|  
               
            Web Exclusives: 
              Under the Ivy 
              a column by Jane Martin paw@princeton.edu 
             
            June 
              4, 2003: 
              Honor Among Tigers 
              Cheating, or not, at 
              Princeton 
             "I pledge my honor that I have not violated the Honor Code 
              during this examination." Those 15 words, perhaps more than 
              anything else, set Princeton apart from its peers. Through the years 
              the words of the oath have changed (older alumni may recall pledging 
              their honor as gentlemen), its effectiveness and its relevance have 
              been questioned again and again, and yet the simple code of conduct 
              endures.
              In 1961, fresh off the TV-quiz-show scandals, PAW editor John 
              Davies '41 took a look at the Honor System with a handful of photographs, 
              showing students stretching, chatting, leaving the room, and drinking 
              coffee during exams, and an editorial discussing the purpose of 
              and need for exams, the rising national concern over cheating, and 
              the ways Princeton had changed since World War II. 
              While acknowledging the value of exams  "the results 
              are worth the effort, since they compel the student to review, integrate, 
              summarize, assimilate the course material as a whole"  
              Davies raised familiar questions about what exactly exams measure 
              and what success on exams foretells. He cited an Amherst study in 
              which the admissions office asked faculty to name students they 
              really enjoyed teaching, in hopes that the admissions staff could 
              identify what made them such a delight, and admit more of them. 
              Unfortunately for the admissions office, not only did the professors 
              name just 20 percent of their students ("proving incidentally 
              that they do not enjoy teaching 80 percent of their students"), 
              of the fraction they did name, 20 percent were in the bottom half 
              of their class gradewise. The admissions office abandoned its hopes, 
              realizing that "joys to teach" did not necessarily make 
              valedictorians. As Davies continued, "Academic society rewards 
              the A-earners, regardless of how little of their learning they may 
              retain or use." The value that society placed (and continues 
              to place) on good grades and college degrees, as well as a "widespread 
              and alarming shift in American moral standards," according 
              to Davies, put pressure on students to succeed  and to cheat.
              Despite all this, and the "swirling tides of change" 
              among the undergraduate student body  "before the war 
              75 to 80 percent came from prep schools with their tyrannical moral 
              codes and nosy prefects, now over half are from public high schools 
              where the extreme pressure to get into college and the more relaxed 
              standards make the practice of cheating common"  Davies 
              concluded that the Honor System had survived intact. "Not a 
              single student, professor or administrator I talked to thought there 
              were any violations of the Honor System whatsoever." In this 
              he saw continuity from the days of F. Scott Fitzgerald '17, who 
              once wrote of cheating at Princeton: "It simply doesn't occur 
              to you, any more than it would occur to you to rifle your roommate's 
              pocketbook."
              Davies's serious take on the Honor Code elicited one less-serious 
              response. Orville Watson Mosher '09 remembered his senior year, 
              when he and his roommates had formed "a sort of 'shower-bath' 
              quartette. The only one who could carry a tune at all was gay, festive, 
              debonair Crosby, our peerless leader; the Rankin twins and I had 
              voices of distinctly nutmeg-grater or disgruntled bullfrog type. 
              The combination was simply awful, so bad that it was good and all 
              the funnier from the fact that from outward appearances we took 
              ourselves seriously." During exams the four left McCosh Hall 
              and struck up one of their favorite tunes outside the windows. "The 
              song was so appropriate to the examination that it was greeted by 
              delighted yells and Yeas! From the tired students sticking their 
              heads out of doors and windows  our performance was a howling 
              success." Mosher went on to compare the scene at Princeton 
              to that of Harvard Law, where "gimlet-eyed professors walked 
              the aisles looking for cheaters and even followed us into the 'twilight,' 
              as my little son expressed a certain location."
              At the very least the Honor System has spared Princeton students 
              that indignity.  
              
             Jane Martin 89 is PAW's former editor-in-chief. You can 
              reach her at paw@princeton.edu 
              
              
              
            
             
               
           |