When I began teaching as a Visiting Professor at Georgetown Law Center in 2007, I was disturbed to find that they have an honor code applicable to the students, who are free to use computers during exams; also, when I had students taking make-up exams, I was not allowed to prepare different questions for them.
I wrote to the former Dean and, later, to the present Dean expressing my concerns. My suggestion was that the computers be adjusted during exams to prevent downloading of material and communicating on the internet. This is done at Hofstra and other schools with no apparent difficulty. Each Dean referred the issue to a faculty committee, and I have heard nothing since, despite follow-up letters.
The principal problem that I have with honor codes is that there will always be some people who will cheat any chance they get, and some who will never cheat. In the middle are all the rest of us, who don’t need any more temptation in life than we already have. (Oscar Wilde said, “I can resist anything but temptation.”) The knowledge that others are cheating and getting away with it – and thereby achieving higher class standing and better job opportunities – is, I believe, an unnecessary temptation to hold out to our students.
In connection with a class discussion of the duty to report under Model Rule 8.3(a), I passed out a questionnaire to the Lawyers’ Ethics class that included questions about the Law Center’s honor code. One question asked whether the student was aware of violations of the code. Another question was, if the student was aware of any violations, did he or she report it. Forty-four students responded.
If the honor code is working, the answer to the question about being aware of violations would be zero. And if any violations were observed, they all should have been reported.
Of the forty-four responses, 13 students (about 30%) were aware of one or more violations. Of those thirteen, not a single one reported the violations.
I wrote to the former Dean and, later, to the present Dean expressing my concerns. My suggestion was that the computers be adjusted during exams to prevent downloading of material and communicating on the internet. This is done at Hofstra and other schools with no apparent difficulty. Each Dean referred the issue to a faculty committee, and I have heard nothing since, despite follow-up letters.
The principal problem that I have with honor codes is that there will always be some people who will cheat any chance they get, and some who will never cheat. In the middle are all the rest of us, who don’t need any more temptation in life than we already have. (Oscar Wilde said, “I can resist anything but temptation.”) The knowledge that others are cheating and getting away with it – and thereby achieving higher class standing and better job opportunities – is, I believe, an unnecessary temptation to hold out to our students.
In connection with a class discussion of the duty to report under Model Rule 8.3(a), I passed out a questionnaire to the Lawyers’ Ethics class that included questions about the Law Center’s honor code. One question asked whether the student was aware of violations of the code. Another question was, if the student was aware of any violations, did he or she report it. Forty-four students responded.
If the honor code is working, the answer to the question about being aware of violations would be zero. And if any violations were observed, they all should have been reported.
Of the forty-four responses, 13 students (about 30%) were aware of one or more violations. Of those thirteen, not a single one reported the violations.
Very insightful post, especially your concern about not giving students unnecessary temptation. Tuition at many schools is now about $50k per year, so many students may have $150 to $200k of debt. Given that debt load and the importance of high first year grades to securing well paying jobs, it would seem there would be a high level of temptation. .
When I was a student (a few years ago), probably about 1/4 of professors used 8-hour take-home exams. All the exams prohibited contacting others, and most had strict limits on which materials could be used. I never heard anyone openly admit to cheating, which is not surprising given the high stakes. There were reasons to be suspicious of others, such as a girl who never made outlines for the take-home exams, yet secured a good firm job and probably had very high grades.
As to the reporting, should a student report a mere suspicion? I believe most students don't really want to report someone who in fact might not be cheating. What would happen to the student who reported it if nothing could be proven, and a somewhat unlikely but possibly true explanation emerged from the accused? How about if the school became convinced the reporter simply had a grudge?
I believe the best solution is to make cheating difficult. Exams should be administered by proctors who know what materials are allowed, if any. Exam software with blocking of forbidden sources should continue to be used. Rules on what is allowed should be clear or else crafty students will interpret their was around the rules to make themselves feel better, especially in situations where the rule is not being monitored.
Completely unmonitored "take-home" exams should not be given unless all restrictions can somehow be enforced. Students who take exams at times other than the main one (e.g. due to time conflicts or illness) should be given different questions, especially if they are given the exam ahead of time.
I know this is a long comment - but I feel strongly on the issue and I'm glad to see you do as well. A few years ago, over 50% of students in a large class at Duke's business school were found to be cheating. Apparently it had been an open secret there. I was never aware of anything like that in law school, but given some of the suspicious behavior and the discrete nature of many law students, probability would indicate someone probably was cheating.
Posted by: Law school grad | September 13, 2012 at 07:44 PM