University faculty and administrators will consider a proposal to require proctoring for all in-person examinations, which would mark a departure from the traditionally unproctored exam format under the Honor Code. If passed, the policy could take effect as early as next fall, according to Honor Committee members.
The proposal was discussed in a meeting between Honor Committee leadership and Dean of the College Michael Gordin on Wednesday, Feb. 25. Although conversations about proctored examinations have been ongoing in recent years, the new policy is now set to enter a multi-stage faculty and administrative review before it can come to a vote by the faculty. Currently, only individual and small group examinations are proctored.
The tradition of not proctoring has existed since the introduction of Princeton’s honor system in 1893. The system has relied on student self-governance and mutual accountability. Students pledge both to refrain from infractions of academic dishonesty and to report any breaches of the Constitution they witness.
“The prohibition on proctoring is formalized in ‘Rules and Procedures of the Faculty.’ Any change to that policy would have to pass through the relevant committees and be voted on by the full faculty,” Gordin wrote in a statement to The Daily Princetonian. “Since that process has not begun, I cannot predict when it would conclude.”
“The process — as described by Dean Gordin — would have four stages, involving faculty and administration votes. Because of the way the Honor Constitution and [Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities] is written, there is actually no need for student approval,” wrote Nadia Makuc ’26, Chair Emeritus of the Honor Committee, in a statement to the ‘Prince.’
Despite the policy not requiring student approval, Makuc wrote that the administration is “certainly looking for student input and consideration.”
Student leadership bodies, including the Undergraduate Student Government (USG) Academics Committee and the Honor Committee, have been consulted on the matter, but do not have the authority to enact or block policy changes.
The Honor Committee is a group of students who “investigate and adjudicate alleged Honor Code violations,” according to the committee’s website.
Although the exact timeline of the review is unclear, the policy, if passed, could go into effect as early as next semester, according to Honor Committee Chair Minh Truong ’27.
“The policy will be voted on by the faculty after other procedural processes, including extensive discussions between the Committee on Discipline and Faculty Advisory Committee on Policy, amongst others, which will take some time,” Truong wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince.’
An expansion of proctoring already occurred earlier this academic year, according to Makuc. In November, faculty were instructed to proctor all individual and small-group exams, including make-up exams, exams taken by student-athletes while traveling, and exams taken with disability accommodations.
The University’s consideration of the new policy stems from broader concerns about academic integrity and enforcement, according to Makuc. She added that recent trends have intensified pressure to reconsider the current system of enforcement.
“What we have right now maybe isn’t working,” Makuc said, referring to an increase in reported cases of academic misconduct and changes in academic culture. “With AI [and] increased use of technology post-COVID, there’s been a change in the way we learn, and that has directly contributed to us seeing more cases.”
“The policy will primarily impact how faculty have interacted with the Honor Code and will result in modifications to language on exams in Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities such as that in Section 2.3.2, as well as the language in Rules and Procedures of the Faculty Section VI.B.4,” Truong wrote.
Yet, she added that “the policy change will not impact the Honor Committee’s Constitution nor our current roles and procedures.”
Makuc speculated that many students will view proctors as a practical measure, not indicative of a lack of faith in academic integrity.
“On a practical level, most people are like … ‘Yeah, let’s do it,’” she said, citing complaints about disruptions and perceived inequities during exams.
If implemented, expanded proctoring could alter how academic integrity cases are investigated.
William Aepli ’26, co-chair of the Peer Representatives, which advises students who are accused of Honor Code violations during their investigations, said his organization would likely see changes in the type of evidence presented in hearings.
During an investigation, Peer Representatives deal with eyewitness evidence from other students or faculty who may have been in the room during the alleged infraction. If mandatory proctoring is instituted, there would likely be more people to witness students taking exams.
“There is a possibility that we could be working with more evidence than we previously would,” Aepli said.
However, Aepli cautioned against assuming that faculty testimony would be stronger than student testimony.
“Just because someone comes from a position of authority … doesn’t mean their word is 100 percent accurate,” he said. “Part of these Honor Committee processes is trying to gather as much evidence as possible.”
Makuc noted that even if the proctoring reform is implemented on her proposed Fall 2026 timeline, logistical questions remain unresolved. These include who would serve as proctors, how proctoring would be standardized across departments, the number of proctors per class, and what enforcement procedures would look like.
“This has been a conversation … since my freshman year,” Makuc said. “Right now, we’re trying to get student opinion on whether this is something [they] want to move forward with.”
Devon Williams is a News contributor for the ‘Prince.’
Please send any corrections to corrections[at]dailyprincetonian.com.
Read More
Faculty hear proposal to shave a week off winter break starting 2027
Serin Kayserilioglu and Meghana VeldhuisAt the March 2 faculty meeting, the Faculty Committee on Classrooms and Schedule presented a proposal that would shorten winter break from six weeks to five weeks starting in the 2027-28 academic year.
At the March 2 faculty meeting, the Faculty Committee on Classrooms and Schedule presented a proposal that would shorten winter break from six weeks to five weeks starting in the 2027-28 academic year.
No. 9 women’s ice hockey advances to ECAC semifinals after 2–1 victory against Harvard
Leela Hensler and Andrew KangThe Princeton Tigers head to Lake Placid for ECAC semifinals after defeating the Harvard Crimson.
The Princeton Tigers head to Lake Placid after defeating the Harvard Crimson.
Transcending vision in art: a look at the 2026 VIS Book and Poster show
Alexis ChoiContributing writer for The Prospect Alexis Choi reviews the 2026 VIS Book and Poster show.