| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #12, Carried over from Fall 1994
January 17, 1995
Members present: Fawn Burns, Sam Cole (presiding), John Doll, Carolyn
Gill, Dan Grossman, Lauren Kern, Ken Matheis, Michael Munson, and Snehal Patel.
Ombuds: Emily Johnson.
Investigator: Kevin Reed.
Letter of Accusation
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from the grader
of an upper-level science class accusing a student (Student A) of altering
her exam before submitting it for a regrade. The accuser had photocopied
Student A's exam immediately after the initial grading and, upon comparison
with the exam submitted for a regrade, noticed that one question had been
altered. The revised response would have given Student A full credit on
that particular question, worth three points out of the one-hundred point
exam.
Evidence Submitted
* Letter of accusation
* Statement of Student A given at initial hearing
* Photocopy of graded exam before returned to Student A
* Photocopy of exam submitted for a regrade by Student A
* Photocopy of exam submitted for a regrade by Student A made with the
same copier used to photocopy Student A's original exam
* Letter from the professor stating that Student A had a passing
average in the class
* Student A's other exams for the class
* Graph representing the distribution of letter grades in the class
* Graph representing the distribution of numerical grades in the class
* Anonymous grades of all students in the class for every assignment
* Student A's exam indicating additional points deserved after a
regrade by the professor
* Two different exams from prior years used by Student A to study
Plea
Student A entered a plea of Not in Violation.
Opening Statement
Student A stated that she picked up her exam with a friend
on Day One at noon and that she received a C on the exam. Her overall
average for the course up to that point was also a C. She described that
she was taking the class Pass/Fail and felt no danger of failing the
course. The professor had previously stated that only students who received
low grades on all the exams would fail the class. The professor expected
no more than one or two people to fail the course.
Student A continued to explain that when she picked up her exam on
Day One, she discussed the missed questions with her friend. They
specifically discussed question #4, which was eventually submitted for a
regrade. After a brief conversation, they realized the correct answer.
Student A marked the correct question on her exam by inserting an
inconspicuous statement in the middle of her otherwise incorrect response.
Student A described that while studying for a final exam at 1:30
a.m. on Day Three (approximately one and one-half days had passed since
Student A had picked up her graded exam), she compared her exam with a
photocopy of the answer key found in the library. She was in a hurry to
study for a final exam the next day and hastily submitted four problems for
a regrade. However, she did not notice that one of the four submitted
problems was the question that she had revised on Day One. She did not
recall amending her original response and thought that the correct response on
her exam was her original answer.
Student A reiterated that she had no intention of submitting an
altered exam for a regrade. She forgot that she had revised the question
on Day One and thought that the revised answer was her original response.
Student A emphasized that she did not mean to cheat on the exam and
does not consider herself a cheater. The particular question was only
worth three points and would have made absolutely no difference upon her
Pass/Fail status. She also pointed out that the posting of final grades
showed that only one person failed the course. Moreover, Student A had
done well enough on the previous exams that she could have received a zero
on an exam and still passed the course.
Student A summarized the situation by stating that she forgot that
she had revised her original exam while submitting the regrade request.
Questioning
Student A stated that she received credit for two of the three
other questions submitted for regrading.
Student A said that she took notes while discussing the exam with
her friend, but she did not remember making any other addenda to the exam.
Student A explained that when writing the regrade request, she was
concerned about studying for her final exam the next day. Thus, she
hastily compared her exam with the answer key without realizing that she
had amended question #4 on Day One.
Student A explained that she never considered converting the
Pass/Fail option to a grade.
Witness 1 -- The Accuser, Grader for the Class
The witness briefly recounted how she realized that the submitted
exam was altered. She had photocopied Student A's graded exam before
returning it and kept it on file for comparison if necessary. She referred
to this photocopy when she received the regrade request.
Witness 2 -- The Professor
The professor confirmed that Student A earned a passing grade in
the course and that Student A would have been in no risk of failing the
class if she did not receive the three additional points from the regrade.
The professor confirmed that two of the three other submitted questions
would have received additional points after a regrade.
Witness 3 -- Fellow Student Who Discussed Exam with Student A
This witness described that she was with Student A when she
received her graded exam on Day One and that they discussed the missed
questions. The witness testified that Student A took notes while they were
reviewing the missed questions and that she remembered Student A writing
something when they realized the correct answer to question #4.
The witness described that she had heard secondhand that the
professor said that no one would fail the class unless they performed
poorly throughout the entire semester.
Witness 4 -- Friend of Student A Who Studied with Her on Day Three
The witness testified that Student A wrote the regrade request
quickly and was in a hurried state of mind. The witness described that
Student A briefly compared the answer key with her graded exam and marked
all questions deserving reconsideration.
Closing Statement
Student A argued that the case was straightforward. She openly
admitted revising the exam and explained that she forgot making the
revision. She was in no danger of failing the class if she did not receive
the three points and, therefore, had no motive to cheat. She explained
that she would not risk a severe penalty for such a small gain.She described
this incident as an honest mistake.
