| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #13, Spring 1996
April 18, 1996
Members present:Alex Cestero, Karen Chang, Jay Fundling, Courtney Kelso,
Lauren Kern
(presiding), Erin Mccauley, Heather Morschauser, Michael Munson, Floyd Walker,
Heather
Castellano (observing), Julieann Grant (observing), George Hatoun (observing).
Ombudsman: Emily Johnson
Letter of Accusation
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from the instructor of a
lower- level
humanities course, accusing a student (Student A) of copying the answers of
another student
(Student B) while at a testing site. The letter explains that it was noticed
that Student A and
Student B were sitting next to each other with one seat between them. The
instructor explains that
the similarities in the wrong answers were too similar for cheating not to have
occurred.
Evidence Submitted
The statement of Student A
The letter of accusation by the instructor (which includes):
-Student A's first and second test scores
-Class statistics for test scores on both tests
-Detailed, problem by problem, explanation of suspicious similarities
The test of Student A
The test of Student B
Sample tests from the same exam
The class notes of Student A
Deposition of another student in the class
Plea
Student A entered a plea of Not In Violation.
Opening Statement
Student A began by explaining that the large grade improvement between his first
and
second tests grade resulted from improved study habits. He described the test
taking environment
and his seating relationship with Student B. He said he would be willing to
explain any questions
as to his methodology or logic that come up on his test.
Witness 1 -- Student A's Tutor
This witness described how he and Student A had worked together on homework
assignments and
how he helped Student A with the basic material of the course. He stated that he
had a personal
tutor as well and that after he and his tutor met, he would explain the same
things to Student A. He
also responded that the accused seemed to be understanding the material, but
that he did ask for
help sometimes. When asked about his current status in the class, the witness
replied that he had
dropped the class about 4 weeks before the second test but continued to help
Student A because he
occasionally still went to study sessions.
Questioning
Student A said he chose a seat on the last row of the test site, four from the
aisle. There
was one seat between him and the students on his right and left. He was then
asked about the
order he completed the test. He stated that he did not work sequentially, but
turned to page three to
start with what he knew best. He also stated that he took most of the allotted
time to complete the
test and never left the test room. He remembered that Student B had turned in
his exam a long time
before he turned his own exam in.
Student A was then asked to explain his logic on several problems. On all of
the problems,
with specific reference to pages 2 and the last page, he explained his reasoning
for the answer.
Both of these pages were ones called into question by the instructor in the
letter of accusation.
Witness 2 -- Student B
Student B was asked if he and Student A had studied together. He replied that
they had not;
the preparation Student B did for this exam was done with his tutor. He did not
notice anything
strange or suspicious during the test and never left the test site. The witness
was seated one seat to
the left of Student A. Regarding the order in which he completed the test, he
replied that he started
on the second page and worked onward.
When asked about his relationship with Student A, he said that he had only seen
him in
class and around campus, but otherwise was not aquainted with him. The witness
was asked if the
first or the second test was harder, and he replied that the first was harder
because he hadn't
prepared.
Upon examination and comparison of the two tests (those of Student A and Student
B), the
witness was asked to explain problems on pages 2 and the last page. He explained
his reasoning
in detail presenting clear understanding of his procedures and noting his
mistakes and
misunderstandings. When asked about the second part of the first question on the
last page, he
showed how he had made a mistake and then corrected it sequentially.
He was also asked if he had ever studied with Student A's tutor, and he replied
that he had
only studied with his own tutor. He added that this was his second time to take
this course.
Witness 3 -- Instructor of course (accuser)
The witness was asked to elaborate on his letter of accusation by sequentially
going through the
exam and explaining his suspicions. The instructor noted several answers he
thought were too
similarly wrong. In several cases, exact duplication of wrong, illogical,
answers led him to believe
that Student A had cheated off of Student B. He felt that it had occurred this
way and not the other
way around because Student B did have extra information in addition to the
responses that the
believed were copied. The instructor noticed these similarities because he
grades page by page and
these tests happened to be next to each other. When asked about Student A's
participation in the
course after the first test, the instructor stated that Student A had tried to
meet with him on several
occasions but that special circumstances kept getting in the way. Initially,
right after the test, the
instructor discussed study tips with Student A. This witness explained that
Student A's homework
grades had been good, but that these were not indicators as to how he would
perform on the test.
Finally, when asked if he was still convinced that cheating had taken place, in
light of the
explanations given by the accused, the instructor stated that he still believed
it had.
