The student author of the editorial seems to respect the honor code Groveton expects from its students, yet the author assumes the code itself is solely responsible for the alleged reduction in cheating at the school. Citing a survey to further empahsize the aforementioned assumption, the author only invites more speculation on the topic rather than providing further evidence as intended. While cheating is a frowned upon topic in all universities, this editorial is rife with assumptions and fallacious deduction, rendering the argument weak and unconvincing. First, the reporting system for Groveton 's novel honor code and the "old-fashioned" system it replaced both relyed solely on a human witness for reporting. Teachers used to monitor students and the new protocol calls for students to monitor each other and report any instances of cheating. Both of these employ the assumption that all cheating is caught. Just because there are reports of dishonesty does not mean all the students who did not get reported did not cheat. That being the case, the system of reporting itself is flawed, and cannot be used to calculate the objective number of cheaters. For example, students can be surprisingly innovative in their enterprise to cheat. …show more content…
Who says these students are being honest in the first place. It seems too easy for a student to simply "agree" not to cheat. Furthermore, a student can file a faulty report of cheating on a fellow student. For example, what if a student cheated himself, then proceeded to report the student he copied from as the cheater? Is the school expected or willing to take action based on a single report alone? Additionally, students can band together and cheat and not turn each other in. Just because the reports have supposedly decreased, does not mean that actual frequency of cheating has changed
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
If a teacher or administrator needs to monitor someone to see if they uphold the honor code, that defeats the whole purpose of relying on a student's honesty, that's not an honor code anymore but rather just another written rule regarding a student's integrity. This false idea of an honor code is teased for being blatantly counterintuitive; Source A is a political style cartoon that illustrates this perfectly with a board that reads, “Using honor codes to prevent cheating” with subtext underneath saying, “Recent research has shown that a spycam can greatly improve honor code”. The idea of an honor code is so ambiguous and misconstrued to the point where the practice has fallen away from actually honoring honesty. A practice that has changed so much, there is little trace of the original idea left, seemingly having formed into just another
In Alyssa Vangelli’s article, she states that “Students opposed the honor code because they did not feel it was their responsibility,” (Source B) This statement immediately provides a fairly unsettling contradiction-after all, the entire purpose of the honor code is to make peer monitoring the responsibility of the students. The students complain that they are not trusted, yet when measures are taken to earn this trust, they balk. Supporting this is Sledge, Sally, and Pringle’s 2013 survey of a small university, in which only 8% of students stated they would report a fellow who student for cheating. While a larger scale survey would need to be done to validate these results, this alarming statistic seems to suggests that the lack of trust towards students matches a lack of
In schools cheating is something that is looked down upon and seen as a huge issue to teachers and administration. There are multiple methods that have been used to stop this dishonest actions however, the honor code is the most well known. Many schools have unique versions of the honor code but, they all have the same goal. Cheating is a serious topic and should not be tolerated however some honor codes don’t do the best job in controlling the students. My school does not have a harsh and over the top honor code which is a good thing and should be maintained.
In Source F, the authors argue that the decreased reports of cheating in schools with honor codes are not caused simply by fear of consequences, but rather the ramifications of being outed to their peers. In today's society, many students do not think about the consequences of their actions. However, with an honor system instilled, many students feel embarrassed to have their cheating habits be made known to their peers. Some students have been able to skate through high school by cheating or stealing their peer's work, but when reaching a college campus with an honor system in place, as Source F explains the students "change their behavior" (Source F). Honor codes put into place on college campuses are helping change the student's academic behavior and integrity before they reach the
Throughout my high school education, I have found myself being unable to trust my peers as I have been told to cover my answer sheets during tests, or have seen other students on their phones during quizzes that I had studied hours for the night before. In my school, cheating runs rampant as many students feel that there is no consequence as it has been deemed socially acceptable, many teachers don’t discuss repercussions for cheating at the beginning of the year, and it is not very difficult to difficult to cheat. In fact, as outlined in Source F, two thirds of students surveyed at the collegiate level admit to acts of academic dishonesty. The same source found that “the highest levels of cheating are usually found at colleges that have not engaged their students in active dialogue on the issue of academic dishonesty,” (Source F). Although many would believe that implementing an honor code would stir further distrust among students as they are told to suspect and report each other, I believe that an honor code in my school would set an important precedent for academic honesty, as there is currently little to no social pressures around cheating.
That aside not every student will take a pledge and feel obligated to stop cheating or to be completely honesty. This could be the flaw in the honor code, stating that the students take a pledge to not use plagiarism or cheat which means that not every student will have the integrity to not cheat when he/ she didn’t study for a test and has the integrity to be honest to the educator that they have
An honor code can be so effective that “many schools with academic honor codes allow students to take their exams without proctors present, relying on peer monitoring to control cheating” (Source F). Despite this system, there is research that “indicates that the significantly lower levels cheating” (Source F) at schools with honor codes. This is possible because there is a peer culture that denounces cheating, making kids embarrassed to commit academic dishonesty. Such a peer culture was formed by educating the students about the value of academic dishonesty.
Thus causing suspicion from the professor or anyone else if the cheating did happened (Source B). Even if that’s so, having them set in place would “create tension and that a subsequent report could not easily be kept confidential…” (Source B). Students
“Since “everyone else” is cheating, they have no choice but to do the same to remain competitive. And there is growing evidence many students take these habits with them to college.” (McCabe, Donald and Pavela). More and more colleges are using the honor codes. The honor code has helped to prevent cheating.
Cheating, plagiarizing, and taking credit for another’s work is usually frowned upon, but the honor code was created to prevent these acts from occurring. Honor codes are different from school to school and are commonly not followed. The honor system was created to convey that when you lie about accomplishing something yourself, you will be penalized for it. Honor code systems should be revised because of the lack of student involvement, the lack of confidentiality, and the burdensome consequences. To begin with, student involvement plays a huge role on campuses.
Summary of “Academic Integrity” by Arden Miller and Adena D. Young-Jones Which one do you believe cheats more in schools, an online course or a face to face course? Arden Miller and Adena Young-Jones did an article over which one tended to be worse when they found results that were kind of shocking. Of course you expect an online course to cheat more but that was not the case. The results really varied on who the person was, sexuality, age, and other personalities of a person. Arden and Adena, both took surveys of “639 students in both types of classes.
I remember some classmates, cheating back in high school. Throughout my entire educational career, I have experienced meeting a lot of cheaters. Plagiarism is considered a form of cheating. The punishment has changed from a zero grade to expulsion. A lot of students who cheat, are only fooling themselves.
•30% say they themselves have cheated, rising to 43% of 16- and 17-year-olds. •More than 50% say cheaters don’t get caught. Cheating is the same as lying and stealing. Each time you hand in schoolwork, you are basically telling the teacher that you completed that work on your own.