» » home » » about » » pictures » » law school » » talk-back











Blogroll Me!

9.26.2003

Exam software presupposes that you cheat

With all due respect to Chris Geidner, who has this issue all wrong, exam software defeats the purpose of an honor code, and erodes the idea that we as soon-to-be professionals, should be self-policing. It's been made pretty clear to me, in Legal Professions, that we're about to face an ethical quagmire out in the profession. And while we won't be handed as many exams to take on their own merits, or to cheat through, we'll be facing daily decisions about whether to cut corners or chop them off entirely. So when should we be entrusted with those decisions? At 25? Why not the day we walk into the school?

The point is that it's ridiculous to have an honor code and not even respect the underpinnings of it. Geidner says that "honor" is sullied when there are even rumors of cheating. I think he's missing what kind of honor we are talking about. It's not the law school's reputation we're focusing on. The "honor" in question is that of the student body as individuals. My point is that an honor code only works when we're all "on our honor." Let's say there is a cookie jar and an unattended cup in which to deposit 10 cents. This is of course the familiar working of the honor system. As soon as you put an attendant behind the cookie jar with a cash register, you've exited "honor" land, and you're into something completely different.

So, if you're going to argue for exam software, then please have the honesty to admit that your position will overwrite the honor code in big black sharpie. And also have the honesty to admit that you don't trust the student body. Honor codes are based on trust, and when we've lost that, then what do we have left? Not an honor code. Just rules and electric monitors. That's what exam software is... an electronic-monitoring ankle bracelet reporting back to the judge. It's a remedial measure imposed on those not guilty of anything. And still people support it. Here's why.

Sometime around my second year of law school I ran up against this ugly idea permeating in small circles of the law school that everyone is cheating, and one's position in the class rank couldn't possibly be due to one's aptitude but some sort of nefarious activity. It's just wrong. I've sat throughover twenty exams and signed the honor code pledge each time. I've done my duty which consists of not cheating, and reporting any activity amongst others that appears to be cheating. I've affirmed that I've performed those duties twenty times, and twenty times my signature on the pledge meant something. Not once have I witnessed anyone cheating, nor have I heard anyone mention in any debate on exam software any specific example of cheating. People are just convinced that "it happens" and that it has negatively affected them. Not true. Sometimes I laugh because I think that if these "everyone cheats" students spent the time studying instead of worrying about cheating they'd do much better.

I want to go back to a previous point, under exam software, we would no longer have a system based on how our profession works, and based on individualized suspicion of cheating. Instead, by mandating that all computer users have exam software implanted, we've all been charged and found guilty of cheating. It's blanket suspicion. It's anti-thetical to our constitutional values. Exam software is just as repugnant as suspicionless drug-testing.

If we're willing now to tear up the honor code that's probably been existance for longer than my life, then what is it that our new era will bring? Are we really willing to start down this road? As soon as we no longer trust each other then we're defeated, we're just criminals waiting to be caught. 
.. | @ 9/26/2003 09:30:34 AM » » (talkback)