Charlotte, Alex and Professor Cross
An Academic Trial
Abstract Released Fall 2002
Introduction: Professor Cross contacted Honor Council after reading the take-home exams of Charlotte and Alex. Professor Cross was concerned that similarities in the exams were because Charlotte and Alex copied from each other. After reading the statements from all three parties, Honor Council came to consensus on a suspicion of violation.
Fact Finding:
Professor Cross's Statement:
Professor Cross began by showing to the jury which parts on the take-home exams were almost the same. Professor Cross stated that Charlotte and Alex's tests were too similar to be a coincidence. His reasons included specific odd phrases in both tests, similar mistakes on both tests, and no original ideas between the two tests. Most importantly, Professor Cross was concerned with a number of paragraphs in Charlotte and Alex's answers where he saw the same contents and conclusions in a strikingly similar writing format, and with slightly different word choice, even in the "creative" section of the test. Professor Cross concluded by saying that he couldn't see how the exams could be that similar without collaboration during the test.
Charlotte's Statement:
Charlotte began by explaining that the test was open book and students could use their notes. Charlotte stated that in preparing for the test she and Alex, a friend and who lives with her, studied together. Charlotte said that she and Alex wrote out practice paragraphs when preparing for the exam. The exam, she noted, did not have instructions to be creative in composing answers. Charlotte stated that she and Alex had decided on a method in which to write answers to the exam questions, but that they had not cheated on the test. Charlotte explained that she finished her exam before Alex had begun his. Charlotte mentioned that she was confused during the exam. Finally, Charlotte was concerned that Professor Cross contacted the Dean of the College after reading the exams before talking to her about his suspicion of copying.
Alex's Statement:
Alex began by stating that he and Charlotte studied for the exam together by gathering the kinds of questions they thought might be on the exam and working them out together. He stated that he and Charlotte wrote out whole example paragraphs, with openings and conclusions. He said that he answered all his problems in the method that he and Charlotte decided to use, and relied heavily on his notes during the test. Alex stated that he believed that he and Charlotte may have studied the wrong things, and that was one of the reasons why their exams were so similar. In conclusion, Alex mentioned that he had always had trouble with a particular aspect of the course, so he and Charlotte would often review that aspect together. Additionally, Alex expressed frustration that he wasn't given enough time to find his study notes between being contacted and when the trial convened.
Jury Questions:
The jury asked questions to better understand the situation and looked at the tests to clarify parallels in the exams. Professor Cross mentioned that as students were meant to work independently on the exam, he was not comfortable with extremely close collaboration and that some kinds of collaboration could be a violation of the Honor Code. Professor Cross felt that if Charlotte and Alex had not in fact copied each other, then their collaboration might have crossed a line into academic irresponsibility. Professor Cross also mentioned that the writing method that Alex and Charlotte had decided to use should not produce the kinds of similarities that were troubling to him. Additionally, Professor Cross stated that he was worried that Charlotte and Alex had a unique answer to the sections in dispute, that could only occur after looking at the questions. Charlotte stated that excessive collaboration had never been mentioned by Professor Cross, and had trouble understanding how collaboration while studying for a test could be problematic. Finally, Alex stated that he himself was shocked at the similarities when he looked at the two tests, and would have been suspicious as well, but that the similarities were explainable.
The jury discussed the similarities in the exams, and whether this was a case of plagiarism by collaborating during an exam. They discussed at length the portion of the Honor Code (Appendix C, Section C) that requires jurors to "balance their trust with their obligation to determine what has happened." The jury questioned whether Charlotte and Alex could be making false statements. They then looked at how the Honor Code (Appendix C, Section C) requires juries to be "satisfied that their conclusion is correct beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to find the student in violation "despite his/her claims to the contrary." Although the exams were strikingly similar, jurors didn't feel comfortable concluding that the students had in fact cheated during the exam, and therefore had lied during the trial. All but one juror, who felt she wouldn't be able to make a decision either way, felt that although it seemed unlikely, it was possible that the similarities in the exams could be due to studying together. The jury came to consensus that they could not determine "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the students had cheated on their exam.
The jury then addressed the issue of excessive collaboration. After extensive discussion, the jury decided that without prior communication between Professor Cross and the students of what consists of excessive collaboration during studying, the jury was unable to conclude that a violation of the Honor Code occurred.
The jury came to final consensus (with one member standing outside) that the students did not violate the Honor Code.
Jury Recommendations:
Although no violation occurred, the jury came to consensus (with no members outside) to make the following statement:
The jury recommends that in the future, the students and professor engage in open dialogue and discuss class expectations concerning collaboration and academic integrity.
Questions:
1) What is excessive collaboration?
2) Can you study too much for a test, either by yourself or with another person?
3) How should a jury decide that one party is lying when faced with a conflict?
4) Should juries recommend actions even if there is no violation of the Honor Code?
5) Should Professors always contact students first when not sure about the trial process?