FOCUS: On my honor

While the JIO only resolved 20 violations of academic integrity last year, many believe the number of students who cheat is actually much higher. and Doree Shafrir CHEATING from page 1 Another five cases were for falsifying grades or transcripts, misrepresenting academic records and other academic violations. These included students altering their transcripts and falsifying information on their resumes, contacting printing services and ordering falsified transcripts -- and one violation for attempting to break into a faculty member's office. Punishments for these offenses last year ranged from a two-year suspension to a psychiatric evaluation. Finally, seven students were sanctioned for plagiarism, including one student who stole another class member's paper, put his name on the cover and submitted it as his own. Students can also be brought to the JIO for "submitting, without prior permission, any work submitted to fulfill another academic requirement." In addition, knowingly helping someone violate any of the code's provisions is defined as facilitating academic dishonesty and is a violation of the code. But while only 20 violations of academic integrity were ultimately resolved by the JIO last year, some believe that the number of cheaters is actually much higher. "My belief is that there is a lot more academic dishonesty than gets discovered," Acting Judicial Inquiry Officer Michelle Goldfarb said. Goldfarb's assertion is supported by two recent studies, both of which assert that cheating -- especially at elite institutions -- is much more prevalent than might be expected, even at schools like Penn that have honor codes. Conducted by Rutgers University Professor Douglas McCabe, the survey nonetheless found that students at colleges without honor codes cheat at a higher rate than those at universities with the codes. McCabe discovered that 30 percent of students at schools with honor codes had cheated on a test, while at schools without the codes, 45 percent of students admitted to cheating. In addition, 54 percent of those at schools with academic integrity codes reported "serious" cheating on a test or written assignment, while 71 percent of other students reported such cheating. Another part of the survey showed that business majors admitted they cheated the most, followed by engineering students. At Penn, the Code of Academic Integrity is applicable to all undergraduates and most graduate schools. Some, like the schools of Dental Medicine and Law, have their own procedures for sanctioning academic dishonesty. "We as a University have a responsibility to educate our students about academic integrity," Goldfarb said. "There is a need for education -- the more students learn, the better off everyone will be." To help fulfill this goal, Provost Stanley Chodorow formed the University Honor Council last spring. According to UHC Chairperson and College junior Justin Shellaway, the council was formed for three purposes -- to educate people about academic integrity, to oversee students' hearings and to advise the provost. The Nominations and Elections Committee selects the group of 13 undergraduates each fall in an application process. As part of its educational programs, a book outlining the University's honor code will be distributed to freshmen and incoming freshmen. The group is also attempting to bring in a speaker for early next fall. Shellaway said the UHC's goal is for students always to consider academic integrity. He said he eventually would like to move the University toward the establishment of a "true honor code." "I think a lot of students don't mean to cheat, but pressure forces them to," he added. Ng echoed this sentiment, saying people most likely cheat because they are under a great deal of stress. "I think people cheat because it's competitive to have a high GPA and find a job," Ng explained. "If they go for a job interview, they will have a better number on their resume." But is pressure really an excuse for students to cheat? The answer to this question is an emphatic no, Goldfarb insisted. "I can sympathize with the pressure on students," she said. "But every student is under the same pressure and not all students cheat." Clearly, pressure to get good grades and competition among students is especially fierce among the top students in the country -- including those at the University. A survey of more than 3,000 "high achievers" by Who's Who Among American High School Students found that 76 percent admitted that they had cheated -- offenses ranging from copying someone else's homework to using Cliff's Notes in place of reading an assigned text. More importantly, 94 percent of those who said they had cheated also claimed they had never been caught -- and 66 percent of the high school students said that cheating "did not seem like a big deal." Studies like Who's Who and McCabe's, and testimony such as Goldfarb's, all point to a mostly silent epidemic that occurs every day -- yet rarely has consequences for offenders. "I think the more you look for it, the more you see it," Shellaway said. "There seems to be a lack of remorse [among students who cheat]." Indeed, it seems that students are unphased by the penalty for cheating, assuming if they are caught at all, they will most likely not be subjected to a judicial inquiry. For the most part, they are correct -- the cases that actually reach the JIO have already gone through an extensive procedure to reach the hearing stage. When an instructor suspects a student has cheated, the first step in the process is to confront the student privately, "before taking any other action," according to the Code of Academic Integrity. If the problem is not resolved, the professor and student have several courses of action. The instructor may choose to assign the student any grade he or she considers appropriate -- both for the work in question and for the entire course. However, the professor must notify the student about the reason for the grade, while also telling the JIO how the conflict was resolved. But if the teacher chooses the so-called "Non-Grading Option," she or he may choose to assign no grade to the student and instead make a formal complaint to the JIO. Again, the professor must also notify the student of his or her actions within a certain amount of time. A student may accept or reject his professor's proposals. If he accepts the settlement, then the case is closed and proceedings end. However, if a student chooses to reject a proposed settlement, then he may file a petition with the JIO requesting a judicial hearing. Once a judicial hearing has begun, a student may make an informal settlement with a judicial inquiry officer, in consultation with the professor, before proceeding to the actual hearing stage. In addition, a student may make a complaint to the JIO alleging that another student has violated the code. These cases result in hearings unless the JIO can settle the complaint informally. Goldfarb is currently compiling information about past hearings, including the number of cases, the types of cases and the ways in which they were resolved. She said she plans to search the JIO database to find that information -- but added that she will not identify anyone by name in her study. All files and testimony from JIO, Honor Council and Executive Committee cases, including students' identities, are kept confidential because the University abides by the confidentiality guidelines of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. "When the report comes out, it will talk in examples and ranges of sanctions, but any one student will not be identified," Goldfarb explained.