Witness 4 -- Friend of the accused
This witness mainly reiterated that Student A had indeed studied a great deal
for this test.
The witness claimed that even as his friend, he was very aware of the importance
of the test, when
and where it was held, and how hard the accused had been studying for it. He
also said Student A
thought he had done better on this test than the first exam.
Further Questioning
When asked if there were any other points he wanted to address, the accused
stated that he
felt that the instructor suspected that he had cheated because of the dramatic
increase in test scores
from test 1 to test 2, and that he was looking within the test for
justification. He stated that he only
missed class once this semester, and he reiterated how much he had prepared for
this exam. The
test was briefly looked over again, and the accused was asked to clear up many
questions as to
similarities in problems to which he again explained his reasoning on these
problems. He was
asked specifically about the problems on page 2 and the last page, and provided
some justification
for his answers. Student A stated that he had prepared with other students for
this exam, but not
with Student B. He also stated that he never sat by Student B in class.
Closing Statement
Student A stated that he realized the importance of this test, so he had
prepared for it
diligently. He also realizes the importance of this trial. He feels that he
explained everything in
question on the test.
Deliberation
Some council members expressed that the evidence wasn't as striking as they had
initially believed.
The Council re-examined the tests and found many strange similarities, but
several members did
not find them to be clear and convincing evidence that cheating had occurred.
The Council then
focused on the last page of the exam. On the first problem of the last page,
part 3, a council
member noticed that Student A had erased an answer identical to Student B's and
replaced it with a
similar expression. Many council members felt that Student A had no clear
explanation or
understanding of his answer. These members thought it likely that Student A had
copied Student
B on this problem. On the very last part of the problem on the last page, the
answers of both
students were almost identical, except that the answer on Student B's exam was
more precise and
explainable. Both of these answers were incorrectly answered in the exact same
fashion. These
two students were the only ones in the whole class to answer this problem in
this way. Student B
could explain the reason he missed the problem, but Student A could not offer a
reasonable
explanation. A straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #1
In Violation 5 (+1 observing)
Not In Violation 1 (+2 observing)
Abstentions 3
Those who abstained felt that there were many suspicious similarities in the
two exams, but they
weren't sure enough to vote In Violation. The Council then reexamined the same
questions, and
many members stated that they could not find any logic as to why Student A had
answered a
problem on the last page the way he did. It was stated again how strikingly
similar the last parts of
the last problems on the last pages of these tests were and that both students
had mistaken the same
information. Another question was examined (question 1 of part 2 on page 2) in
which both
students forget to put a vital piece of information in the answer. Again,
Student A could not offer
an explanation for his ommission. Another straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #2
In Violation 7 (+1 observing)
Not In Violation 1 (+1 observing)
Abstentions 1 (+1 observing)
The Council studied the tests once again. Student A and Student B were the
only two students in
the class to answer several problems incorrectly and identically. Student A
could not clearly
explain his reasoning on these problems. The students were sitting next to each
other during the
exam. Student B's answers were largely written and easy to read. On some
problems, Student A
seemed to be working backwards from a predetermined answer. A Council member
noticed that
while Student A consistently referred to a concept in one specific term
throughout most of the
exam, on the problem containing readable erased text, he changed his labeling.
Because the erased
text was the exact duplicate of Student B's answer, this member thought Student
A had tried to
slightly alter his work from Student B's exam. The Council felt, however, that
the last page of the
test contained the most clear and convincing evidence of cheating. On this page
was a problem
worked so incorrectly that similarities were almost impossible to explain. When
Student B was
asked about his logic for this problem, he could give the council his complete
derivation and
evolution of the problem. When Student A was similarly asked about his logic in
working this
problem, he could not give reason to justify his methods. Another straw poll was
taken:
Straw Poll #3
In Violation 9 (+1 observing)
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 0 (+2 observing)
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A in violation of the Honor System.
Penalty Deliberation
Because the exam was worth more than 15% of the total course grade, the
consensus
penalty was an F in the course and a two semester suspension. The Council found
no mitigating
circumstances. A straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #4
F in course and 2 semester suspension 9 (+1 observing)
Abstentions 0 (+2 observing)
With no objections, the results of Straw Polls #3 and #4 were made binding.
The Honor Council
thus finds Student A In Violation of the Honor System, and recommends to the
Dean of Students
that Student A receive an F in the course in question and a two semester
suspension. The Council
also recommends that a suspension clause be attached to Student A's record.
Time of trial and deliberation: 4 hours, 45 minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
Courtney Kelso