Provost Robert Barchi wants to know what level of cheating Penn students feel is morally acceptable.
In front of about 50 students gathered on the main floor of Houston Hall yesterday evening, the University's top academic officer asked the crowd the question, "Why do people cheat?"
The topic was one of many discussed at yesterday's Fireside Chat, the first one of the spring semester. Yesterday's session was entitled "Academic Standards -- is the bar too high -- or too low?"
Fireside Chats, which were begun last spring, are informal discussions the provost holds with students throughout the semester.
Although attendance at previous Fireside Chats has been low, yesterday's event drew the largest crowd in the series' short history.
The hour-plus "chat" covered a wide range of topics ranging from the cultural circumstances which cause students to cheat to advice on how to anonymously report a cheating student.
One of the most heavily discussed issues was the possibility of Penn implementing a strict honor code at the undergraduate level. The suggested code would not only punish students who participate in acts of cheating, but would also equally punish their peers for not turning them in if they possessed knowledge of the incident.
While Barchi said he agreed with the sentiment of the idea, he also expressed hesitation with the practical reality of an honor code which is based on a "system of punishments." Barchi claimed that this type of system seems to work only in schools with a history of this practice, such as the U.S. Naval Academy.
"Not getting your tail fried is the incentive [with a strict honor code], but the incentive here is not getting your grade stolen," Barchi said.
Many students in attendance seemed to think that the root of the problem, rather than its solution, is what needs to be addressed.
They cited the pre-professional culture at Penn, as well as the effects of the bell curve in many large classes, which only allows a set percentage of a class to receive a grade regardless of the class' actual aptitude, as motivation for extreme competitiveness and, as a result, cheating among students.
Additionally, the definition of cheating was a debated topic at yesterday's gathering.
"I believe that the overwhelming majority of the infractions of academic integrity at the University occur in a gray area between completely ethical behavior and overt cheating," said Student Committee on Undergraduate Education member Max Cantor, a College junior.
While some consider the bell curve to be a factor in cheating on campus, others believe it may provide the solution to another hot-button issue -- grade inflation.
At yesterday's chat, students shared stories about departments where it is impossible to fail a class or where the vast majority of students will receive at least a B, despite investing minimal effort. This led some attendees to ask the question, "Should the average grade be a C?"
Barchi said he believes the answer to that question depends largely on the specifics of each individual class, but that at the very least, the grading policy of every course should be discussed between professors and pupils.
Faculty members "can control grading, but what they do have the responsibility to tell you is how they are running the course," Barchi said. "If they don't, you have every right to ask."
Beyond aggressive actions by students to understand their professors' grading policies, a suggested solution to the problem of grade inflation was transcript reform to include information about class size and average grades directly on the document.
Barchi put the issue of grades into perspective near the end of the discussion, saying "some of the very best doctors I know are not the ones who got an A+ in organic chemistry."
The Fireside Chat was sponsored by the Undergraduate Assembly, SCUE, the University Honor Council and the Office of Student Life.
