The Academic Senate Instruction Committee is drafting a proposal to notate cases of cheating and academic dishonesty on transcripts.
The committee, which has met three times so far this quarter to discuss the issue, is seeking to include on transcripts the specific class and quarter in which cheating incidents occur. Currently, there is no way to distinguish an “F” for academic dishonesty from an “F” for failure to grasp the material.
The existing policy allows for the notation of academic dishonesty on a transcript only if a student cheats multiple times, and the notation does not clarify the specific class and quarter and can be removed from a transcript upon an administrator’s discretion.
David Conn, member of the committee and associate vice president for inclusive excellence and director of Ombuds Services, is currently drafting the policy. The committee hopes to finalize the proposal by the end of Spring Quarter 2010.
Upon completion, the framework will be forwarded to the Academic Senate for approval. If adopted, the new legislation will be included in the Student Rights and Responsibilities section of the Campus Administration Policies (CAP), which is currently undergoing major reform.
The committee, which met with students and faculty to discuss academic dishonesty, is additionally looking to inform students on matters of cheating and plagiarism. Committee chair, Kevin Lertwachara, said the committee discussed creating a public record of campus cheating statistics. Lertwachara also mentioned the committee is working with the library on programs that increase student understanding of plagiarism.
While academic dishonesty reform is part of the CAP overhaul, it also occurs in conjunction with a national trend of curbing cheating on university campuses. According to Student Rights and Responsibilities Coordinator, Adrienne Miller, many universities are adopting sections of the “Model Code of Academic Integrity” produced by the University of Maryland. Likewise, some universities are shifting to an “FX” grade (“F” for fail and “X” as indication of cheating). The CSU, however, prohibits “FX.”
Miller, who also met with the Instruction Committee, acknowledged the significance of notating cheating on transcripts.
“There is no way for prospective employers and graduate schools to tell who failed for academic dishonesty and who failed for failure to master the knowledge,” she said.
Some students, however, do not necessarily echo that sentiment. Tarek Halteh, an economics sophomore, is concerned that minor cheating offenses will now haunt students over the course of their academic and professional careers.
“I don’t feel it is necessary for a student to carry that stigma on and on,” Halteh said. “If someone cheats, he receives an ‘F,’ and that is consequence enough.”
While the Academic Senate moves forward in addressing cheating, it remains uncertain whether the number of academic dishonesty cases are increasing. Miller, who receives all reports of academic dishonesty, said the number of reported cases has been increasing. But that is not necessarily an indicator of more cheating on campus, due to the fact that not all cases are reported by faculty.
Sensing the delicacy of the issue, Lertwachara clarified that the Instruction Committee “doesn’t want to rush through (the process).” “Each case is unique,” he added. He “would prefer a policy that would allow each case (to be examined) on an individual basis.”
Though the committee is focused on notation of academic dishonesty, Lertwachara stressed the new policy will not remove the decision making from “the two most knowledgeable people: the faculty member involved and the Student Rights and Responsibilities (coordinator).”