missing honor code

[polly_mer]

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.

I want to agree, but I've taught aspiring engineers and aspiring teachers at an open enrollment institutions.  Restructuring intro courses to be more mastery based can work to support people who want to learn, but are starting significantly below college ready.

Letting people spend significant money for the fourth try at an intro course is generally ripping that student off.  It's kinder to the student to have the student explore other options.

As a practical matter, often every seat in the program is precious.  It is not fair to other aspiring students to not get a seat because someone who has shown themselves incapable is still taking up the slot.  It's not fair to the ither students in the course to be denied additional peers who would be more useful in professional networks.

From a resource allocation standpoint, if seats are rationed due to overwhelming student demand compared to faculty supply, then weeding quickly is the best option.

If society is short on whatever so every aspiring student is precious, then mastery with a lot of support is the way to go.  However, that's far less common than turning away students due to lack of seats.

[Ruralguy]

If you want to weed out more engineers just put a couple of more questions on the exam that are even slightly more algebra intense.  If you are trying to train and weed out writers, maybe grade grammar and spelling more harshly. You can get me behind those programs!

I know you (Polly) brought up soft skills. people who survive long enough in the program will take part in team projects, discuss ethics, etc.. I don't think that's really a problem in the context of most engineering programs.

But saying "Draw a picture of a kitten sitting under a rainbow at the bottom of the page or you will get a zero" is kind of dumb. Making that the Honor Code is slightly more admirable in its ultimate goal, but operationally its the same. That is, you are just forcing people to do something because you can, and in the end, you know a few nervous people will miss and you give them no recourse.

[polly_mer]

That is, you are just forcing people to do something because you can

One of the hardest soft skills for which to hire is getting people who will do what needs to be done in the way it needs to be done in the time allotted.

If I hire you for expertise in X, then definitely point out all problems related to X.

If you see a health or safety problem, then stop work and discuss the issue.

If you see process improvements to be made, then fill out the form and make an appointment to discuss.

But for the most part, knuckling under and jumping every hoop is the successful strategy for the early career person expecting to enter a career filled with paperwork, details, and "stupid" rules.  We're not going to hire people whose job history indicates a refusal to knuckle under and avoiding being "the man" enforcing the stupid rules.

I am reminded of an email from a professor to a mailing list requesting to be removed from the list because he was no longer involved in a relevant project.  The response was "useless email for only four months?!  You don't have a high enough pain threshold to work where the rest of us work!"

Now, I have to go fill out the paperwork for next week's meeting that would logically be filled out after the meeting, but legally must be submitted prior.

[Caracal]

But saying "Draw a picture of a kitten sitting under a rainbow at the bottom of the page or you will get a zero" is kind of dumb. Making that the Honor Code is slightly more admirable in its ultimate goal, but operationally its the same. That is, you are just forcing people to do something because you can, and in the end, you know a few nervous people will miss and you give them no recourse.

There are plenty of natural consequences that will result from inattention to detail without trying to impose pretend consequences to make a point. Forget to do the reading quiz and you get a zero on it. If you completely fail to follow the instructions for the paper, you will fail it. Things like that are the equivalent of failing to file the plan with the city. This is basically the equivalent of a boss firing someone for being 20 minutes late to work one day. (And yes, I can imagine some job and some scenario in which that would be reasonable, but the natural consequences in those scenarios are going to be obvious and not equivalent to failing to copy out the honor code.)

[Ruralguy]

I think we are selecting for different things in our applicant pools, Polly.

Though I'd rather not have to put up with a co-worker who gets upset at even one slightly excess email, I very much want a co-worker who will actually try to revise idiotic rules rather than put up with them because they have always been there. It perhaps means I have colleagues who are a bit too strident for their own good, but I can live with that.

[downer]

Regarding the original case, it wasn't clear to me what proportion of the course grade the exam is. It didn't mean that life ended for the student, as far as I could tell, if they didn't copy the honor code.

If I were to adopt the policy of the OP, I might combine it with dropping the lowest exam grade.

[Ruralguy]

I could get behind that....

[centurion]

Thank you for all the suggestions.

I looked carefully at all nonsigners. Some were hardworking students, who came regularly to office hours, and greatly improved from the start of the course. Some I had more doubts about. But there were students who did sign and I do suspect them of cheating.

So it looks like there is no correlation between signing and cheating, and I decided to let it go.

[Hibush]

Thank you for all the suggestions.

I looked carefully at all nonsigners. Some were hardworking students, who came regularly to office hours, and greatly improved from the start of the course. Some I had more doubts about. But there were students who did sign and I do suspect them of cheating.

So it looks like there is no correlation between signing and cheating, and I decided to let it go.

Good use of data to inform your choice of action.