<p>Private instritutions are not required to follows the rules of due process but public instritutions, like UVA are. I don’t know where West Point fits in. Due process has evolved to preserve justice and I’d argue that any shortcuts of due process shortchange justice. I would have thought that a school the caliber of Princeton would rise to the challenge and responsibility of due process, not hide from it.</p>
<p>Juries are comprised of adults; minors are not allowed to serve on juries. There are never any guarantees but in the court system there are people who keeps things legal and fair. In this system at Princeton, there is no judge, no wise person who ensures instructions are proper and behaviors are proper and who have a breadth of experience to be able to deal with unique and unusual events as they occur. The stakes are too high to be left exclusively to amateurs.</p>
<p>If students are trusted in this Honor Committee system why are they not given whatever they ask for in other areas of the community? Isn’t every issue put forth by students “thnoughtful”? Why have a President, and Deans? Let the students to it. </p>
<p>I just think that the Honor Committee needs more adult involvment.</p>
<p>Peytoncline, I think it is very safe to say that paysthebills is simply a ■■■■■. You’ll notice that all of his posts have been in this one thread. It’s been established that he has no personal experience of the Princeton Honor Code and knows no one who has and his response to the Harvard Crimson articles makes it equally clear that he is stretching to find any way of maligning Princeton.</p>
<p>Readers be warned, these posters always appear on the Princeton board at this time of year and are typically boosters of some peer school who think that they will discourage students from attending Princeton. If you are interested in a history of these posters, please PM me and I’ll send you the list!</p>
<p>What is particularly bizarre about this poster is that he is attempting to discredit a system that not only works extremely well but that is being discussed as a model to follow by Princeton’s peer Harvard. I don’t think our poster was expecting that. The sum total of his critique of Princeton’s Honor Code is that it lacks enough faculty supervision. He tries to avoid entirely or misinterpret the right of every Princeton student to appeal an Honor Code Committee decision to faculty members. Rest assured that few if ANY students at Princeton are expelled without most faculty members and administrators who are aware of the facts being supportive of the decision. The Harvard Crimson articles emphasize that Harvard administrators AND students want to see MORE student input in these decisions (just as is the case at Princeton) not less.</p>
<p>A couple of the very interesting comments from the Harvard Dean of Undergraduate Education and the Harvard Registrar that I did not quote previously are as follows:</p>
<p>Princeton’s Honor Code system may not be perfect but it is clearly very good and held in high esteem by others within the higher education community.</p>
<p>Princeton’s Honor Code system works. With less than fifty percent more undergraduates than Princeton, Harvard expels three times as many students each year for cheating. The “community of learning” that the Harvard Dean of Undergraduate Education hopes to achieve by following Princeton’s example does, in fact, exist at Princeton. For the most part, students are proud to know that they are held to high standards and treated as adults. They respond accordingly, accounting for the much lower percentage of expulsions for cheating.</p>
<p>As noted in the Crimson article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Paysthebills has criticized the Princeton system for being administered by students without faculty/administrative supervision. This is both false, since administrators and faculty members are always involved in appeals (and if the student chooses not to appeal you can bet that he or she is acknowledging guilt) and at odds with Harvard’s own desire, on the part of both students and faculty to have more, not less, student involvement in their own disciplinary proceedings.</p>
<p>Finally, paysthebills makes the wholly unfounded and misleading statement that Harvard’s Honor Committee will have a mix of students and faculty. The committee at Harvard has not yet been formed and no decisions have been made as to its composition. The praise coming from Harvard administrators for Princeton’s system may even suggest a wholesale adoption of the exact same system with a fully student-run Honor Committee.</p>
<p>Almost certainly, paysthebills will feel the need to have the last word here. His goal, however, is crystal clear, to create controversy where no reasonable person would find any. Like most other such posters, he seeks only to steer students away from Princeton. Why in the world he chose to attack Princeton for one of its greatest strengths is beyond me but I suggest we simply let him talk to himself.</p>
<p>Jeepers, P-Grad, could you possibly be any more of a tool?</p>
<p>The Prince articles make it very clear that there is plenty of controversy about the Princeton honor system at Princeton. Paysthebills was also an active commenter on the Prince stories long before he (or she, but I think he) started this thread. He’s clearly someone with a personal stake in a specific case, not a ■■■■■ for some other college.</p>
