1. The information was created on September 24, 2012.
2. The age of the information depends on the context and topic. In this case, since the article is discussing the effectiveness of honor codes, the information may still be relevant as the concept of honor codes hasn't drastically changed in recent years.
3. The currency of the information can matter in some cases, especially when discussing statistics or current practices. However, in this instance, the focus is on the underlying principles and effectiveness of honor codes, so the currency may be less important.
1. Yes, the information is related to the prompt as it discusses the use and effectiveness of honor codes, which is the topic of the prompt.
2. The information provides a perspective on the effectiveness of honor codes based on research and experiences at other colleges, which can support the stance on whether honor codes can improve academic integrity.
3. The article is written for an audience interested in higher education, specifically the use and effectiveness of honor codes. It may be intended for educators, administrators, and students interested in academic integrity.
Dirmeyer, Jennifer, and Alexander Cartwright. “Honor
Codes Work Where Honesty Has Already Taken
Root.” Chronicle of Higher Education. Chronicle of
Higher Education, 24 Sept. 2012. Web. 20 March
2013.
The following is excerpted from a commentary published in an online newspaper focused on higher education.
The possibility that 125 Harvard students “improperly collaborated” on an exam in the spring has galvanized a
continuing discussion about the use of honor codes. While Harvard administrators hope that an honor code can
improve the academic integrity of the college, critics—especially Harvard students—are skeptical that signing a
piece of paper will suddenly cause a cheater to change his ways.
They’re right. Not all colleges have what it takes to make an honor code effective—not because the students aren’t
honest, but because they don’t expect anyone else to be. And with honor codes, expectations determine reality.
According to research by Donald L. McCabe, a professor of management at Rutgers University who specializes in
student integrity, students at colleges with honor codes—typically student-enforced—cheat less than their
counterparts elsewhere do. Our experience at Hampden-Sydney College would seem to support this conclusion: We
find little evidence of cheating, even when professors work in their offices during exams. Indeed, you have not seen
an honor code at work until you have seen a show of hands for those who did not do the reading for today’s class
turn out to be completely accurate.
Our honor code is strictly enforced, and the enforcement is handled by an all-student court. Students convicted of
lying or cheating can expect to receive punishments ranging from suspension to expulsion.
However, honor codes don’t always work. Mr. McCabe says that their success depends on a “culture of academic
integrity” that leads students to take enforcement of the rules seriously. But economic theory suggests that it’s more
a matter of expectations. When it works, the culture makes for a successful honor code as much as the honor code
makes for a successful culture.
Student expectations about the integrity of their classmates can determine whether the college culture reinforces
honesty. Say that each student arrives as a “cheater” type, an “honest” type, or somewhere on the continuum
between them. Whatever the individual’s innate level of integrity, we believe that each student will decide whether
or not to cheat by weighing the costs and benefits.
With a peer-enforced honor code, the likelihood of being caught depends on other students’ tolerance for cheating.
Students who enter a college of mostly “honest” types will more often choose not to cheat even if they are innately
“cheater” types, because the higher risk of getting caught makes the costs greater.
That leads to a feedback loop, as more of the population behaves like “honest” types than normally would,
increasing the impression that everyone is honest and raising still higher the expectation of being caught. This
feedback loop generates the culture of trust and integrity that students—like those at, say, Davidson College, which
has a well-publicized honor code—reportedly value so highly.
Unfortunately, the feedback loop can go the other way. If a student enters a college with mostly “cheater” types, not
only are the costs of cheating very low, encouraging fellow “cheater” types to cheat, but the benefits of cheating (or
the costs of not cheating) are very high, encouraging even “honest” types to cheat. That leads more students to cheat
than would normally do so, creating a culture of dishonesty.
The success of the honor code, then, depends on the expectations that students have of their peers’ behavior, which
is why colleges with successful honor codes must invest considerable resources in programs that influence how the
honor code is perceived.
1. When was the information created?
2. How old is too old?
3. Does the currency of the information matter?
1. Is the information related to the prompt?
2. Does the information support your stance?
3. Who is this written for?
1 answer