Students In "Intro To Congress" Class At Harvard Caught Cheating

Posted by Pile (10141 views) Add this story to MyYahoo Add this article to del.icio.us Submit article to Reddit Add story to Furl Add story to StumbleUpon [E-Mail link]

[Beating Dead Horses]
[Edumakashun]
More than half of the roughly 125 Harvard University students investigated by the college’s disciplinary board for cheating on a take-home exam last spring were forced to temporarily withdraw, school officials announced Friday.

The disclosure, communicated in an e-mail to the Harvard community from Michael D. Smith, dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, was the most extensive accounting of what is being called the Ivy League’s largest cheating scandal in recent times.

Smith said the inquiry, which concluded in December, resulted in about half of the students implicated in the high-profile case being asked to leave the college for “a period of time.” Affected students have said that it amounted to two academic semesters for most. The rest of the students were evenly split between those who received disciplinary probation or had their cases dismissed, he said.

“We, as a faculty, must redouble our efforts to communicate clearly and unambiguously to our undergraduates about academic integrity,” Smith wrote. “While the fall cases are complete, our work on academic integrity is far from done.”

“I think it’s fair. They made the choice to cheat,” said Michael Constant.

The official announcement came as no surprise to many undergraduates, who saw dozens of classmates, teammates, and friends quickly disappear from campus without explanation throughout the fall semester. But the statement provided new perspective on the details of the investigation, a process that even Smith conceded had experienced delays because of its massive scale.

Though Harvard officials declined to comment further on the details of the case, Smith’s letter outlined a series of possible reforms that may be put in place to help students and faculty avoid similar situations in the future.

The students were accused of collaborating on the last of four take-home exams in the spring 2012 lecture Government 1310: Introduction to Congress. The students were given a week to complete the exams. Suspicions were first made public last August, when Harvard announced it was dealing with a cheating scandal of unknown scope.

Smith acknowledged the resolution of the cases took “much longer” than many had expected.

He also addressed a major complaint among students: The disparity in tuition refunds for those who were suspended.

At Harvard, tuition refunds are pro-rated, based on when a student withdraws. As the Administrative Board delved into details of the case, the timeline for student hearings grew from weeks to months.

Those whose cases were heard in September were able to recoup thousands of dollars more than peers whose cases were decided in December.

Harvard administrators have decided to fix that disparity, and will now provide tuition refunds based on Sept. 30 as the withdrawal date for all.

Still, that was small consolation for some implicated in the case who maintain that the Administrative Board used unfair practices to determine students’ guilt or innocence. Many have taken issue with allegations that students copied one another’s tests; they say similarities in exams arose because they shared notes with classmates, a practice expressly encouraged by the professor.

Details

 

 

Comments

 
Name: (change name for anonymous posting)
Title:
Comments:
   

1 Article displayed.

Pursuant to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230), BSAlert is a user-contributed editorial web site and does not endorse any specific content, but merely acts as a "sounding board" for the online community. Any and all quoted material is referenced pursuant to "Fair Use" (17 U.S.C. § 107). Like any information resource, use your own judgement and seek out the facts and research and make informed choices.

Powered by Percleus (c) 2005-2047 - Content Management System

[Percleus 0.9.4] (c) 2005, PCS