| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #19, Spring 1998
September 15th, 1998
Members Present:
Courtney Kelso (presiding), Jeff Charbeneau, Danny Chellius, Jan-Michael Huber,
Erin McCauley, Kimberly Peters, Amy Rees, Kasia Solon, Floyd Walker, Steve
Wilbur (Observing)
Ombuds:
Mark Covey, Ajay Krishnan (Observing)
Letter of Accusation:
The council received a letter of accusation from the professor of an upper-level
science class. The letter stated that the professor noticed striking
similarities between student A's and student B's final exams.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of Accusation
Course Syllabus
Depositions of four witnesses
Take-home final exams of students A and B
Two of student A's previous exams
Sign-in and Sign-out sheet for final exam
Professor's written comparison of answers given by students A and B
Professor's statistical analysis of answers given by students A and B
Written statements of Students A and B
Pleas:
Student A entered a plea of NOT IN VIOLATION.
Student B entered a plea of NOT IN VIOLATION.
Testimony:
Student A testified that the two tests were similar because he and student B had
studied together extensively both during the semester and before taking the
final, and had exchanged notes on occasion. They had compared homework sets, and
had helped each other generate probable test questions for the final. He
emphasized that even the use of similar phrases on essay questions was to be
expected, as the two students had derived much of their understanding of the
material presented in the class from each other. He testified that this would
also explain the fact that the two students were wrong in the same way about
some basic concepts. He pointed out that the depositions presented showed that
he took his take-home alone in his room.
Student B elaborated on student A's testimony that much of his understanding of
class material came from their discussions together. He said that similarities
on their tests were probably due to the fact that student B relied on a lot of
the information he discussed with student A prior to taking his test in order to
formulate his answers. Student B also drew the council's attention to the
depositions, which stated that Student B had taken his test alone in a study
room shortly after finishing a study session with Student A.
Witness 1, the professor for the class, stated that he believed the similarities
between the True / False answers and the essay answers given by Student A and
Student B to be strikingly similar. He pointed out that it was unlikely that two
students should have exactly matching answers on a True / False test, and
presented a statistical analysis of the probability of this occurring in certain
situations. He also discussed a number of essay answers which he believed were
suspiciously similar. He stressed that some of the answers given were wrong in
the same nonsensical way. He said that it would be very difficult for students
to anticipate the essays that he would ask because they required that students
go beyond concepts taught in the class; therefore, it seemed unlikely to him
that two students could prepare for them in such a way as to answer them
incorrectly together.
Witness two, another professor from the department, said that he was struck by
the identical nature of the True / False answers, but was not especially struck
by similarities in the essays. He testified that the answers given were not so
bizarre that they could not have been thought of by two students working alone.
Deliberation:
The council began by debating the possibility that the two students had cheated,
assuming that the depositions given and time sheet submitted were correct. It
was felt that the students would have had to look at the test before they took
it if they had in fact cheated. It was agreed that the essays that the professor
found suspiciously similar were, in fact, plausibly written by two students
working alone who had studied extensively together. This was decided because of
the two students' own explanations that they had formulated similar concepts and
ideas prior to taking the final, and the statements of the second witness that
the answers were not implausible on a test of this nature. It was seen as
extremely unlikely that two students would have exactly identical answers on a
True / False test, but it was not seen as completely implausible in this case.
Some council members were suspicious because the students gave the same wrong
answers for questions that few other students answered in the same way. It was
noted that there were some identical erasure marks on the two exams, such that
two answers had been marked and then erased in the same place by both students.
Still, most council members felt that this evidence, while compelling, did not
match the council's standards of "clear and convincing" proof that
cheating had occured.
Straw Poll #2
In violation: 0
Not in Violation: 9 ( +1 observing)
Abstentions: 0
Straw poll number 2 was made binding by a motion from the council.
Thus the Honor Council finds Students A and B NOT IN VIOLATION of the Honor
Code.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 3 hours, 5 minutes.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Rees
Trial Clerk