2008 Woodie Awards
Honor Code changes threaten faculty-student trust
Madeleine Terry, Alex Garlick and Eric Lonstein
Issue date: 4/24/08 Section: Opinions
As student co-chairs of the Academic and Community Judicial Boards, we write in response to last week's front-page article, "Faculty supports that teachers proctor exams" (April 17) The article described a 'desire' on the part of the College's Faculty to reconsider the Honor Code during next year's review, specifically recommending that professors be allowed to proctor exams. The faculty feels, according to the article, that the current code is inadequate.
The three of us have served for four years on our respective boards. We feel strongly that the Honor Code is quite the opposite - it builds a sense of academic community and trust among students and faculty, it is a source of pride for Middlebury College students and it provides a foundation for sound decision-making as students grow intellectually. Every student's Middlebury College career begins by signing an agreement to adhere to the code - this year, the entering freshman class was told that their "intellectual honesty as a group of new students would be paramount invaluable to the College. Equally important," it was argued, would be the "assumption of professors that students always complete their own work." Students are helped to understand, year after year, whether during freshman dorm Honor Code discussions or freshman seminar meetings, that signing the Honor Code on exams and projects confirms a simultaneous trust and expectation among the students and their professors. Students pledge not to cheat, and professors implicitly accept that pledge by leaving the room without reconsideration. This mutual trust, as embodied by a professor's willingness to leave the room during an exam, serves to improve student-teacher relationship and facilitate a cooperative learning environment. Moreover, a student's conscience serves as a far greater deterrent than a single pair of eyes.
While we strongly support Dean Jordan's contributions to last week's article, in which he noted that cheating rates at Middlebury are significantly lower than the national averages, the article's casual inclusion of an informal student survey is cause for concern. In particular, was there a selection bias in terms of who decided to respond to this survey? Were the people who responded to the survey particularly drawn to "sin" or upset after witnessing cheating? Was the survey sufficiently clear on its definition of cheating? What was the variance and standard deviation in the distribution of responses? Before drawing conclusions based on this sample data, it is important to fully explore these questions.
The three of us have served for four years on our respective boards. We feel strongly that the Honor Code is quite the opposite - it builds a sense of academic community and trust among students and faculty, it is a source of pride for Middlebury College students and it provides a foundation for sound decision-making as students grow intellectually. Every student's Middlebury College career begins by signing an agreement to adhere to the code - this year, the entering freshman class was told that their "intellectual honesty as a group of new students would be paramount invaluable to the College. Equally important," it was argued, would be the "assumption of professors that students always complete their own work." Students are helped to understand, year after year, whether during freshman dorm Honor Code discussions or freshman seminar meetings, that signing the Honor Code on exams and projects confirms a simultaneous trust and expectation among the students and their professors. Students pledge not to cheat, and professors implicitly accept that pledge by leaving the room without reconsideration. This mutual trust, as embodied by a professor's willingness to leave the room during an exam, serves to improve student-teacher relationship and facilitate a cooperative learning environment. Moreover, a student's conscience serves as a far greater deterrent than a single pair of eyes.
While we strongly support Dean Jordan's contributions to last week's article, in which he noted that cheating rates at Middlebury are significantly lower than the national averages, the article's casual inclusion of an informal student survey is cause for concern. In particular, was there a selection bias in terms of who decided to respond to this survey? Were the people who responded to the survey particularly drawn to "sin" or upset after witnessing cheating? Was the survey sufficiently clear on its definition of cheating? What was the variance and standard deviation in the distribution of responses? Before drawing conclusions based on this sample data, it is important to fully explore these questions.
Be the first to comment on this story