Student A summarized her academic record, including a high G.P.A.,
and argued that her record stands for itself. She argued that her academic
history illustrates that she is a successful student who has excelled
because of hard work without ever cheating. She claimed that she only made
a minor error while being careless.
Student A compared this case to a plagiarism case in which there is
only one mistaken citation. She argued that these are analogous
situations. She felt that since the Honor Council would not find a student
in violation of the Honor Code in the afore-mentioned plagiarism case, the
Honor Council should not find her in violation in this analogous case.
Student A added that she would not cheat for only three additional
points.
Deliberation
The Council debated whether a violation occurred. Members noted
that there appeared to be a lack of intent balanced by an extreme failure
to bear academic responsibility for one's wok. Although Student A may not
have intended to submit an altered exam, students must take the
responsibility to ensure that they submit only their original work. The
Council agreed that Student A should have been responsible for remembering
her revision and that she should not have submitted that question for a
regrade.
The Council then assessed the case by examining only the basic
facts. The Council observed that Student A altered her graded exam and
then submitted the revised version for a regrade. Even though Student A
did not intend to defraud the graders, she had carelessly done so and the
Council felt she must bear responsibility for her actions. Most members
felt that the basic facts indicated a violation of the Honor Code.
Next, the Council discussed Student A's argument that her case is
analogous to a plagiarism case in which one of the citations is
accidentally incorrect. The Council decided that the two cases are not
analogous. Citations are supports used to strengthen main arguments of a
paper and do not present original ideas of the student. Conversely, exams
require students to present nothing but original ideas. Every response on
every exam is a claim to specific knowledge about the subject at hand.
Thus, an unintentionally revised exam submitted for a regrade is much more
severe than one incorrect citation.
When it was felt that a general consensus had been reached, the
Council took a straw poll.
Straw Poll #1
In Violation 6
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 3
The Council heard from the abstaining members. They realized that
intentionality was the only factor separating this case from any other case
in which the accused deliberately revises an exam before a regrade request;
however, the Council does not take intentionality into consideration when
determining if a violation occurred. Thus, the facts of the case indicated
a violation and another straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #2
In Violation 9
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 0
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A In Violation of the Honor
System.
Penalty Deliberation
Since the exam was worth more than 15% of the semester grade, the
maximum penalty possible was an F in the course and a two semester
suspension. However, the Council identified lack of intentionality as a
mitigating circumstance. The members felt that the evidence supported
Student A and that she did not intend to revise her test before submitting
the regrade request. The Council agreed that this violation did not
deserve the maximum penalty.
The primary remaining task was to determine how much the maximum
penalty should be mitigated for lack of intentionality. Although Student A
did not intend to submit a revised exam for a regrade, the Council agreed
that Student A did not take proper care to ensure that she submitted her
own work.
After extensive deliberation, penalties were proposed and a straw
poll was taken.
Straw Poll #3
F in the course and two semester suspension 0
F in the course and one semester suspension 1
F in the course 1
Loss of credit in the course 1
Double loss of credit on the assignment 1
Loss of credit on the assignment 2
No points added from regrade 1
Abstentions 2
The wide distribution of recommended penalties required more
discussion to allow the Council to come a consensus. The Council first
debated if Student A's failure to take responsibility to turn in her own
work merited a suspension. Although most members strongly opposed a
penalty this severe, some felt that the facts indicated the need for a
suspension.
After further discussion, another straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #4
F in the course and two semester suspension 0
F in the course and one semester suspension 2
F in the course 1
Loss of credit in the course 3
Double loss of credit on the assignment 0
Loss of credit on the assignment 3
No points added from regrade 0
Abstentions 0
A member argued that too lenient a penalty, such as loss of credit
on the assignment, would not hold Student A responsible for submitting an
altered exam for a regrade. Once again, the Council reviewed the basic
facts of the case: an exam was revised and then submitted for a regrade.
The lack of intentionality caused all members to suggest a lighter penalty
than the maximum, but the Council felt a significant penalty should still
be levied.
Another straw poll was taken.
Straw Poll #5
F in the course and two semester suspension 0
F in the course and one semester suspension 2
F in the course 0
Loss of credit in the course 6
Double loss of credit on the assignment 0
Loss of credit on the assignment 0
No points added from regrade 0
Abstentions 1
The Council heard from the abstaining member and then a final straw
poll was taken.
Straw Poll #6
F in the course and two semester suspension 0
F in the course and one semester suspension 2
F in the course 0
Loss of credit in the course 7
Double loss of credit on the assignment 0
Loss of credit on the assignment 0
No points added from regrade 0
Abstentions 0
With no objections, the results of Straw Polls #2 and #6 were made
binding. Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A in Violation of the Honor
System and recommends to the Dean of Students that Student A receive loss
of credit in the course. The Honor Council also recommends that a
suspension clause be attached to Student A's record.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael Munson
Trial Clerk
Time of trial and deliberation: 4 hours, 25 minutes.