missing honor code

[Caracal]

dismalist's point about much of college being sorting for people who can follow arbitrary rules resonates with me. 

Yeah, you might as well make the whole thing just an exercise in following arbitrary rules. No reason to have those rules be clearly tied to the goals of the class or learning anything. That'll teach em.

[kaysixteen]

This is exhausting... Random points:

1) no, 'academic freedom' does not mean Prof. Self Important gets to do anything he wants in his classes.   Really, it doesn't.  There are institutional norms, legal norms, cultural expectations, and, perhaps above everything else (when we remember that professors, even at R1 unis, are actually still supposed to be primarily *teachers*, as opposed to those who work at non-teaching research or government institutions, etc), there needs to be an appropriate pedagogical *purpose* to one's actions.   Being an asshole about draconian enforcement of irrelevant rules ain't one of those pedagogical purposes.
2) Where exactly is the evidence that requiring honor code signatures on tests actually reduce cheating on them?   How could this assessment be proved?
3) For those working in schools that do not require profs to place honor code affirmations on tests, what exactly would be likely to happen if Prof. Self Important imposed one, failed students who neglected to sign the thing, and then those students complained to dept. chairs, deans, etc.?

[Hegemony]

So if a student does not cheat and gets every question pertaining to the material right, but overlooks the direction to copy out the Honor Code, that student gets an F on the exam.

That's what some folks are advocating?

But if a student does a mediocre job of studying, but happens to see and copy out the Honor Code, that student could get, say, a B-.

Is that really an exam that accurately reflects the different students' learning in the course?

If this university is one where the "Learning Objectives" of the course are written out up front on the syllabus, I hope one of the Learning Objectives is "Learns to copy out the Honor Code at the beginning of exams when instructed." Otherwise they could fulfill every other objective and still fail a significant portion of the course. I trust likewise that if there is a study guide for the exam, or even instructions such as "The exam will cover everything up through week 6 of the course," the copying of the Honor Code is on there. Because if not, then the single most important element in passing the course has been omitted from the instructions.

Likewise, the weighting of the exam would be something like:

Question 1: 25%
Question 2: 40%
Question 3: 25%
Question 4: 10%
Copying of Honor Code: 100%, negates all other points

My students have gotten upset when I've indicated the wrong percentages for questions that don't add up properly in exams. So I trust the percentages have been made clear here.

Another thing to reflect on is that the penalty for overlooking one requirement of the exam is so draconian that heck, one might as well cheat — the penalty for cheating is no worse than the penalty for not copying out one paragraph.

[Ruralguy]

A number of Honor Code schools regularly suspend students for Honor violations (and zero out semester in which they cheated). So, punishment can be severe. In extreme cases, even expulsion is an option.

[downer]

So if a student does not cheat and gets every question pertaining to the material right, but overlooks the direction to copy out the Honor Code, that student gets an F on the exam.

That's what some folks are advocating?

But if a student does a mediocre job of studying, but happens to see and copy out the Honor Code, that student could get, say, a B-.

Is that really an exam that accurately reflects the different students' learning in the course?

If this university is one where the "Learning Objectives" of the course are written out up front on the syllabus, I hope one of the Learning Objectives is "Learns to copy out the Honor Code at the beginning of exams when instructed." Otherwise they could fulfill every other objective and still fail a significant portion of the course. I trust likewise that if there is a study guide for the exam, or even instructions such as "The exam will cover everything up through week 6 of the course," the copying of the Honor Code is on there. Because if not, then the single most important element in passing the course has been omitted from the instructions.

Likewise, the weighting of the exam would be something like:

Question 1: 25%
Question 2: 40%
Question 3: 25%
Question 4: 10%
Copying of Honor Code: 100%, negates all other points

My students have gotten upset when I've indicated the wrong percentages for questions that don't add up properly in exams. So I trust the percentages have been made clear here.

Another thing to reflect on is that the penalty for overlooking one requirement of the exam is so draconian that heck, one might as well cheat — the penalty for cheating is no worse than the penalty for not copying out one paragraph.

My point was that the professor made a declaration about that the policy was very clearly, and therefore should follow through on that. They can see how it works, and whether it leads to good results. If so, keep the policy and even build on it. If not, change the policy to something else to prevent cheating. But I would not recommend saying "I told you the honor code was a precondition of the exam counting, you didn't write it, so now I will just forget what I previously said."

One big question which I don't think was answered is whether this is a school with an honor code and overall policy, or whether this is a one-off initiative by the professor. It is much more difficult for a professor to go it alone with an honor code approach in a school without an overall honor code.

