tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post846436801451663760..comments2024-03-10T05:26:42.148-04:00Comments on My Biased Coin: UncertaintyMichael Mitzenmacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06738274256402616703noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-30924230162753261222012-09-03T21:43:06.925-04:002012-09-03T21:43:06.925-04:00The problem I am having with judging the equity of...The problem I am having with judging the equity of this process is that the Board is not well situated to pass judgment on problems with the course. The directions on the exam prohibit collaboration, and some students may acknowledge that they did in fact talk to each other. Open and shut case, perhaps. <br /><br />On the other hand, the exam was posted for eight days, the entirety of reading period; that is an awfully long time for students in the class to be expected to say absolutely nothing to each other about it. (Could you have a "take-home exam" that was posted for, say, 2 months with an instruction it is not to be discussed? Why not?) And apparently TFs were holding office hours during this period, which took the form of collective discussions with groups of students; I suppose you could simultaneously hold that (a) it was fine for a series of students to ask questions of the TF in these group office hours, and for the TF to answer them in the presence of the other students, but (b) that if the students said one word directly to each other, that would be a violation of academic honesty. But this set up seems to me, at a minimum, to be asking for trouble.<br /><br />My point is not to pass judgment here on what should happen to the students (who in any case did not all do the same thing), but to observe that the Board is set up to administer the rules of the Faculty as they apply to undergraduate behavior, not to judge whether faculty behavior has been reasonable. It seems to me that the real equity issues for some students really revolve around that, and I am just not sure the Board is well constituted to investigate or judge that, when faced with judgments that may be cut and dried, if you don't lift your eyes a bit to look at the context.Harry Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17088418333536732728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-32550586329320839632012-09-03T17:31:27.418-04:002012-09-03T17:31:27.418-04:00@Paul: I don't think that Michael is actually...@Paul: I don't think that Michael is actually responsible for your failure of imagination.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-45237489053122166162012-09-02T20:27:58.521-04:002012-09-02T20:27:58.521-04:00Come on! Do you imagine that none of the professo...Come on! Do you imagine that none of the professors or administrators on the Ad Board will have read any outside discussions about possible sanctions in this case? That hardly seems likely. Do you think that the arguments advanced there will not influence them? <br /><br />BTW: As an undergrad, I was on the tribunal as one of the 50 members of the governing council (equivalent in power to the combination of faculty senate + board of governors). The university tribunal adjudicated appeals of initial cheating sanctions assessed by schools and colleges as well as complaints about due process in other academic situations. I would probably have been less likely to have felt outside pressures than administrators would.Paul Beamenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-91463675842585915432012-09-02T17:21:31.713-04:002012-09-02T17:21:31.713-04:00Paul:
You say:
"It is hard to imagine that ...Paul:<br /><br />You say:<br /><br />"It is hard to imagine that the public nature of the situation will not influence the decisions of the Ad Board."<br /><br />Having served on the Ad Board, I would disagree with this statement. <br /><br />Also, I should point out that students do not serve on the Ad Board; it consists of a small number of professors, the resident deans of the Harvard houses (who are administrators and often instructors), and some from the Harvard administration. Perhaps this helps protect the Board from the "public nature" of the case. Michael Mitzenmacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161032642563814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-65875568393920859862012-09-02T15:20:45.201-04:002012-09-02T15:20:45.201-04:00It is hard to imagine that the public nature of th...It is hard to imagine that the public nature of the situation will not influence the decisions of the Ad Board. As an undergrad, I served on a university tribunal (which was run very much as a legal proceedings with some students represented by counsel) and I would certainly not have appreciated publicity about cases before we heard them.<br /><br />In this instance, the publicity makes this an opportunity to use the moment to teach the entire student body about the real consequences of doing what is alleged. That makes a "slap on the wrist" highly unlikely. On the other hand, those numbers make it a big chunk of the student population and I can imagine lots of push from the university development office (parent donors) that could influence things the other way. The specific details and certainty with which charges are being made can influence punishments in normal cases - the publicity and number of cases may mitigate against that subtlety.Paul Beamenoreply@blogger.com