<p>The Crimson stories also make clear that Harvard doesn’t expel anywhere near three times the number of students Princeton does for cheating or plagiarism. The Harvard Ad Board suspends three times as many students as the Princeton Honor Committee, because the Ad Board handles academic performance suspensions as well as disciplinary ones. The articles are pretty clear that the vast majority of suspensions are based on failure to perform academically, not any form of cheating. The articles DO suggest that there’s a lot of cheating at Harvard that goes unreported, and that everyone thinks that’s a problem. But based on the Prince articles I suspect that the same dynamic applies to Princeton, too, Honor Code or not. If people don’t have faith in the fairness of the system, then they will hesitate to report violators. And uneven reporting makes the system even less fair. </p>
<p>Something is screwed up at both colleges (and probably many others as well). But some of the Princeton stories are a little blood-curdling. A two-year suspension for turning in a rough draft of a paper with quotation marks but no citations, when the student had notes matching the quotes with the citations and clearly planned to include them in the final paper? I’m sure you can find a way to explain why that is the essence of Princetonian wonderfulness, but it’s bizarre to normal people. And any system that produces the confusion about jurisdiction evident here and in the Prince articles and comments is at least a little broken. I have read page after page of this stuff, and I do not know whether or how Princeton’s Honor Code applies to take-home exams. To an outsider, that’s amusing, like Dickens or Gilbert & Sullivan, but I can sympathize with a student who finds himself involuntarily having to care about it.</p>
<p>Sadly, JHS, I’m coming to expect these kinds of comments from you given your recent history on the Princeton board. Shall we review your statements regarding Princeton again?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid you’re wrong on both counts here. Paysthebills has posted nowhere except in this thread. All 29 of his posts, to date, have been right here and he has already acknowledged that he has no personal experience with Princeton’s Honor Code.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The article is about academic dishonesty. Are you able to cite any language in the articles suggesting that “the vast majority of suspensions are based on failure to perform academically, not any form of cheating?” I don’t think there is any such evidence though I do now see that the following statement may include many cases of students simply failing to meet academic standards.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>JHS, this poster has had nothing of real merit to say and your own sarcasm does not become you given your age or your Yale degree.</p>
<p>Given that Harvard had 30-60% more undergraduates than Princeton during that time, it looks like suspension for academic dishonesty was much more rare at Harvard than at Princeton. I don’t know whether that’s a good thing or not. It was a complete mischaracterization on PGrad’s part to suggest otherwise, twice, but on looking back at the Crimson articles I can see how someone could miss the nuance that most of the suspensions were not related to dishonesty. </p>
<ol>
<li> One of the commenters on the Prince story (I think it was “knows”) has exactly the same writing style, substantive position, and set of concerns that “paysthebills” has. I conclude that he is the same person. When I saw the comments, I thought they predated the beginning of this thread. I would find the comments and post them here for comparison, but I can’t deal with the Prince web site any more.</li>
</ol>
<p>I agree with PGrad that paysthebills has nothing of real merit to say. I disagree with most of what he wants. I don’t think that anyone will or should decide not to attend Princeton because of this. But paysthebills doesn’t fit my definition of a ■■■■■, and he certainly isn’t an agent provocateur for Harvard or Yale. His passion and distress seem all too real, and I appreciate that he called my attention to an interesting problem that is receiving attention at Princeton and elsewhere right now.</p>
<ol>
<li> I am not trying to trash Princeton here. I am a little tired of PGrad serving as self-appointed Soviet Information Minister for Princeton, which is a fine enough and strong enough institution to survive discussion of whatever warts may appear once in awhile without pretending that they are beauty marks.</li>
</ol>
<p>I don’t understand why people have to drag the Soviet Government into everything. How would you feel if everyone used your language’s name for a legislative body as a cheap, thoughtless insult? Wouldn’t you feel bad?</p>
<p>It wasn’t a cheap, thoughtless insult. It was a cheap, thoughtful one, referring to what we oldsters remember as the constant effort by official organs of the USSR to read everything as confirming the essential superiority of the Soviet Union to Western democracies, and to try to discredit any criticism of the Soviet Union by claiming the CIA was behind it. This use of “Soviet” in English is shorthand for Soviet Union, or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which is pretty much the only way the word is used in English.</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s any reason to feel bad. Do you think Pashtun speakers are terribly upset that their word for “students” is being turned into a similar negative metaphor?</p>
<p>You’re right, and I’m sorry for my poor choice of words. It just bothers me since I think that those two things (posts on an Internet forum vs. the Soviet Union’s propaganda efforts) are on such different scales that comparing them is a little hyperbolic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s about as unpleasant as the fact that the swastika is now forever associated with Nazism and genocide. Of course, I can’t really know how other people would feel.</p>