[marshwiggle]

So if a student does not cheat and gets every question pertaining to the material right, but overlooks the
Question 1: 25%
Question 2: 40%
Question 3: 25%
Question 4: 10%
Copying of Honor Code: 100%, negates all other points

My students have gotten upset when I've indicated the wrong percentages for questions that don't add up properly in exams. So I trust the percentages have been made clear here.

Another thing to reflect on is that the penalty for overlooking one requirement of the exam is so draconian that heck, one might as well cheat — the penalty for cheating is no worse than the penalty for not copying out one paragraph.

This reminds me of a situation I've seen.
In a course labs typically count for 20%. Some students blow off the labs, so a rule got added that students had to pass the lab to pass the course, so that they would take the labs seriously. At the end of the labs, there was a lab test worth 20% of the labs. Some students blew off the lab test, so they made a rule that you had to pass the lab test to pass the labs. The combination of those two rules meant that even though the lab test only accounted for 4% of the final grade, failing it would make a student fail the course. (No such rule for midterms, which counted for more.) Not surprisingly, it made students super stressed out about the lab test.

Moral of the story: The more of these "all-or-nothing" requirements that ignore all other performance the more students are going to get upset. And it will be the honest, hard-working students who will feel it is most unfair. (The cheaters and slackers won't pay much attention.)

[Hibush]

So if a student does not cheat and gets every question pertaining to the material right, but overlooks the direction to copy out the Honor Code, that student gets an F on the exam.

That's what some folks are advocating?

But if a student does a mediocre job of studying, but happens to see and copy out the Honor Code, that student could get, say, a B-.

Is that really an exam that accurately reflects the different students' learning in the course?

My point was that the professor made a declaration about that the policy was very clearly, and therefore should follow through on that. They can see how it works, and whether it leads to good results. If so, keep the policy and even build on it. If not, change the policy to something else to prevent cheating. But I would not recommend saying "I told you the honor code was a precondition of the exam counting, you didn't write it, so now I will just forget what I previously said."

I'm completely with Downer on sticking with a policy once the assignment is done. Once you make a policy, you have to follow it for the work to which it applies. Revoking it retroactively undermines you and is unfair to those who followed it.

On the other hand, if the policy is bad, change it. I agree with Hegemony that OP's policy was bad and should be changed to something better for subsequent assignments and exams. There are effective ways to implement an honor code, and the technique varies among schools. Using one that is familiar to these particular students is likely to be best.

[polly_mer]

So if a student does not cheat and gets every question pertaining to the material right, but overlooks the direction to copy out the Honor Code, that student gets an F on the exam.

That's what some folks are advocating?

Yes.  If the engineer does all the plans and then doesn't file with the authorities in a timely manner, then that engineer has failed in the task, regardless of how fabulous those plans are.

Per Marshwiggle's point, labs often cover a wide variety of material all of which is prerequisite to the major.  Thus, being less than competent at any one part means failing the whole course. 

A well-designed course will have multiple opportunities to demonstrate competency in the material and yet will weed non-proficient students by having sufficient rules of the "at least Level X in Category Y" variety (e.g., F in the course for missing more than one lab, the quiz average must be at least a C, the report average must be at least a C, violating safety procedures is an immediate dismissal from lab for the day and counts as missing a lab) to ensure that everyone going to the subsequent courses is proficient. 

As one senior colleague put it, there are so many ways to fail this course by people who don't really want to learn and are not acquiring the professional norms of being a scientist.  The material itself is only part of the required education.

Grades of A versus C doesn't matter. Being proficient in the material and being competent at the straightforward soft skills matter a lot.

[Puget]

I'm completely with Downer on sticking with a policy once the assignment is done.

And I completely disagree with this-- when you've set a bad policy you should admit it and change it. Good teaching, like good doing any job, requires some flexibility and humility to adjust things when you realize something was a mistake. Do you really think sticking with a bad decision come hell or high water is going to accomplish anything good? It won't make students respect your authority if that's what you're thinking, they will just see you as unfair (and rightly so in my opinion).

I would just tell the students that I know mistakes happen, especially under stress, so I'm going to let them make up for it by signing the honor code now plus submitting a page on why the honor code is important. Make it a teachable moment.

Frankly, I'm dismayed by how many posters seem to see students as the enemy. Yes, we have to maintain standards, but in a way that serves a purpose, not just to assert our power.

[Ruralguy]

Maybe, but if a policy is stupid, people will balk.

This policy, in my view is indefensible.

Trying to defend it either by  invoking "academic freedom" or "its a teachable moment because they will need to remember to dot I's and cross T's later"  is , in my view, a weak defense.

