Evidence suggests that academic honor codes, which call for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeavors and to notify a faculty member if they suspect that others have cheated, are far more successful than are other methods at deterring cheating among students at colleges and universities. Several years ago, Groveton College adopted such a code and discontinued its old-fashioned system in which teachers closely monitored students. Under the old system, teachers reported an average of thirty cases of cheating per year. In the first year the honor code was in place, students reported twenty-one cases of cheating; five years later, this figure had dropped to fourteen. Moreover, in a recent survey, a majority of Groveton students said that they would be less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
While it is true that the academic honor code at Groveton College appears to have been more effective than the old system of student discipline in preventing cheating, this apparent effectiveness does not stem from the honor code itself, but from a change in college culture. Groveton College, like most colleges and universities, had been plagued by cheating for many years. The honor code, however, was not devised for the purpose of preventing cheating; however, it was enacted because the old system of student discipline had failed. The existing honor code was an attempt to repair the damage that had been done to the integrity of Groveton’s academic standards through years of lax enforcement of the rules. When students violated the rules of academic integrity, they had been punished by paying a fine, being disciplined by a teacher, or being asked to leave the campus. The honor system eliminated the school’s ability to punish students, and, as a result, cheating rose steadily. The honor code was put forth as a solution, and the changes it brought about were immediately apparent. For example, the new honor code required students to sign a pledge committing them not to ‘cheat’ or any other similar term. This meant that students could no longer be accused of cheating without knowing it. This change led to a decrease in the number of cheating incidents, as students were not caught stealing answers or copying off other students. The honor code also made it so that students could no longer tell which teachers were responsible for monitoring their coursework. As students were no longer held accountable to particular teachers, they no longer had an incentive to cheat. Finally, the honor code eliminated the practice of failing students. Under the previous system, students could be put on probation or expelled for cheating. This punishment was meted out often and randomly. Students who were in trouble with the law or who were involved in other transgressions were unlikely to feel any remorse for cheating. However, under the new honor code, students who were accused of cheating were removed from classes and, thus, were not able to complete their coursework.
The fact that honor codes were effective in improving academic standards at Groveton College does not mean that the honor codes at other schools will be equally effective. The effectiveness of an honor code depends upon the culture of the institution. If the faculty is unwilling to enforce the rules, the honor code will be ineffective. At Groveton, faculty was supportive of the honor code and worked hard to ensure that it was enforced. However, not every institution has such faculty. At Groveton, the board of trustees and administration supported the new honor code and enforced it. Whether a school’s faculty is supportive of the honor code or is unwilling to enforce it may result in either no reduction or an increase in cheating. When faculty are unwilling to enforce the honor code, students may cheat with impunity, or they may seek out other avenues to cheat, such as using the Internet. Universities that do not have strict academic standards may resort to plagiarism and cheating without consequence. If faculty are unwilling to enforce rules, students may cheat because they feel that they can get away with doing so. On the other hand, when faculty are supportive of the rules, students are more likely to feel compelled to follow the rules, and cheat becomes much more difficult.
The argument that honor codes are more effective at deterring cheating than are other methods is based on the assertion that a majority of Groveton’s students believe that they will be less likely to cheat with an honor code in place. The question this raises is whether students are basing their belief on an accurate assessment of the honor code or whether they believe that cheating will result in punishment. Some may believe that they can get away with cheating, or they may believe that they will be caught if they do cheat. Those students who believe that cheating will not result in punishment may feel no incentive to refrain from cheating. However, students who believe that they will be caught if they cheat may be deterred by the knowledge that their actions will result in punishment. Students also may be motivated by the desire to see the honor code succeed, and they may want to see their friends rewarded for their honesty. As a result, students are more likely to abide by the rules of the honor code when the faculty is supportive of the code.
The fact that Groveton’s students perceive an honor code to be more effective than other methods of preventing cheating does not demonstrate that honor codes are equally effective at preventing cheating at most schools. While an honor code may reduce the number of incidents of cheating, it may not prevent cheating from occurring. Schools should choose whichever method of preventing cheating is most appropriate for their culture.