| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #28, Carried over from Spring 1995
Abstract of the Honor Council
September 21, 1995
Members Present: Alex Cestero, John Doll, Jay Fundling, Carolyn Gill
(presiding), Heather Morchauser, Thomas Page, Jen Rich, Floyd Walker,
Christine Yeh, Courtney Kelso (observing), Erin McCanley (observing)
Ombuds: Scott Ruthfield
Investigator: Erin Kellam
Letter of Accusation
The Council received a letter of accusation from an
undergraduate student, who had served as a grader for the take-home
finals of a lower level science class. In the letter, the accuser
stated that he had noticed striking similarities between the exams of
two students, Students A &B. The letter went on to enumerate these
similarities, including identical answers on two separate problems,
and contained the accuser's sentiment that these similarities could
not be merely coincidental.
Furthermore, the letter contained the accuser's opinion that
Student A had copied the work of Student B. In supporting this
opinion the accuser noted the presence of scratch work and diagrams on
Student B's exam, whereas such marks were missing from Student A
paper.
Evidence Submitted
Statements of the accused
The Exams of both accused students
A typed synopsis of Student AÕs defense arguments
A deposition from a friend of Student B who had driven him to the
airport.
The course syllabus
A deposition from the professor of the class concerning the
procedures for handing in exams
A copy of the grades both accused had received on all assignments in
the class
Roughly 50 other exams from the class
Pleas
Both Student A and Student B entered pleas of Not In Violation.
Opening Statements
In their opening statements both Student A and Student B
stressed that the similarities between their tests could be merely
coincidental. Both stressed the fact that they were roommates, and
frequently worked on class assignments together, thus it was not
surprising that their methods for solving the problems posed on the
exam were similar. Furthermore, both students stressed the similarity
between their answers and the answers of many other students in the
class, stating that their approaches to the various problems were
relatively standard and that the mistakes they shared were quite
common.
Questioning:
Student B stated that he had completed his exam early in the
exam period, after which he had placed the exam in an unlabeled folder
on his desk, where it remained for several days. He then carried the
exam with him for several days before turning it in on either May 6th
or May 8th. Student B then left town early in the morning of May 9th,
as was verified by the deposition of a friend.
Student A stated that he had taken his exam on the morning of
May 9th, after Student B had left town.
At this time both students presented many examples from the
exams of other people in the class, which showed distinct similarity
both to one another and to the exams of Students A & B. These
examples of similarity did not, however, extend to one specific exam
question, in which both Student A and Student B had made many
identical careless and logical errors.
Both students stressed that they worked on homework sets
together, and that they discussed class notes together. After further
questioning, both students stated that they would often share notes if
one of them was unable to attend class or lab. Furthermore, they
stated that these often communal notes were their prime resource in
studying for their exam.
Witness 1 - A friend of Student A
The witness stated that he had stopped at Student A's room on
the morning of May 9th and had seen Student A working on an exam. The
witness could not be sure of the exact nature of the exam of if any
other materials were present on Student A's desk.
Witness 2 - A lab assistant in the course
The witness stated that he remembered Students A & B working
together to some extent on homework, though he stated both were very
independent and that they did not generally work in the same group.
Thus the witness disputed the claim that the students worked closely
together.
Witness 3 - A professor who is an expert in the field of science
related to the exam.
The witness's testimony focused primarily upon the two
problems in which the answers of Student's A and B were practically
identical. On the first problem in question the witness stated that
although the solution given was fully correct, there was a great deal
of variety possible in a correct answer, and hence it was unlikely
that two problems would be so similar if they had not been copied.
The witness did feel, however, that there was a reasonable doubt as to
whether this problem had been copied.
In regards to the second problem in question, however, the
witness felt that there could be no reasonable doubt. It was his
opinion that the problem had assuredly been copied. The reasoning
behind his opinion centered around what he felt was an unusual
approach taken by both students on this problem. He also stressed the
fact that the Solution offered was "...way, way wrong" containing a
number of small errors (some common, some very strange), as well as a
gaping logical flaw that was very unusual.
Witness 4 - The Accuser
The witness restated the opinions of Witness 3 regarding the
first problem in question, although he stated the approach taken by
the accused students on the second problem in question was not all
that unusual.
Closing Statements
Student A stated that he had accomplished what he had set out
to do - proving that the similarities between his exam and that of
Student B could be accounted for by pure coincidence, and that many
such similarities existed on the exams of other students in the class.
Student B agreed with Student A and restated the issue of
timing, saying that Student A could not have taken answers from his
exam as he had already turned it in by the time Student A took his
exam.
Deliberation
All members of the council agreed that the evidence provided
was not convincing with respect to any part of the exam, except the
second problem spoken of by witnesses 3 & 4. With regards to this
problem, some council members still found that the similar errors did
not constitute clear & convincing evidence of cheating. Other council
members, however, felt that the large number of mistakes, all of which
were in the same places, and many of which were either very strange,
or very fundamental, constituted something more than coincidence.
At this point a preliminary straw poll was conducted as to the
status of the accused:
Straw Poll #1 - For Student A:
In Violation 2
Not In Violation 5 (+1 observing)
Abstentions 1 (+1 observing)
Straw Poll # 1 - For Student B:
In Violation 0
Not In Violation 8 (+2 observing)
Abstentions 1
The abstaining member in the case of Student B felt that
Student B had not been discussed thoroughly enough for a decision to
be rendered
The abstentions in the case of Student A felt that cheating
was likely, but that they were not yet convinced the evidence was
clear and convincing. They stressed the number of similar mistakes on
the second problem in question, and the unlikelihood that such
mistakes (some fundamental some careless) could be pure coincidence.
At this point the time issue was brought into the discussion.
The council concluded that the timing of events did not preclude the
possibility of cheating, as the exam had spent a very long period on a
folder on Student B's desk, where Student A would have had ready
access.
Those council members leaning in favor of an "In Violation"
decision stressed the unlikelihood of may purely careless mistakes
showing up in identical places on two exams.
A second straw poll was then taken:
Straw Poll #2 - For Student A:
In Violation 3
Not In Violation 6 (+2 observing)
Abstentions 0
Straw Poll # 2 - For Student B:
In Violation 0
Not In Violation 9 (+ 3 observing)
Abstentions 0
Those voting not in violation for Student A restated the fact
that the students had shared many class notes, and hence if something
were incorrectly written on those notes, it would be natural that both
students would carry a similar misconception into the exam. These
council members also reiterated the fact that evidence must be clear
and convincing in order to render a verdict of "In Violation", as well
as their opinion that circumstantial evidence amounting to only a few
similar errors, primarily on one problem, did not meet this criteria.
Debate came to an impasse, and a third straw poll was taken
for Student A:
Straw Poll #3 - For Student A:
In Violation 2
Not In Violation 6 (+2 observing)
Abstentions 0
With no objections, the results from Straw Poll #3 for Student
A, and Straw Poll #2 for Student B were made binding. Thus, the Honor
Council finds both Student A and Student B Not In Violation of the
Honor System.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 4 1/2 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
John Doll
Trial Clerk