Survey: students cheat

By Chris Ledermuller
Summer Forty-Niner

From looking over a person's shoulder during a test to turning in an essay that seems too well written to be true, cheating always has been a nagging presence in education.

A recent survey commissioned by the Foundation for Academic Standards and Tradition indicates cheating is fairly widespread. The study found nearly three-fourths of the students surveyed say that cheating occurs at their schools.

Of this group, more than 25 percent say cheating is frequent or rampant.

"It is more disturbing than surprising," said Marc Berley, president of the foundation. "There's a lot more cheating than there ought to be."

Studies by the Center for Academic Integrity at Duke University show similar numbers, also claiming that roughly 75 percent of students admitting to cheating. For small to medium schools, 80 percent of students reported that cheating occurs.

At Cal State Long Beach, students say cheating does occur, but not to the alarming extent that the two studies decry.

At large universities like CSULB, it is very difficult to catch cheaters.

Classes held in large lecture halls have stadium-like tiered seating. Students can look down at the row below them, as well as side to side.

In large classes where professors might not recognize every face, a student could sit in for someone else and take a test.

Modern technology also plays a role.

"I've heard about types of cheating, like students who would store programs on calculators," said Jeremiah Tatro, a computer science major, referring to graphing calculators that have large enough memory to allow
students to write and save programs.

The Internet is another place where shortcuts are plentiful.

Entering "term papers" in a search engine yields information on companies that write papers for students or databases that sell papers previously written elsewhere. More than 20 firms provide these services at various prices.

Most of the term-paper mills claim their service is only a supplement for students who need help formulating their own work, and do not take responsibility if students are caught plagiarizing.

Then there are more brazen sites, with one Website actually calling itself  The Evil House of Cheat.

"There are some sites that recruit students to turn in papers to them," said Gary Griswold, director of the Writer's Resource Lab.

The university catalog defines cheating as "the act of obtaining or attempting to obtain or aiding another to obtain academic credit for work by the use of any dishonest, deceptive or fraudulent means," and
plagiarism as "using the ideas or work of another person or persons as if they were one's own, without giving credit to the source."

The catalog also states the punishments for students caught violating those regulations. The sanctions can range from a warning to a failing grade on the assignment or the class or to more serious action, such as suspension or expulsion.

Campuses in the CSU system leave it up to faculty to discipline students who are caught cheating.

"It's typical that professors handle it," said Keith Boyum, associate vice president of academic programs at Cal State Fullerton.

Policies are made both at the campus and systemwide levels.

"The policy you see in the catalog is [CSULB's]," said Steven Katz, director of Judicial Affairs. "The process for student disciplinary action is dictated by an executive order from the chancellor."

The faculty and students have an informal conference to decide on a sanction. Students can appeal any action to two other campus offices.

One is the Academic Integrity Committee, part of the Academic Affairs Office. Both students and faculty can refer cases to the committee. Three faculty members, one student and one ex-officio member evaluate a case.

The committee evaluates the evidence, but it does not recommend specific penalties.

"Typically, we wouldn't know what a faculty member recommends," said Gary Reichard, associate vice president of academic affairs and a committee member.

If students or faculty desire a formal hearing, or if a student may be suspended or expelled, then the Judicial Affairs office handles the case.

"If a case is formally referred to us, that invokes due process on the students," Katz said. "This involves the student's status on campus."

A formal case is similar to a trial. An administrative law judge or an attorney from a pre-selected panel presides over the case, and witnesses must take an oath. Students can have an advisor or attorney during the proceedings.

If a student is suspended, it can last for semesters or years, Katz said. An expulsion would bar the student from attending school again. Both suspensions and expulsions apply to all campuses in the CSU system, not just CSULB.

Very few cases actually make it to either office. CSULB does not have a set policy or when to apply certain actions against students. Professors have flexibility in deciding cases, but two different students can easily get different punishments for the same thing.

Statistics on cheating are difficult to assess. The CSU system does not keep disciplinary records at a statewide level.

Academic disciplinary records are also confidential, and only the faculty and students know about the recommendations and specific incidents.

UCLA and other campuses in the UC system have a more formal, more centralized approach to cheating.

"If the professors suspects cheating, they send us a letter, and we investigate the incident," said Debbie Chapman, administrative assistant at UCLA's dean of students office. "We send a letter to the student, and
he or she has seven days to respond."

"I don't believe academic fraud is about catching the bad guy," said Raymond Goldstone, dean of students emeritus at UCLA. "I believe it is prevention."

Goldstone said techniques such as proctored exams, distributing tests with questions in different orders, and asking students to turn in drafts and outlines of term papers not only give them a disincentive to cheat, but also make it easier to catch fraud.

The Center for Academic Integrity claims honor codes do a better job of reducing cheating on campuses.

"The four features of a full-fledged honor code are a pledge students agree to, a student-run disciplinary process, a reporting requirement and unproctored examinations," said Elizabeth Kiss, director of the
Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke, which runs the center.

Kiss defends the honor system because she said it helps students learn "fundamental values of integrity
and honesty."

She believes other methods lead to an "arms race," in which students and faculty try to one-up each other by inventing new ways of cheating and catching culprits. Honor codes tend to be found at private institutions, where students often make a pledge not to cheat and to report cheating to faculty. Breaking the pledge often can have heavy consequences.

"My preference would be to operate under an honor system," Reichard said. "But that's not the policy of most public universities."

Also, it would be tough to find students who want to report a classmate who is cheating.

"I just want a passing grade on my exams and mind my own business," said CSULB business major Tomoka Koyama.

English department faculty say it is fairly easy catching cheaters when a person who cannot write well suddenly turns in an excellent essay.

"I would ask the students to explain how they made a jump from a rough draft to a polished paper," said assistant professor Mark Williams.

The common thread shared by students, faculty and higher-education watchdogs is their belief that cheating ends up hurting the cheater.

"I think cheating ultimately hurts the cheater, because if they cheat, they'll either get caught in class or later in life when they don't know what to
do," Tatro said.

"What goes around, comes around."