If you are a teacher, then teach. Get rid of the tyrannical nonsense.

[Ruralguy]

Sorry, I was saying "Maybe" to Polly, not Puget.

[polly_mer]

(when we remember that professors, even at R1 unis, are actually still supposed to be primarily *teachers*, as opposed to those who work at non-teaching research or government institutions, etc), there needs to be an appropriate pedagogical *purpose* to one's actions.   Being an asshole about draconian enforcement of irrelevant rules ain't one of those pedagogical purposes.

Professors are tasked with mentoring novices in the field along the path to becoming experts.

Some of that mentoring is formal instruction on material related to the field.

Other parts of the mentoring are enforcing norms of the field.  In my fields,  knowing all the rules in a given situation and following the letter and the spirit is imperative.  For example, per the current employee handbook, I can be fired for leaving my office door open when I go down the hall to the break room.  I can be fired for not wearing my Covid mask while on company property.  I can be fired for entering a marked area without being current on the relevant training.

These are safety rules in place for excellent reasons.  They are Draconian because the stakes are so high for everyone involved (e.g., people have died through not following the current response requirements when the alarm sounded; the fire sweeps much more quickly through the area with open doors).

It must be nice to go through the motions of teaching and not feel any responsibility for ensuring that all graduates are highly educated and will do the right thing as professionals.  That's not my ego asserting power over the "enemy" students.  That's my experience as a professional in the field who has not limited myself to mere classroom experience.

[downer]

I'm completely with Downer on sticking with a policy once the assignment is done.

And I completely disagree with this-- when you've set a bad policy you should admit it and change it. Good teaching, like good doing any job, requires some flexibility and humility to adjust things when you realize something was a mistake. Do you really think sticking with a bad decision come hell or high water is going to accomplish anything good? It won't make students respect your authority if that's what you're thinking, they will just see you as unfair (and rightly so in my opinion).

I would just tell the students that I know mistakes happen, especially under stress, so I'm going to let them make up for it by signing the honor code now plus submitting a page on why the honor code is important. Make it a teachable moment.

Frankly, I'm dismayed by how many posters seem to see students as the enemy. Yes, we have to maintain standards, but in a way that serves a purpose, not just to assert our power.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad policy. Though it is hard to know without seeing more of the context. I'm not committed to defending the OP who has dropped out of the conversation.

I agree that faculty should correct mistakes. This wasn't a mistake. Maybe it was not optimal, but I don't generally want to second guess other faculty about what works for them.

What a dramatic way of putting it -- seeing the students as the "enemy." Of course they are not the enemy. Neither are they my friends. I tend to feel that people romanticize teaching. I'm paid to do a job and give students the opportunity to learn. I make expectations clear ahead of time. It is up to them to take advantage of the opportunity.

For those faculty who are looking for ways to deal with cheating, and are teaching many students, you often do have to take a dramatic stand.

[marshwiggle]

So if a student does not cheat and gets every question pertaining to the material right, but overlooks the direction to copy out the Honor Code, that student gets an F on the exam.

That's what some folks are advocating?

Yes.  If the engineer does all the plans and then doesn't file with the authorities in a timely manner, then that engineer has failed in the task, regardless of how fabulous those plans are.

Per Marshwiggle's point, labs often cover a wide variety of material all of which is prerequisite to the major.  Thus, being less than competent at any one part means failing the whole course. 

In this case, these were labs for non-majors, and the lab content was not specified by any higher authority than the lab supervisor, so it wasn't critical.

In relation to that, it's true that in many "certification" situations, there are certain requirements that, if unmet, prevent certification. However, in many of those certification situations the test can be retaken until the requirement is achieved.

For instance, when my kids were taking swimming lessons, at each level there were specific requirements for each level, and students couldn't progress until they met those. But, there was no limit to how many times one could take a particular set of lessons. In the university context, it would be much more reasonable to have "all-or-nothing" requirements if the system is set up for mastery, i.e. with multiple chances to be re-evaluated on those requirements until they are met. In most programs, courses can only be repeated once or twice, so that's not an option.

[polly_mer]

Maybe, but if a policy is stupid, people will balk.

Yep.  That's where the professor should know all the rules and be aligned with the letter and the spirit of the rules of the department and the institution.

The engineering departments where I've been will back the professor every time for anything not criminal.  However, a senior person will provide feedback on what to do differently next time.

SD near the end would send the chair to explain the realities of keeping students happy who were earning at least a C in the course.  If necessary, the final course grade would be quietly adjusted by the registrar on the dean's orders.  I know this because I watched a plagiarist get awards even after the F in a course required for graduation and was told as an untenured person to let it go.