In 1893, Princeton was experiencing rampant cheating that heightened distrust between faculty and students. As a result, students took it upon themselves to draft and institute an entirely student-run honor system. Students recognized that it was up to them to maintain academic integrity during their exams, so they took investigating and adjudicating instances of supposed cheating into their own hands.
Faculty and administration agreed to this system, and to emphasize students’ responsibility to academic integrity, Princeton did not allow professors in exam rooms for over a hundred years. While there have been many changes to the honor system since 1893, this distinctive feature has remained. But the time has come to update our system, because Princeton’s tradition must not come at the expense of our integrity. For the sake of the Honor Code, Princeton needs proctors.
Princeton’s honor system, as-is, emphasizes the responsibility of students to uphold Princeton’s commitment to academic freedom, rigor, and integrity. As the chair emerita of the Honor Committee, which handles suspected academic violations on in-class exams, I have intimate knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the system’s fidelity to the pursuit of knowledge.
Indeed, commitment to this mission is what makes Princeton’s undergraduate education the best in the country — and the 5,826 undergraduates who are currently enrolled have the responsibility to keep this status.
We come to Princeton from all sorts of backgrounds and we study all sorts of subjects, but the one common thread among us is our commitment to scholarship. Exams are just a small part of our education, but they literally “test” whether we carry out the entirety of our academic pursuits with integrity. The testing environment is a microcosm of the time we spend studying, solving, reading, and researching with dedication and care. Procedures for all our scholarship here should cultivate a culture that is conducive to the advancement of knowledge.
Recently, however, the Honor Committee has experienced new strains, including an uptick in cases in the last year and challenges such as generative AI, and student sentiment has recognized that its procedures need to better reflect the current challenges to academic integrity. The Honor Committee is dedicated to continuous change: It recently expanded to 18 members and alerted administration about the need to have clocks in exam rooms. It has updated internal procedures by updating training, and tried to bring awareness to students by sending reminders about best test-taking practices around exam seasons. For years, the Committee has had conversations about introducing proctors into exam rooms, to serve as another potential witness and reporter — and the time has finally come to take this step.
The two-fold obligation agreed to by all students upon matriculation states that, “individually, they must not violate the code, and as a community, they are responsible to see that suspected violations are reported.” As a student community, we recognize that some methods of cheating, including access to cellphones and other devices, have become both prevalent and difficult to report. Proctors will be able to help pick up the slack where students might not be able to keep each other accountable by addressing concerns during the exam as they arise and reporting matters to the Honor Committee for evaluation. Introducing proctors would not be a punishment for abuse of the system, but rather, another means of prevention that corresponds to the realities of our time.
Proctors will not change each student’s responsibility to maintain academic integrity, but they do provide another measure of promoting a testing environment that is fair to all. By looking at peer institutions like Harvard and Yale and listening to the student body, it seems clear that adding someone whose responsibility is promoting a fair environment and who can serve as a reporter and witness will be beneficial to academic integrity.
While there are details to be worked out with the faculty about the number of proctors and the procedures they would follow to ensure equitable enforcement, it is time to begin the conversation about proctors. As recently outlined, the process for instituting proctors requires faculty and administrative votes. But as the people who know best what taking exams at Princeton is actually like, it is important that, as students, we voice our experience and opinions about what will best serve the test-taking environment in forums like this paper and through student representatives in the Honor Committee and Undergraduate Student Government.
As students, we do not lose any rights by introducing proctors into exams, and we certainly do not lose any responsibilities. The entirely student-run honor system would remain unchanged, and would still investigate and adjudicate alleged Honor Code violations. Simultaneously, proctors would provide clarity to investigations. The investigation and hearing process would become more robust with the opportunity to interview proctors as potential witnesses. Proctors’ word would not be treated infallibly, but rather considered just as seriously as any other piece of evidence.
Most importantly, introducing proctors for exams does not rid us of the onus which is ultimately on us as students to maintain academic integrity — it only reflects our commitment to maintain and promote academic scholarship, the core value which makes Old Nassau so great. The age-old Honor Pledge on exams will remain, because for each exam we take, we will continue to pledge our commitment to scholarship and academic integrity.
Nadia Makuc is a senior in the Department of Classics from Monterey, Mass. She served as the chair of the Honor Committee in 2025. You can contact her at nadia.makuc[at]princeton.edu.