Cheating@MIT-Responsibilities for Reporting and Taking Disciplinary Action: Interview
Author(s): Jennifer C. Han
Interview
I decided to start by talking to an undergraduate grader in a class where the weekly assignments are graded on the +/- system. As I was currently taking the class, it was easier to communicate with the staff. In response to the scenario, the grader said he would take the cheating incident to the recitation instructor. In his opinion, the recitation instructor would probably talk to the student and give the student a minus on that specific paper. He also mentioned that a less forgiving instructor may take the incident to the CAP (Committee on Academic Performance) or inform that student's advisor. In any case, he said that he did not feel it was in his authority to handle the incident. Hence, the next person I talked to was a recitation instructor for the class.
The recitation instructor said that he would not take any disciplinary action himself before consulting the professor of the class. I contacted the professor and appraised him of the scenario. As he was unsure how the rules in the book of regulations applied to the case at hand, he decided to forward my e-mail to another MIT professor.
This professor stated that MIT professors do not have any "official responsibilities" when they discover a cheating incident, and that a professor's responsibility is to "use their best judgment." He sent me the following e-mail:
Most faculty do not spend a lot of time searching for cheating; they erect modest barriers in obvious places, and put their intellectual energy into other things that seem more productive. If cheating does turn up, they usually react strongly, and negatively. This combination, on average, has a certain effect; one can debate whether or not it is good or bad.
My own inclination would be the following: if a student reported that this kind of thing was happening, or two of the TAs noticed it, I would ask all the TAs to get together and do a cross-check of all the papers for one or two weeks. Assuming they found the examples of identical papers, call the offending students in, tell them they have screwed up royally, throw out the grades on all the papers they have turned in to date (it becomes their burden to convince me that they didn't collaborate on all of them), and let them know in the strongest terms that they are jeopardizing their entire professional career. But probably not do anything more. This action is probably sufficiently terrifying, and the educational goal is that the students should learn to behave properly. The weekly recitation papers aren't that big a deal, and they don't have that big an effect on grades, anyway.
If several students are turning in the same design project (which is worth much more than the weekly papers), I would react more strongly. In addition to recording an F for that project, I might check with their 6.001 and 6.004 instructors to see if there was any suspicion of problems there. If someone is found clearly cheating on a quiz (I have never encountered that case in 6.033), I think I would throw the book (and the Committee on Discipline) at them.
In short, this professor thought that the degree of punishment should be up to the individual professor. He felt that most professors would administer punishment depending on the severity of the cheating. In the scenario I presented, the homework was not worth very much of the student's grade. The problem set was mainly given to help students study for exams and keep up with the class. Hence, the professor imagines that most professors would meet with the students and give them a verbal warning. The Committee on Discipline (COD) is only called for in the most severe cheating cases.
I looked into the COD. A complaint about a student can be brought up by anyone at MIT (grader, recitation instructor, professor etc.). The charge and its documentation is transmitted to the Chairman of the Committee on Discipline. After a review of the documentation, the Chairman must decide whether or not a hearing is warranted. Given that a hearing is warranted, the accused and complainant go through a formal hearing somewhat similar to a legal court case. There are three perceived categories of offense, which are as follows:
- those infringing upon academic affairs and standards.
- those violating non-academic internal regulations or standards of conduct at MIT.
- those against city, state, or federal law.
Sanctions vary according to the severity of the offense and include reprimand, probation, suspension, and expulsion. The scenario I presented (copying problem sets from a bible) falls under the first category of offense and would probably warrant only a reprimand.
I contacted a staff member of the COD. The staff member stated that although TAs and graders are allowed to bring on formal charges against students, most times the charges are brought on by the professor (after being informed by the grader or TA.) If the professor decides to bring in the COD, the professor first discusses the situation with her. In minor cases (such as a first offense for copying from a bible), she recommends putting a warning letter in the student's file in the Dean's office. The existence of the warning letter is known by only herself, the professor, and the student. If the student already has a letter in his file, the professor may decide to bring formal charges. Once a professor decides on formal charges, the punishment is entirely up to the COD. In a case where two students are copying from a bible, the COD is very unlikely to expel the students. In most cases similar to my scenario, the student is placed on either formal or informal probation. Under informal probation, a note is placed in the student's record in the Office of the Dean for Student Affairs. Under formal probation, the cheating incident is noted on the student's official transcript. The staff member further stated that the student who provided the bible, knowing that bibles are not permitted in the class, should receive a letter of reprimand.
See copy of the COD's Rules and Regulations.
Back to Top
Related Resources
MIT Resources on Disciplinary Action
Other Sources
Cite this page:
"Cheating@MIT-Responsibilities for Reporting and Taking Disciplinary Action: Interview"
Online Ethics Center for Engineering
6/8/2006
National Academy of Engineering
Accessed: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
<www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/cheating/cheat-int.aspx>