An anonymous commenter on an earlier post directed my attention to this line from an e-mail that all NDLS students received Tuesday from Student Services:
Finally, with increased technological advancements, please note that iPods, MP3 players, cell phones and any personal digital assistants will not be allowed in classrooms during exams.
Thank you in advance for complying with these guidelines, and please contact me with any questions.
This may seem quite reasonable to outsiders, but you have to understand, Notre Dame Law School makes such a big deal about its “Honor Code,” which is basically a self-enforced set of ethical obligations, that it’s a bit strange to see a policy like this — especially given how many professors give take-home exams, with rules like “once you start, you have eight hours to finish… you’re under the Honor Code.” So, we’re considered totally trustworthy in “take-home” classes, but in classes with scheduled exams, we’re so untrustworthy that we’re not even allowed to have an iPod or cell phone tucked away in a backpack during the exam? It doesn’t make much sense to me.
Anyway, I just fired off an e-mail expressing my opinion on the matter, the bulk of which I’ve reprinted after the jump. I’m curious what my fellow NDLSers think about this. Am I totally out in left field here, or do my objections make some sense?
My e-mail to Student Services:
I want to voice an objection to this policy:
“Finally, with increased technological advancements, please note that iPods, MP3 players, cell phones and any personal digital assistants will not be allowed in classrooms during exams.”
Do we not have an Honor Code for this sort of thing? It is, frankly, very insulting that the law-school administration would adopt a policy that basically assumes all students are cheaters, while at the same time purporting to respect our honesty and integrity through the self-enforced Honor Code. The inconsistency is really quite jarring. And in this case, the policy that’s been adopted (without any attempt to solicit student input, I might add) is very inconvenient for students who have no intention of cheating, but have valid reasons to have such devices around.
The reality is, there are countless legitimate uses for iPods, MP3 players, cell phones and PDAs in classrooms during the period immediately before and after exams. For example, students who wish to get a seat in the exam room well before the test starts, but then continue studying without distraction from other students, may want to listen to their iPod or MP3 player to “block out the world,” as it were. For another example, after the exam is over, students may want to send a text-message via cell phone to their ride home, or check their PDA to see what the rest of their schedule for the day holds. There are many other possibilities. But of course, if these devices aren’t “allowed in classrooms during exams,” then as a practical matter, we can’t have them in the classroom immediately before or after exams, either. Once the exam starts, where are we going to put them? Are dozens of students going to rush en masse to our lockers and back, potentially missing instructions from the professor and generally creating a big disruption? What an absurd inconvenience that would be, when the logical thing would be to simply put the devices away in our backpacks. But that would violate the policy.
I can certainly understand banning the use of these devices during the exam itself. Although, if we’re really going to respect the Honor Code, the ban should simply be on using the devices in any way related to the exam (e.g., listening to stored answers), or in any way that disrupts other students… so, for example, if someone wants to listen to classical music on their iPod via headphones, with the volume turned so far down that nobody else can hear, because it soothes them and helps them concentrate during the exam, that should be OK, if the Honor Code really means what it purports to mean. But still, for convenience’s sake and appearance’s sake, I can understand a blanket ban on using these devices during the exam. But to ban even their presence is really inconvenient, and a huge slap in the face to students, in my opinion.
I realize such rules are common elsewhere, like at Bar Exams and, I presume, other law schools. But I thought Notre Dame’s mission was to train “a different kind of lawyer,” and I thought the Honor Code was a big part of that philosophy. So I guess my point is this: either we have an Honor Code, or we don’t. Either exams are policed via the Honor Code, or they’re not. This sort of blanket policy encourages mistrust and cynicism, and penalizes people for perfectly legitimate activities. Meanwhile, if somebody really wants to cheat, they’ll still be able to, thanks to the leeway we’re given in other ways under the Honor Code. Again, the inconsistency is jarring.
I want to make one final point, since I’m already going down this road. The biggest example of the inconsistency between the Honor Code and the law school’s actual policies is SecureExam. As you know, SecureExam is a perpetually buggy piece of software. Every year, there is some new problem with it. It’s a huge hassle, a huge pain, a huge inconvenience for everyone, you included, to make us use SecureExam instead of simply allowing us to type our exams on Microsoft Word, and certify on pain of the Honor Code that we’re not IMing or researching on the Internet during the exam. Yet the law school insists on SecureExam, despite its obvious flaws. Why? If we have an Honor Code, and we really believe in it, then why is SecureExam necessary, and why do we continue to use it, despite its glaring deficiencies? On the other hand, if we don’t really believe in the Honor Code, then why does the law school allow professors to, if they so choose, give “take-home” exams, governed entirely by the Honor Code? It doesn’t make any sense to me. I suppose faculty politics may explain some of it, but as a matter of principle, the current state of affairs seems pretty nonsensical.
