Honor Advisory Council seeks to inspire student body

The Honor Advisory Council is a group of students and faculty that promotes awareness of the Institute's Honor Code. There is still the perception, however, that many students don't take the code seriously. Members of the HAC are trying to change that perception though programs that will educate the student body and increase awareness of the code.

"The Honor Code was created by the students and for the students," commented Honor Advisory Council member Leila Tolle. "Perhaps the greatest thing about this small group of us who compose the HAC is that although we are all so different and come from many different backgrounds, we share our new ideas and try to shape them into reality."

The council, which was started two years ago by a small student group, is now composed of about 20 students and faculty members. "Our goal is to create a Georgia Tech community with honor and integrity as its foundation-not only academic integrity, but integrity in every aspect of life," said HAC Chair Chris Young.

Although the HAC has worked to create various programs such as a FASET Panel to talk to incoming freshmen about the Honor Code and its integrity and presentations to the faculty during department meetings, it still may be virtually unknown by many people on campus.

In recent years, however, the HAC has tried to increase the general awareness of the Honor Code and its implications. To this end, the HAC created programs such as the Round Table. Instead of passing out surveys, the HAC felt that sharing information first hand could help them accomplish their goal more efficiently.

Many professors now remind students of the code on their syllabi and in classes during exams. Posters and open "town hall" meetings are also beginning to be seen more.

The Round Table is one of HAC's various programs. It is composed of a group of students from the Honor Advisory Board that join with a few members of the Georgia Tech faculty roughly every month to discuss important issues concerning the Honor Code. The most recent discussion, held on February 7, was made up of five students and four professors.

The discussion began with general opinions of the change in students' cheating habits over time. Dr. Wampler commented that he would like to "take away the temptation [to cheat] by spacing people out," since students are currently sworn not to cheat. Student Drake Tolliver agreed, stating, "until there is a requirement [for students] to turn people in, it makes sense." Although normal modes of cheating such as "wandering eyes" and baseball caps, as Dr. Barke noted, have appeared to decline, Dr. Giebelhaus is "not sure whether a change in culture is occurring or not." He cited a blatant case of cheating where the student blindly copied another's answers; as Giebelhaus was using multiple, coded sets of exams, the student was caught.

Soon, the main focus shifted to perhaps the most widely talked about and debated form of the definition of what's cheating, the infamous Tech "word." There were different opinions regarding the definition of "word" and the correct interpretation of the Honor Code regarding this subject: actual versus sample questions. The professors discussed several means that students used to obtain word; these include extreme measures such as, according to Barke, "digging through dumpsters after exams," and the more accepted means such as online word from places such as WebCT, the library database, and "local word" such as fraternities, OMED, and special programs such as the Athletic Association and the President's Scholars. The focus on word, therefore, was also to prevent others from gaining an unfair advantage over other students.

When it comes to word, what's cheating and what isn't? Since, as Giebelhaus stated, "people see word as the way to prepare for exams," he believes that Word represents a "gray area," and is, therefore, "one step away from cheating." He remarked that "word feeds the trivialization of education process," and called word "the cancer eating at the President of Georgia Tech." He said that the "Honor Code was a way to make word a two-way street," meaning that since everyone is provided word under the Code, no one has an unfair advantage. Although there are some classes that provide actual tests and still have the ability to change and manipulate their questions so students have to prove they know the material well, other classes cannot. "There is only one way," as Barke noted, "to ask to list the three branches of the US Government."

So what solution do professors have age-old word problem? Wampler suggested that students receive the tests but not the final; he justified this by stating that the tests would help the students prepare for the final. Giebelhaus allowed students who come to his office hours to "write down test questions but not [get their] tests back," for which Tolliver noted that "keeping old exams is bad because some students cannot meet with their professors; they don't have time and [so] they don't know why they made a bad grade."

The discussion then turned to a heated debate about students receiving the Tech "Shaft," as well as the adversarial battle between students and professors. Barke described it as students "coming to Georgia Tech to play a game with Georgia Tech and beat Georgia Tech instead of [coming with the intention of] actually cheating." He further expounded, "Students and the society around them see Georgia Tech as a means of getting a degree and getting a job." It is about the output, namely grades, rankings, and statistics rather than joining together in a community. Professor Cochran added that it is a matter of "seeing what you [the student] can get away with." Student Sang Lee illustrated that it is a focus perhaps fed by the Georgia Tech propaganda. He said that it "promotes the rankings [of Georgia Tech] and the starting salaries [graduating students attain] instead of promoting values." He further stated that although "students feel that the faculty is 'the other side,' they care about those who seem to care about their learning," illustrating the importance of the student/professor relationship in decreasing cheating episodes.

Cochran's belief that "students are more focused on grades than the actual process" illustrated the principle of the professors that they are driven solely to attain the finished product, namely the grades and degree, rather than the learning process one undergoes to get it. The group went on to discuss how students do not view Tech on a personal level, but rather as a battle in which the winner "gets out" or graduates. On this topic, Barke stated that "curving down is insidious, wrong, and also propagates this culture."

Mosheni ended the symposium by questioning the desired future of the Honor Code. Most agreed that there is a need for heightened awareness; Tolliver would like to see a more specific Honor Code, defining more clearly what is allowed. However, the panel does not want Georgia Tech to have an extremely rigid code; Giebelhaus specifically cited UVA's Honor Code as being too inflexible, since students receive reprimands for failing to report cheating incidences. Barke feels that a more rigid code is unneeded. He hopes that "we are not worse off than we are now," yet everyone needs to be aware that "academic misconduct is unacceptable." He also noted that the faculty should be "making students aware of how lucky they are to be here."

"We don't want students to see the Honor Code just as a bunch of rules," commented Tolle. "It was created by the students to benefit the students. It's not supposed to be 'The Shaft,' as a lot of students look at it." What's the greatest hope for all the Honor Advisory Council? Tolle replied, "We hope that the Honor Code will become a normal part of campus. It won't have to be defined for different classes or people; it will be the same for everyone. People won't even have to think about them, because [the Honor Code is] just a part of [the student body]. With this thought, instead of people saying they 'got out' of Georgia Tech, the will instead say they worked hard, had fun, and 'graduated.'"

For more information about the Honor Advisory Council, please e-mail honor@smash.gatech.edu or contact any member of the HAC. The council's Web site is located at http://www.honor.gatech.edu.