Professors push to proctor exams

Author: J.P. Allen

The prevention of academic dishonesty is one of the thorniest issues facing Middlebury College. How often do students cheat and why? Does the Honor Code discourage students from cheating? Would changes to the Honor Code improve the situation, or will amendments be thwarted by human nature? Can the Honor Code's effectiveness reliably be measured at all? These are just a few of the questions under consideration this year by the Honor Code Review Committee (HCRC).

The College's Academic Honesty Statement (the document containing the Honor Code) demands that the Committee be convened at least once every four years. The group is charged with "examin[ing] the honor system and its operation and mak[ing] any appropriate recommendations for revision." The HCRC may also propose amendments to the Honor Code constitution. If two-thirds of all current students vote on the referendum, and if two-thirds of those students vote in favor of the change, the Honor Code is amended.

The HCRC has five members. Associate Dean of the College Karen Guttentag heads the Committee and is its main spokesperson. Two faculty members sit on the Committee: Assistant Professor of Economics Jessica Holmes and Associate Professor of History Jacob Tropp. Additionally, there are two student Committee members: Jamal Davis '11?and?Alex Schloss '09.5.?

The HCRC has spent the past semester gathering information about the Honor Code's implementation and its reception by the College community. The Committee, said Guttentag, has been "inviting anonymous feedback from students, faculty and staff, and conducting focus groups."

The group has spent time gathering opinions in part because of the difficulties inherent in learning about cheating patterns. For instance, Davis noted that students have "mixed feelings" even regarding basic assumptions about cheating.This semester, the group plans to look at those issues it perceives as most in need of attention and to make recommendations it considers necessary.

One concern that could grow into an amendment proposal is the proctoring of exams. The current Honor Code requires that students proctor each other. Professors are not allowed in exam rooms for more than 15 minutes after the start of a test without advance permission from the Academic Judicial Board. Last year, among fears of continued serious cheating on tests, the faculty passed a resolution urging this year's Review Committee to let professors proctor exams. The resolution was met with controversy. Some students, including the then-Academic Judicial Board, protested, arguing that allowing professors to proctor would undermine student-teacher trust. They also argued that an official proctor would do little to deter cheating.

The issue's salience has faded since last April. Now, it seems likely that the HCRC will accept the faculty's resolution. Guttentag, for one, favors giving professors the option of proctoring. She argues that students feel the Honor Code places a disproportionate burden on them to report cheating. Therefore, "if students agree that they are unwilling to proctor each other, it seems reasonable to allow faculty members the option of proctoring exams if they wish."

Also up for discussion is the issue of cheating during self-scheduled exams. The Committee is farther from a proposal on this point.

An important (if lesser-known) section of the Honor Code likely to be revised this year concerns "disposition without hearing." A recent rule in the College Handbook states that if a student is charged with academic dishonesty (among other crimes) and decides to take full responsibility for the offense, the student is allowed to avoid going before the Judicial Board for a hearing. Instead, the judicial affairs officer will individually issue a "final disposition" of the charges, including any punishments or sanctions. However, the student would not be able to appeal the officer's decision. Essentially, the rule allows students to "plead guilty" and give up the chance for appeal, in exchange for avoiding a complicated and perhaps lengthy Judicial Board hearing.

Amending the Honor Code to reflect this change will not alter any rules already on the books. However, it will make both potential offenders and whistleblowers aware that reports of cheating need not always terminate in the ordeal of a Judicial Board hearing. This rule, it is hoped, will encourage students to report academic dishonesty. However, there is a chance that it could make the consequences of cheating seem less severe.

The Committee's focus this year appears to be on exams rather than papers or other take-home assignments. However, if the Honor Code is to fully take root in Middlebury's subconscious, it will need to be a multifaceted effort.