Well, anyway, thanks for taking the time to read this. I just wanted to make sure this opinion is heard, because I think students sometimes just get annoyed and gripe to one another about this sort of thing, without actually expressing themselves to the “powers that be.” But I’m quite certain I’m not the only person who feels this way.
|
Categories: Notre Dame, Law School
|
February 8th, 2007 at 2:41:37 am
Quite right, Mr. Spiccoli. It IS ooouuuuurrr time. Quick everyone, Mr. Spiccoli graciously provided pizza for us all. Get a good one (piece)!
You are correct, Brendan. Either the honor code is applicable across all situations, or it isn’t an honor code. As a practical matter, it seems to me the end is nigh for take-home (out of classroom) exams.
Me? If I were a Dean? I would regard all test takers as cheaters and take all measures available to me in an attempt to thwart them.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:17:50 am
Maybe it has to do with the honor code, but I figured it was to avoid having someone’s iPod cranked too loud during the exam or a cell phone accidentally going off. Maybe I’m wrong.
February 8th, 2007 at 8:17:20 am
This would seem to be a classic opportunity for civil disobedience. As you rightly point out, these devices are ubiquitous before and after exams. If we all stow them in our backpacks in the classroom, and no one reports the “violation,” then there is little to be done other than recognize the futility of enforcing a classroom-wide ban. I suppose the entire class could be charged with Honor Code violations either for having a device in the classroom, or ignoring the duty to report violations of which one has knowledge. But that’s simply impractical, so the net result is the unenforceability (or, more precisely, the reasonable interpretation and application) of this particular rule.
February 8th, 2007 at 8:47:45 am
Thoreau:
The actions you propose would themselves be a violation of the honor code in my estimation.
Brendan:
While I am traditional and romantic enough to wish that honor codes were all that was required anymore, I think it’s just wishful thinking. There are just too many cynics out there right now who think honor is for suckers. Honor codes are based on a civil society that rewards values such as honor. Sadly, much of today’s youth has not even been exposed to the concept and importance of honor. Even the military academies that have operated on honor codes have had major scandals due to large numbers of students ignoring them. Sadly it appears that honor codes are an outdated legacy from our past.
February 8th, 2007 at 8:50:22 am
I think Anonymous is right. It probably has less to do with people being able to cheat than it does with people not turning shit off.
I’d note that the list does not include CD walkmen or such things. Perhaps the idea that someone would have such a thing is laughable, but if you really need music to take a test (and I highly doubt that anyone has gotten to law school listening to music every time they took a test), that would be a reasonable accomodation.
I suspect that it’s probably a response to complaints about people not only not turning their phones, etc., off during exams but also answering them or popping out their earbuds right before the test is handed out and not turning them off.
And if this policy is an affront to the honor code, why isn’t SecurExam? Heck, why isn’t handwriting? When I started at NDLS, there was no secure exam so it was either handwriting or completely open-book.
February 8th, 2007 at 8:51:59 am
I think Anonymous makes a good point. I remember 1L year when someone’s cell phone actually went off in the middle of an exam, and the person didn’t notice it for awhile because she was wearing ear plugs. On that note, I could see why cell phones wouldn’t be allowed in the room, because there could always be someone who forgets to turn theirs off. I don’t understand how that would extend to MP3 players though. I could understand banning the use of them during the exam so that someone doesn’t disturb others by having it turned up too loud. I don’t understand why they can’t even be in the room. What harm is it doing by being in someone’s bag? The same goes for PDAs. Maybe their use during an exam is distracting or something, but what’s wrong with having it turned off and shoved into your bag?
