Engineers to update cheating rules

To keep up with changing times, the Honor Council is planning to give its written Honor Code - the list of guidelines under which every Engineering student operates - a face-lift for the first time in nearly 80 years.

The changes to the Honor Code come at a time when access to the Internet and increases in group work assignments make cheating more tempting - and professors in the College of Literature, Science and the Arts are turning to strictly-proctored examinations and alternated seating to discourage the temptation.

The Honor Code stresses personal integrity, trust and cooperation among students and faculty and is used to discourage cheating, said Emily D. Ebert, Engineering Honor Council president.

Unlike the College of Literature, Science and the Arts, Engineering instructors are not required to proctor examinations. Instead, the code attempts to deter cheating by instilling honesty in Engineering students.

The proposed revisions, which are in the discussion phase, include altering the code's introduction and changing the wording to more accurately reflect current Engineering standards. The actual policies of character the Code enforces, Ebert said, will remain the same.

"We wanted the written code to generally reflect the true spirit of the Honor Code," Ebert said, explaining that the new code will restate and clarify the old policies. "We want to make sure the code hadn't become a set of specific policies or details. We want it to work in a positive way."

Currently, Ebert said, violations of the code are reported to the Engineering Honor Council, which "examines all sides of the stories fairly" and determines punishments - ranging from grade reduction to possible expulsion for a second offense. Ebert said expulsions are rare.

During the 1996-97 school year, Ebert said, the Honor Council received 33 reports of cheating violations involving 44 students.

"We've seen all types of cheating violations - including copying homework and copying exams," Ebert said. "The students in general are very honest. I don't think they're looking to cheat. I do think Engineering students are trustworthy."

Engineering sophomore Patrick Marsac said his single brush with the Honor Code was enough to warn him that cheating "isn't something to mess around with."

"A classmate got caught copying homework and ... almost got kicked out," Marsac said. "He had to go before the (Engineering Honor) Council. He was sweating it."

Marsac cited a part of the written Honor Code - a statement saying a test-taker did not receive or conceal information during an exam that all Engineers must sign - as a reason for student honesty.

"The teachers are not in the room during the exam," Marsac said. "Kids take it mores seriously. The teachers are saying, 'I'm not a baby-sitter; this is the real world.'"

But in LSA, most instructors monitor exams and some said they even administer different exams to each student in an effort to reduce cheating on tests.

Many instructors said they were not aware of any cheating on homework or exams. And if they were, they may opt to handle the situation on their own rather than report the violation to their department.

"No sane person would ever catch and charge a cheating student," said economics Prof. Richard Porter. "The processes, University and court, would use up a year of your life."

Because cheating is not included in the violations listed under the University's Code of Student Conduct, policies vary in each of the 18 divisions of the University.

LSA interim Dean Patrician Gurin's office receives about 50 reports of cheating each year. The office reported that last year 66 students were accused of cheating.

Economics visiting assistant Prof. Michael Kiley said he recently dealt with a suspected cheating problem completely on his own by having the students retake the exam.

"In this particular instance, some people chose not to follow directions," Kiley said. "Some people took more time or did not hand in their exam."

Kiley said he was told by students there may have been a problem, and because he didn't know which students had cheated, the only option was to re-administer the test.

Ebert said a problem with cheating accusations is the "gray area" between student collaboration and an actual cheating offense.

"Sometimes, students work together a little too much on homework assignments," Ebert said, adding that whether this constitutes cheating is a matter of opinion. "Cheating isn't always intentional."

LSA first-year student Nick Huang said he often works with his Mathematics 115 study group on problem sets - and owns a calculator that stores formulas.

"Usually, people use these calculators to store formulas they can't remember, and that's okay," said Huang, explaining that in the future, these numbers won't need to be stored in his memory. "You figure, you don't need to memorize things in the real world. You can always go back to the book."

In LSA, some professors said, the definition of "cheating" can become very hazy because of longer essays and written assignments - problems that aren't easy to monitor.

Economics Prof. Bob Barsky said his experience with student cheating has been on assigned papers - "not quite plagiarism, but dependence on one source with little attribution.

"The most serious cheating problem that I encounter is the excess death rate among grandmothers," Barsky said. "You know what I mean - spurious reasons for delaying exams and assignments."

10-15-98