StuCo discusses exam reserves

The Ethics Board debated proposals to provide students with copies of old exams and to institute a change in the University Ethics Policy dealing with the punishment of second time ethics violators Thursday, Nov. 7.

The "problem" as referred to in the first proposal produced by the Ethics Board is that "there exists inequity between certain groups of students who have access to such archives of exams and those who do not possess the connections to obtain them...some students are unable to achieve an equal level of preparation for an exam as others."

All board members present at the meeting agreed that this problem is affecting our campus and that some action needs to be taken.

The original proposal debated by the board would "require the submission of all future undergraduate course exams (with the exception of a few) to the Milton S. Eisenhower Library public electronic reserve from all faculty members of each course."

But the proposal was quickly discarded by Daniel Weiss, the dean of the School of Arts and Sciences.

"Mandating this policy on faculty is very difficult because it is hard to enforce," he said. "Practically speaking, we need to put on the table what the problems and our solutions are."

It was agreed that the faculty needed to be made more aware of the problem at hand in hopes that such efforts would convince them to support the Ethics Board's policies. The Ethics Board is going to send three students to the regular department chairs meeting Friday, Nov. 15, to speak with department heads about recycling old exams and how unequal access can give an "unfair advantage" to certain students.

The Ethics Board also felt it was important to get awareness out to students.

"Possession and recycling of old exams is cheating in the honor code," said Ethics Board Chairperson John Tiberi. "Being in possession of questions is permitted; being in possession of answers is not allowed."

The decision made at the meeting was that the Board needed to work more with this policy. The majority, shown by a vote, did not feel they were ready to pass or fail this proposal; instead, they will be making some amendments to it and revisiting the discussion at a later meeting. What they did agree on will be included in their future proposal, as summarized by John Bader, the assistant dean of advising, is that changes will be made to the system for collection and distribution of exams, teachers will be requested to turn in previous exams to be put on reserves, exams will only include the questions and the Board will work to educate faculty about the situation of students who currently have previous exams.

Following that decision, the meeting moved on to the next proposal. This proposal was submitted by Benjy Silverman, last year's Ethics Board president. This proposition stated, "Second offenses would be treated with greater uniformity and severity. All students found guilty of second offenses would be immediately expelled from the University."

Currently, second offenses face a Currently, second offenses face a punishment as outlined by the Ethics Board, ranging from failure in the class with transcript notation to expulsion.

According to the proposal, "Most second offenses receive a sanction of failure in the class with a notation on the transcript or failure in the course with suspension from the University."

Opinions at the meeting ranged on this subject. Dorothy Sheppard, associate dean of student affairs, said, "I think it is a good idea we treat each case as an individual. Whenever you say automatic expulsion it is scary."

But Board Member RJ Hagerman said, "The real world is harsh, and if you don't prepare for it; the world will be hard on you."

Other concerns from members had to do with whether any two offenses would lead to expulsion or whether some of the misdemeanors would not be considered actions grave enough to require expulsion. The question also arose that if professors knew a student was going to be expelled, would they refrain from taking the student to the Ethics Board.

At the end of the meeting, the Board decided to continue this discussion at a later time, when they had more answers to their many questions.