What makes me the most suspicious is the phrase “with increased technological advancements.” This makes it sound like they really are concerned about us cheating, since many PDAs and cell phones can access the internet (and maybe there’s podcasts on Fed Tax out there somewhere that someone could be listening to during an exam). If that’s true, then, as Brendan says, the Honor Code really does seem worthless.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:00:19 am
gahrie:
Indeed they would be, as my proposal acknowledged. Assuming that keeping a device in one’s backpack in the classroom during the exam rises to the level of an Honor Code violation, then any student who knows that another student is keeping a device in the classroom and fails to report it, is also in violation of the Code.
Indeed, my entire point is that the Honor Code is essentially defined and enforced by the student body itself. If we do not report incidents that might be considered violations, then speaking practically, they cease to be violations. Yes, a faculty or administration member might bring a violation to the Council’s attention, but in the face of the widespread civil disobedience I propose, the reporter and Council would be faced with instituting proceedings against virtually the entire class, which similarly is not practical.
The flexibility inherent in the Honor Code’s provisions guarantees that the obligations we mutually undertake are reasonably calibrated to our common understanding and expectation of what constitutes honorable behavior. Edicts from the administration that do not comport with that common understanding need not, simply by being edicts from the administration, nonetheless be violations of the Honor Code, if we as a student body community elect not to alter our common understanding of the Honor Code’s standards to accommodate them.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:03:07 am
NDLS2006,
I think the reason they don’t mention CD walkmen is because the idea is, as you said, laughable. I don’t think anyone has been using them during exams, and I’m sure if someone asked, they would be included in the ban. If anything, a CD walkman could be more distracting, since if it’s not one that can play MP3 CDs, then you’d have to change CDs probably 2-4 times during the exam, whereas an MP3 player can hold enough music to easily last through a 3 or 4 hour exam.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:10:46 am
Well, I think the idea that someone “needs” to listen to music during an exam is itself laughable, so I guess it’s a wash.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:14:00 am
Oh, and Thoreau, that theory has been tested to a certain extent. The year before I got to NDLS, a student turned herself and several other students in for cheating on Prof. Garnett’s take-home Crim final first semester of 1L year. She alleged that she and the others used the extra time over and above the time allotted for completing the test that was specifically allotted for saving, printing, and travel on the test itself. The reporter ended up being the only one sanctioned because they had no actual proof that anyone else cheated.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:16:37 am
“And if this policy is an affront to the honor code, why isn’t SecurExam? Heck, why isn’t handwriting? When I started at NDLS, there was no secure exam so it was either handwriting or completely open-book. ”
Seems to be that Securexam, or somethiing like it, can be justified on the basis of the relative administrative ease of wireless transmission of the exam to a server from which the exams can all be printed and delivered to the faculty member. Can you imagine the run on our poor printers if a couple hundred people were trying to print their exams off simultaneously? Or the nightmare for the faculty assistants getting bombarded with email attachments that they then have to print off?
That said, I assume it would be not too difficult to get the administrative convenience of Securexam without the bugs.
I’m not sure I see how handwriting an exam violates the Honor Code.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:29:08 am
Brendan,
Do you actually even have a class that has an in-class final this semester? I thought you were doing pretty much that touchy-feely, write a paper about your experience in Gaelic type classes.
It’s certainly not the first time any group of people “in charge” have taken a far too expansive step to address a perceived problem.
I would have to agree with you (though I know nothing of NDLS specific Honor Code) that policies such as what you’ve mentioned would seem to be unnecessary with the Honor Code in place.
Harsh, brutal enforcement of the Honor Code is what is required. Public flogging, branding cheaters with a red-hot iron, excommunication from the law school community, or worse yet, graduation from law school, seem to be suitable punishments.
Seriously, though. If you’re going to trust students to live by an Honor Code, trust them to do so. If you don’t trust them, then set up a huge list of Do’s and Don’ts and call it a policy manual.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:34:02 am
Thoreau:
Your position seems to be we must destroy the honor code in order to save it.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:35:38 am
Can you imagine the run on our poor printers if a couple hundred people were trying to print their exams off simultaneously? Or the nightmare for the faculty assistants getting bombarded with email attachments that they then have to print off?
Yep. That used to be the way it was done. Before the dawn of SecurExam, some professors (including the famed Bill Kelley and Vincent Rougeau) used to allow students to type their finals and gave an extra half-hour for printing. It actually worked out just fine — even for large first year classes like Con Law and Property.
