| Honor Council Rice University |
Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #16, held over from Spring, 1999
September 22, 1999
Members Present:
Elizabeth Oehler (presiding), Kelly Bolen, Jeff Charbeneau, Scott Wohlander, Critsy Moreno, Aaron Martz, Lisa Hsieh, Jan-Michael Huber, Candice Hance (observing)
Ombuds:
Loan Lam, Shannon Fink (observing ombuds)
Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter from the professor of a lower level science class reporting that she had found the final exams of four students (Students A, B, C, and D) to be excessively similar. She suggested that the students had collaborated on the exam.
Evidence Submitted:
Letter of Accusation
Written statements of students A, B, C, and D
Class syllabus
Depositions concerning the whereabouts of the accused students during the
final exam period
Exams of Students A, B, C, and D
Copies of the exams in question before they were graded.
Exams of other students in the class
Exam from a previous year
Previous exams of Students A, B, C, and D
Review sheet prepared by the accused
Plea:
Students A, B, C and D plead Not In Violation.
Testimony:
In her opening statement, Student C stated that she took the exam on an earlier day because of a time conflict. After taking the exam, she left town. Student A stated in her opening statement that it was not possible for them to have collaborated because they did not have contact with each other the day before the exam. She also stated that the accused had all studied for this class together quite a bit during the semester. Students B and D both stated that they had in fact studied with the others for this exam, but that they had no contact with them the day before the exam.
Witness #1, another student in the class, testified about what she saw during the administration of the exam in question. She said that she saw Student D arrive late to the testing room and then turn in her exam significantly earlier than the most other students. She also testified that the exam was a difficult one, and that many students required the full amount of allotted time to finish it.
Witness #2, the professor of the class, explained why she had written the letter of accusation. She went through the exams in question and pointed out numerous similarities. She firmly believed that these similarities could not be explained by the fact that the students had studied together. No other exams shared this degree of similarity, and other students had studied together. This witness also testified about the events that took place during the exam. She stated that when she returned to the testing room after the first hour of the exam, she found that two exams had already been turned in. These exams belonged to Students B and D.
The trial continued as the four accused explained where they were on the day previous to the exam. They also explained that they had worked together to compile a review sheet based on a previous year’s exam and that they had studied this review sheet extensively.
Deliberation:
The Council began its deliberation by splitting up the evidence and having small groups of Council members perform a detailed analysis of the exams in question. There were striking similarities between all four exams. Not only were the answers to the problems the same, but there were line-by-line correspondences in almost every solution. There were also a few obvious arithmetic errors made by the all students in the same places. The Council felt that this degree of correspondence could not be explained away by the fact that the accused had studied together.
Straw Poll #1 (Had a violation occurred)
A violation had occurred 9 + 1 (observing)
No violation had occurred 0
Abstentions 0
The Council then began to discuss the issue of which students had committed the violation. The evidence and the testimony of the accused suggested that all of them were involved.
Straw Poll #2 (Is Student D In Violation of the Honor Code)
In Violation 9 + 1 (observing)
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 0
Straw Poll #3 (Is Student C In Violation of the Honor Code)
In Violation 9 + 1 (observing)
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 0
Straw Poll #4 (Is Student B In Violation of the Honor Code)
In Violation 9 + 1 (observing)
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 0
Straw Poll #5 (Is Student A In Violation of the Honor Code)
In Violation 9 + 1 (observing)
Not In Violation 0
Abstentions 0
The Council now entered into a penalty deliberation. This exam was worth 25% of the course grade. The Consensus Penalty for such a violation is an F in the course and a two semester suspension. Mitigating circumstances were discussed, but none were found to be applicable.
Straw Poll #6 (Penalty)
F in the course and a two semester suspension 9 + 1 (observing)
Thus, the Honor Council finds Students A, B, C and D in violation of the Honor Code and recommends a penalty for each of an F in the course and a two semester suspension. A suspension clause will be attached to their records.
Time of Trial and Deliberation: 5.5 hours
Respectfully Submitted,
Jan-Michael Huber
Honor Council Secretary