Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are the sole of opinions of the author, Stephen Walter, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Stute, the Honor Board, or any of the organizations’ respective membership.
by Stephen Walter
The Honor System’s effectiveness for this generation of students has been an interesting subject of discussion within the Honor Board. A few weeks ago you may have read an article from our vice chair raising questions about the policies on proctoring. It’s a fair topic to reevaluate; in a time when students have access to technology like never before, it would seem a challenging proposition to believe that we can trust each other to avoid the limitless encyclopedia most of us now carry in our pockets. Dealing with temptation is one of man’s earliest struggles, and for the modern student, temptation is ever present.
From an inside perspective, the system seems to be working the way it’s supposed to, mostly. There are certainly some deficiencies in the Honor Board’s ability to investigate cases dealing with technology. Many cases involving the use of cell phones and other technologies rely solely on the testimony of witnesses and puts an even greater level of trust in the students, which is a strong factor in determining the faculty’s faith in the system. The question now becomes, does this faith exist?
Since joining the board last spring, I noticed a lack of cases dealing with Civil Engineering classes. A brief look through violation reports show that reports from Civil Engineering classes have been scarce in recent history, with the most recent case being opened back in 2012. A look back further shows that the rarity of these cases is an established trend. I decided to sit down with a few professors to figure out why it seems that the Civil Engineering department has the Honor System done right.
“I create a new test every year,” says David Vaccari, Ph.D, P.E. and department director. “It’s difficult to cheat on a test when you make questions that can’t be found anywhere else.”
Vaccari also went on to speak about his philosophy on grading, one that is shared by many professors within the department and may also contribute to the lack of reports. “I am in favor of emphasizing learning over grades,” Vaccari says, “I am sympathetic toward students’ grades as it affects careers.” Many professors in other departments seem to adopt the opposite philosophy by putting a lot of pressure on students to do well on each test, which might lead them to cheat more frequently. Vaccari finished by saying, “We don’t have an ethic of wanting to weed out people, we’re more likely to say ‘we want you to succeed.’”
Leslie Brunell, Associate Teaching Professor, Professional Engineer, and an alumnus of Stevens, attributed another factor to the program’s lack of violation reports. “Students are allowed calculators, pens, and pencils; nothing else is allowed in the exam room. We make this policy very clear.” Brunell went on to address the Honor System’s stance on proctoring. “I proctor exams because I want to be there for the moral support of my students,” she added, “I feel a responsibility to be there if something goes wrong or if someone just needs a pat on the back.”
Not all professors within the department show the same trust for the system, however. One professor detailed their own reason for proctoring exams. “It gives me the chance to see if students are trying to cheat off of each other,” they said, “If I see something, I make a small mark on their papers so I remember to look back at them while grading.” If similarities are found between students’ papers while grading, a face-to-face meeting is arranged.
“I tell them, ‘You can either take a zero, or I’m going to report you to the Honor Board.’ They always take the zero.”
Be First to Comment