.
On the other hand, it was clear that Student A had revised his response in
an attempt to make it seem that the revised response was the original response.
Second, Student A could have understood the correct response by
simply looking at the solution set or talking with another student. It was
clear that Student A was not interested in knowing why his revised answer
was correct. He wanted to know if it was correct and then receive the
additional regrade points. There was no reason for Student A to return his
exam to the professor with a cryptic note if he only wanted to know the
correct response.
Third, the Council agreed that the language and tone of the note
attached to the exam could only be interpreted as a regrade request. The
expression "what you wrote down is just what I gave you" clearly indicates
that Student A wanted to show that his response included the necessary
change suggested by the grader, meaning that he should receive regrade
points.
Once the Council agreed upon these premises, another straw poll was
taken.

Straw Poll #2 Regarding Exam #3
In Violation 9
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 0

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor
System for Exam #3.

Deliberation for Exam #2
After little discussion, the Council agreed that a violation could
not have occurred because Student A did not request a regrade. A straw
poll was taken.

Straw Poll #3 Regarding Exam #2
In Violation 0
Not In Violation 9
Abstentions 0

Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A Not In Violation of the
Honor Code for Exam #2.

Deliberation for Exam #1
The Council first sought to determine if the grader was consistent
in his grading style. After examining fourteen samples of the grader's method,
most members of the Council agreed with the grader's testimony that the
grader did not make the correction on Exam #1.
First, Student A's exam included an "X" over the incorrect
response. No other problems graded by this specific grader included an "X."
It seemed unlikely that this anomaly occurred by accident.
Second, all other exams graded by this grader included a point
total in the left margin. Student A's exam did not have a point total in
the left margin.
Third, Student A did not receive any partial credit for the problem
even though both the professor and the grader agreed that the response was
at least half correct. On all other exams, the grader looked for all
chances to award partial credit and granted it generously.
Fourth, immediately following Exam #1, the grader had stated that
he was certain that he had not graded that question. The marks on the
problem were absolutely inconsistent with his grading style and could not
have been written during the grading process.
After agreeing upon these four points, the Council addressed the
issue of the page torn out of the bluebook. The Council agreed that a torn
page in and of itself would not be sufficient to find that a violation
occurred. When taken with all the other evidence, however, the torn page
clearly was necessary for the violation to have occurred. The violation
had occurred on the last problem of the exam. By tearing out the original
last page containing the last problem, Student A could have rewritten the
problem, including the grader's marks, on the next blank page. The Council
agreed that these actions were taken to create the impression that this
revised version was his original copy. At this point, a straw poll was taken.

Straw Poll #4 Regarding Exam #1
In Violation 8
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 1

The Council heard from the abstaining member, who wanted to hear
the basic argument outlined again. After this was done, another straw poll
was taken.

Straw Poll #5 Regarding Exam #1
In Violation 9
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 0

Penalty Deliberation for Exam #3
The Council agreed that it would assign separate penalties for both
instances of violating the Honor Code. The penalties would be served
concurrently. The Council discussed possible penalties for this case. The
maximum penalty for this situation, an F in the course and a two-semester
suspension was proposed. An F in the course was also proposed because one
member believed that the Council should mitigate due to a lack of
intentionality. A straw poll was then taken.

Straw Poll #6 Penalty for Exam #3
F in the course and a two-semester suspension 8
F in the course 1
Abstentions 0

Although the Council always tries to reach unanimity, it is not
required for penalty decisions. After some debate, it was obvious that no
members were going to change their vote. The Council moved on to discuss
the penalty for Exam #1.

Penalty Deliberation for Exam #1
The Council considered this incident independent of the other
penalty. The maximum penalty is an F in the course and a two-semester
suspension. No mitigating circumstances were found and another straw poll
was taken.

Straw Poll #7 Penalty for Exam #1 0
F in the course and a two-semester suspension 9
Abstentions 0

With no objections, the results of Straw Polls #2, #3, #5, #6, and
#7 were made binding. Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation
of the Honor System on Exam #1 and Exam #3 and recommends to the Dean of
Students that Student A receive an F in the course and a two-semester
suspension. The Honor Council also recommends that a suspension clause be
added to Student A's record.

Respectfully Submitted,

Michael Munson
Trial Clerk

Time of trial and deliberation: 4 hours, 50 minutes.

Last modified Monday, January 31, 2000 07:44 PM
Reach the Honor Council at honor-council@rice.edu