RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceReader Comments
How to change Princeton's dishonest Honor Code
Published: Wednesday, October 1st, 2008
We're often told that the University has such deep trust and faith in its students that it is willing to allow unproctored exams. During these "unproctored" tests there are no teachers or administrators in the room. But Article V ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Stop snitching.
Wow, you're taking this way too seriously. If, as you say, that section of the Honor Code doesn't affect the rate at which students report cheating, then obviously people simply ignore it.
I agree. I think the "Honor Code" should be changed immediately. It's also not fair that incoming students are REQUIRED to sign the pledge before coming, because, even if they don't agree with it, who would give up the chance to go to Princeton? The whole thing just cheapens the bond between student and school.
Amen. And by "changed" I hope you mean "forgotten"
Wow. The author clearly doesn't understand integrity.
Breaking the honor code and not reporting a violation are both violations of integrity.
Simply because many students lack the integrity to report a violation of the honor code doesn't indicate a flaw in the honor code. The flaw lies with the student who lacks the honor and integrity to make the tough choice to do the right thing, even when it is unpopular. Changing the rules because dishonest people don't follow them is ridiculous. Moral relativism at its best.
The premise of the article is indeed truly ridiculous. Of course the university trusts us - that's why they allow us to act as our own proctors, instead of having an instructor be one.
If there was no penalty for not reporting someone, you would have no incentive to report anyone. There's no upside to accusing someone of violating the Honor Code, only you having to testify and perhaps be cross examined and thrown in the case. If it's your duty, it's something you have to do. You don't have to think about upholding the Honor Code,since it is required.
And since everyone's minding their own business taking the test, you have to cheat in a gigantic manner in order to get caught by a fellow "proctor" student. The Honor Code works, and it should stay as it is. For those who don't agree, maybe Princeton isn't the right school for you.
Almost everyone has gone over the speed limit at some point, and some of us do it much more frequently than others. So, let's just get rid of those pesky speed limits... all they do is make me feel guilty about my lack of integrity and responsibility, anyway!
Giving responsibility to students in exams and independent work is not only a symbol of the University's trust in us, but also an example of a fundamental facet of the college experience - taking responsibility for being an adult. Call it "snitching" or "proctoring" or what have you, but some day you're going to have to choose how you respond to injustice, whatever its form, however awkward or uncomfortable it may be to act. I'd personally rather be uncomfortable and awkward now, whatever choice I end up making during an exam, than confront decisions of honor and justice for the first time when I don't have the support of the Princeton community.
I think the part I like most about this editorial is that the author directly contradicts himself, thus rendering his argument asinine. His first point is that the University doesn't really trust us because we are really being watched overzealous students who are only looking out for themselves because it would help their own curve if they reported you cheating. His next point is that the University should eliminate the clause of mandatory reporting because students don't do it. But I thought he just said two sentences ago how we were really being secretly watched by the same students that, I guess, won't report us. Interesting... it appears that the author just really wants no one to watch students cheat, and if they have to do that, definitely not report the fact that they just cheated.
People who take a test stick their noses into the test. Cheating is an abstraction that that the cheater cannot be put out of mind without making himself look like you are cheating. If you put a dummy camera in the test room, cheating would be zero percent.
You go into a courtroom, and you find out that the police and the prosecution's witnesses all lie on the witness stand after swearing on a Joker Bible, so what is the point of swearing an oath on the Swordfish Bible in the first place. Put up a dummy camera or a real camera in the test room if you morally object to cheating.