Only 41 undergraduate students were cited for potential academic violations last year, The Herald reported last week. Out of a total undergraduate population of around 6,000 students, that number represents less than 1 percent of the student body.
We should be proud to see so few reported academic violations. However, the numbers suggest that students aren't necessarily shining examples of morality — rather, it seems most cheaters just aren't getting caught.
Seventy percent of violations were reported by the Department of Computer Science, according to The Herald. We find it hard to believe that computer science students simply cheat with such disproportionate frequency, especially considering that The Herald conducted a poll last year in which 17 percent of undergraduates admitted cheating during their time at Brown. Instead, violations in other departments, particularly the humanities, are going unnoticed.
It's important to note that cheating takes many forms. The most obvious way to cheat is to copy something from another student. This means glancing at another student's exam in a large lecture room or lifting someone else's idea without proper attribution. This kind of behavior is the most blatantly dishonest and was the focus of the recent Herald report.
For instance, many students are able to access previous exams or answer keys for a class from older students that have already taken the course. Given that some professors reuse questions in alternating years, this gives students with older friends an advantage compared to the rest of the class. But even things as commonplace as copying another student's homework answers are technically cheating.
The problem with these practices is that they give unfair advantages to students with the right connections — or without the right moral compass. It also inflates grades in classes that are curved, making it more difficult for diligent students to excel. One possible solution would be for professors to make the material open to everyone. True, this may mean having to write new exams every year, but it would level the playing field for students.
We realize that many of the subtler forms of cheating are harder to detect. One of the simplest steps the computer science department takes to discourage this type of behavior is to make its collaboration policy clear. This may be a good first step for departments that want to cut down on borderline cases.
Additionally, administrators might want to consider programs like Turnitin, or similar software. Because it's much more difficult for professors to catch incidents of plagiarism in humanities classes where essays and papers dominate, a tool like this could be valuable to professors in those departments. Though some have raised questions about the possible cost of subscribing to programs like Turnitin, they usually charge several dollars per student and a relatively small base licensing fee.
It's true that this would total several thousand dollars, but it would also take the burden of double checking papers off of professors, and allow them to catch dishonesty that otherwise would have gone unpunished. We think the small expense is worth the benefits it would provide, especially considering that Brown already spends a good deal of money to allow members of the community to access costly journals and programs.
We're certainly not asking for more cheating violations. But it's clear that many students cheat, and in some way or another most are getting away with it. This is ultimately unfair to students in more vigilant departments, and it diminishes the value of everyone's degree. We hope professors in other departments can find novel ways to enforce an honest work ethic so that computer science concentrators aren't the only ones that get caught.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials (at) browndailyherald.com.
