An Illusion of Dishonesty
A student was referred to Student Judicial Affairs (SJA) for supposedly altering an exam before submitting it for re-grading in a math class. As justification for a higher grade, the student claimed that he wrote the correct answers on the back of the exam. During his informal meeting with a Judicial Officer, the student stated that he did not alter his exam but agreed that his actions could be construed as dishonest. The student received an Administrative Notice, which is an informal letter informing the student about University policy related to the violation they were referred for. In addition, the student was referred to the Student Academic Success Center.
Collaborative Exam?
A student (“Student A”) was referred to SJA for allegedly copying and/or collaborating with a friend seated next to her (“Student B”) during a math exam. Although no one noticed any suspicious behavior during the test itself, both students were referred to SJA because they had the same unusual and incorrect answer on a short-answer question. During her meeting with an SJA officer, Student A stated that she did not copy, collaborate or show her exam to her friend. She also asserted that she was earning a higher grade in the class. Since Student B admitted that she copied from Student A without her friend’s knowledge or assistance, the charges were dropped against Student A and she received a non-disciplinary Administrative Notice.
Copying X Three
A student was referred to SJA for suspected copying of a neighbor during both a midterm exam and a quiz for an upper-division class. During the tests, teaching assistants saw the student look at the other student’s exam many times, and this observation was later supported by the fact that both students’ exams had similar answers. The student admitted to copying during both the exam and the quiz and stated that she was experiencing some personal issues. Because the student was on Deferred Separation status due to a previous offense, she had given up her right to a formal hearing. Thus, after careful examination of the evidence, an SJA officer made the decision to suspend the student for one year.
