| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #1, Fall, 1998
November 10, 1998
Members Present:
Julieann Grant, Erin McCauley, Jeff Charbeneau, Julie Bachir, Steve Friedfeld,
Amy Rees, Kasia Solon, Danny Chelius (presiding), Steve Wilbur (observing),
Laura Derr (observing)
Ombuds:
Elizabeth Oehler
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter from a professor in an upper level science
class. The letter stated that Student A, B and C had similar answers on an exam.
Evidence Submitted:
Copies of the exams of Student A, B, and C
A deposition from Student B's friend
The exam answer key
The professor's class notes for the time prior to the exam
Student A's homework assignments
Student B's homework assignments
The course syllabus
Student A, B and C's written statements
Pleas:
Student A, B and C plead Not In Violation.
Testimony:
The students testified as to how they studied for the exam. Student A and B
worked together on all of the homeworks. Student C received help studying for
the exam from Student B. All the students had missed a lot of class and were
primarily studying from the class notes which the professor distributed and the
graded homework assignments.
The first witness, the professor, discussed the similarities in the exams. There
were similarities in notation on all three exams, and a similar conceptual error
on Student B and C's exams. All the students discussed their logic on each of
the problems in question. The notation similarities were also present in their
graded homework assignments.
The timeline when the exams were taken was outlined. Witnesses confirmed that
Students A and C took the exams at the times they stated. By deposition, a
witness verified when Student B took his exam.
Deliberation:
The students were discussed separately and were voted on in separate straw
polls. The similarities in Student A's exam to the other two exams were
reasonable considering that the errors in notation also appeared in the
homework. The conceptual error in Student B and C's exams was more suspicious.
However, most members thought that this evidence did not meet the standard of
being clear and convincing.
Straw Poll #1 (Student A)
In Violation 0
Not in Violation 9 (+ 2 observing)
Abstentions 0
Straw Poll #2 (Student B)
In Violation 0
Not in Violation 9 (+ 2 observing)
Abstentions 0
Straw Poll #3 (Student C)
In Violation 0
Not in Violation 9 (+ 2 observing)
Abstentions 0
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A, B and C Not In Violation of the Honor
System.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 3 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
Erin McCauley
(Secretary)