SecurExam was implemented as a way for professors to continue to offer closed-book exams but still allow students to type. It had little to do with printing convenience. Like it or not, there are still lots of subtle ways in which the NDLS Honor Code is far from “pristine.” This new policy is hardly “overboard.” While the Honor Code is important, an above poster makes the important point — because it’s student-enforced (technically) those who cheat get an advantage because odds are they’re never going to get caught.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:36:29 am
I’d add that those finals that could be typed before the implementation of SecurExam were completely “open materials.”
February 8th, 2007 at 9:41:36 am
gahrie:
Completely false. My position is that the Honor Code is student-administered and student-enforced. The administration cannot turn a non-violation into a violation simply by saying so. If students do not report violations, indeed if they do not consider the activity to even be reportable violations, then there is no violation. The terms of the Honor Code remain in place and remain binding; the interpretation suggested by the administration is only that — an interpretation. It need not be accepted by the student community, which has ultimate responsibility for the Code’s enforcement.
NDLS2006:
It seems to me that the scenario describe offers further disincentive for people to report violations — lamentable, since in this situation, there can be no serious argument that the Code was not in fact violated.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:02:43 am
Brendan, if this new policy is aimed at cheating, I agree that it is an affront to the Honor Code. I have heard that at other schools the Honor Code truly is entirely student-enforced. I really do not get that sense at NDLS. Of course, I have not had to deal with the Honor Code directly during my 2 1/2 years here, so I may be wrong. If the concern is about cell phones etc. going off, then the email could have been tailored to meet that concern–which is very real. I know that I hate when devices go off during class, let alone during an exam. How tough is it to click “off?”
I also agree with the poster who suggested out that SecureExam arguably belies the administration’s lack of trust of students in following and enforcing the Honor Code, though the administrative concerns pointed out by Brian F. seem like entirely plausible justifications. I would be curious to hear the administration’s stated rationale for using SecureExam. Wouldn’t an intranet site where students upload their regular MS Word documents serve the same purpose (without the spell-check disasters some of us have experienced?)
February 8th, 2007 at 10:08:34 am
Also, I’d imagine that this is professor-driven. My first year (again, pre-SecurExam) someone asked Professor Gurule in class if he would allow us to type our closed-book exam on laptops citing the example of Professor Rougeau (whose final was open materials). Gurule refused. I’d wager that it’s the professors who give closed-book exams pushing for the policy.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:11:50 am
(What’s with me and the double-posts today?) Part of the distinction between ND and other law schools with a student-enforced Honor Code is (honestly) that ND students are too nice to each other for it to really work. No one (well, I’m sure there are a couple epople) wants to see anyone else fail and so no one is going to turn other people in (with a few limited exceptions where another person is jeopardizing others, like on a group project).
February 8th, 2007 at 10:12:07 am
I can’t say that Brendan’s concerns are invalid, but is this really a big deal? I don’t think so because I just don’t see any harm in the policy beyond a but of annoyance. How does a couple of hours without your i-Pod or cell phone really harm you? And if the concern is calling home or something like that, it’s not that big a deal to put your phone in the locker; it’s not like you can call home during the exam anyhow.
SecureExam sucks, but I think that speaks more of technological incompetence somewhere. Other schools have to use it.
If the issue is the Administration not trusting the students, is that a surprise? It seems to me that there are far bigger problems to protest about, and if as students we protest every inconvenience, we risk not being taken seriously. But, that is strictly my own opinion and in no way a defense of the new policy on the merits.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:13:03 am
“You must trust and believe in people or life becomes impossible.”
Chekhov
February 8th, 2007 at 10:15:26 am
“I can’t say that Brendan’s concerns are invalid, but is this really a big deal?”
The whole legal profession is built on trust. If these people can’t be trusted now, when will they?
February 8th, 2007 at 12:06:21 pm
“I’m a doctor, not a bricklayer”
McCoy
February 8th, 2007 at 3:56:15 pm
Interesting coincidence:
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2007/02_08-61/TOP
28 Air Force Academy cadets tied to scandal using IM
February 8th, 2007 at 4:22:21 pm
Brendan,
Nicely done on the email, but it seems like the easy way out. Why not take the time to actually speak in person with the Dean or whoever is responsible for the policy. Email communications are impersonal and tend to deflect actually the liability of actual conversations.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:36:50 pm
“take the time to actually speak in person with the Dean . . .”
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about NDLS :).
He could go talk to Horvath, but he’d undoubtedly get the “it wasn’t my decision” line.