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.
Authority
1. Who or what created the information?
2. Who or what is publishing the information?
3. What credentials, education, affiliations, or experience does the information creator have to write on this topic?
4. What can we tell from the domain of the website where the information has been published?
Purpose
1. Why was this information created?
2. Was the information created to inform, teach, sell, entertain, or persuade you?
3. Is the purpose made clear?
Authority:
1. The information was created by Jennifer Dirmeyer and Alexander Cartwright.
2. The information was published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, which is a reputable source focused on higher education.
3. The credentials, affiliations, and experience of the information creators are not stated in the excerpt.
4. The website domain, chronicle.com, indicates that the information is published on a reliable and credible platform.
Purpose:
1. The information was created to discuss the use of honor codes in higher education, particularly in relation to the recent scandal at Harvard.
2. The purpose of the information is to provide insight and analysis on the effectiveness of honor codes and to present personal experiences and research findings.
3. The purpose is made clear in the article excerpt.
Authority:
1. The information was created by Dirmeyer, Jennifer, and Alexander Cartwright.
2. The information was published in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
3. The credentials, education, affiliations, or experience of the information creators are not mentioned in the excerpt.
4. From the domain of the website ("chronicle.com"), we can infer that it is a reputable source focused on higher education.
Purpose:
1. The information was created to discuss the use and effectiveness of honor codes in colleges.
2. The purpose of the information is to inform and engage in a discussion about honor codes.
3. The purpose is made clear, as the authors provide insight into research and their own experiences to support their claims.
To analyze the authority and purpose of the information provided, we can apply a set of questions to the given excerpt:
Authority:
1. Who or what created the information?
The information was created by Jennifer Dirmeyer and Alexander Cartwright, as stated in the full reference.
2. Who or what is publishing the information?
The information was published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, which is an online newspaper focused on higher education.
3. What credentials, education, affiliations, or experience does the information creator have to write on this topic?
From the given text, it is not explicitly stated what credentials or experience the information creators possess. However, it is mentioned that they have experience at Hampden-Sydney College, which could indicate their expertise in higher education matters.
4. What can we tell from the domain of the website where the information has been published?
The fact that the information was published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, a well-known and respected source focused on higher education, suggests that it is a reliable and credible source of information in this context.
Purpose:
1. Why was this information created?
The information was created to discuss the use of honor codes in colleges and universities, specifically in relation to the recent controversy at Harvard University concerning academic integrity.
2. Was the information created to inform, teach, sell, entertain, or persuade you?
The information seems to primarily aim to inform and discuss the effectiveness of honor codes in promoting academic integrity. It presents intellectual arguments and evidence to support its claims.
3. Is the purpose made clear?
Yes, the purpose is made clear in the excerpt. It explicitly discusses the use of honor codes in colleges and universities and presents arguments regarding their effectiveness.
Overall, while the information creators' specific credentials are not explicitly stated, the fact that the information was published in a reputable source focused on higher education suggests that it is a reliable and credible source. The purpose of the information is to inform and discuss the effectiveness of honor codes in promoting academic integrity.