<p>JHS, thank you for the information on Harvard’s expulsions. I had not seen those numbers and you are right to point them out. I stand corrected. The actual statistics are that the two schools expel approximately the same number of students each year for academic integrity violations. There appears to be a significant difference, however, at the lower level of warnings and probation. In the only comparable year for which there are reported numbers (2007-2008), Harvard had a combined 20 warnings and probations for cheating as compared to 10 at Princeton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your condescending attitude regarding Princeton is abundantly clear from your posting history as detailed in the following link.</p>
<p>This is in character with your previous postings. While I try to avoid taking offense at such gratuitous personal insults I know that there are others here who have more trouble with your style and I continue to believe you are not acting as a good ambassador for Yale.</p>
<p>JHS, why are you being such a jerk? Is PGrad hurting you at all? Has he done anything to merit you calling him a name? Good lord. I agree, what is it about Princeton that makes people feel they have to try to poke holes. Happens much more here than in the other top college boards, which is ironic, since Princeton above all top colleges feels rivalry with no one. PGrad is remarkably even-handed most of the time.</p>
<p>Whoa, did you really take the time to look up every bad thing that JHS has ever said about Princeton and compile it one easy-to-use reference guide? </p>
<p>That’s love. I’ve never been to Princeton, but it must be an amazing place to inspire such passion on either side. I don’t put much stuck in that U.S. News Rankings crap, but even a broken clock must be right twice a day!</p>
<p>JHS was wrong to call PG2000 a tool. He isn’t a tool, he’s a cheerleader and a defender of the faith. I, for one, have come to enjoy what he brings to this forum, particularly when he takes the time and effort to completely deconstruct and refute some of the BS that gets thrown out here.</p>
<p>But PG2000 is wrong to characterize JHS as a partisan Princeton basher. As a regular follower of the Admissions and Parents forums, I know JHS to be an informed, fairminded, helpful, and witty CC contributor. A jomjom or german_car he is not.</p>
<p>For those who say: “it ain’t broke”…then why are they trying to fix it? Herewith, todays article in the Daily Prince…</p>
<p>Strengthening the Honor Committee
By Alex Rosen and Peter Dunbar
Guest Contributors
Published: Tuesday, March 30th, 2010
The honor code has been a central part of the Princeton undergraduate experience for 117 years. Throughout this time, the basic construct of the honor sytem has remained the same. Students and faculty have sustained a mutual agreement to allow us undergraduates to take ownership of the classroom by ensuring that both we and our peers abide by the Honor Code during in-class examinations. Suspected infractions of this code are adjudicated by the student Honor Committee, which is guided by an undergraduate-approved Constitution that ensures students are treated fairly in hearings. Based on our experiences as members of the Honor Committee, we believe that this system has many strengths. With that said, we know we are not alone in recognizing that there are some ways in which the system can be improved to the benefit of the Princeton community. Currently, the Honor Committee is proposing one specific change that will be offered as a referendum for a student vote in the spring USG elections.<br>
The change that we have been considering eliminates the distinction between alternate and full members on the committee. As of now, the Honor Committee consists of nine full members and three alternate members. The main difference between full and alternate members is that full members investigate potential violations of the Honor Code while alternate members do not. Alternate members receive the same training as full members, including how to conduct an investigation, and often participate in a comparable number of hearings.</p>
<p>An investigation is a time-sensitive process aimed at gathering all the facts related to the case at hand. As such, the limitation on the number of Honor Committee members permitted to conduct investigations creates a strain on the committee when there are many concurrent reports. Allowing all members of the Honor Committee to conduct investigations would alleviate this burden and would ensure that all investigations are conducted in as timely and thorough a manner as possible.</p>
<p>This change is a relatively small adjustment that we think will have a positive impact on the way the Honor Committee operates. Yet we remain aware that students and faculty may have more fundamental questions, concerns or ideas about the Honor System. For example, every testing period, the Honor Committee receives numerous complaints and reports about the disorder at the end of examinations. Many students feel disadvantaged if their classmates continue working after an exam has ended. In addition, a recent column in the Prince lamented the limited range of penalties that the Honor Committee can recommend. Furthermore, we often find that some members of the Princeton community are unsure about which committee handles different kinds of academic integrity issues (the all-student Honor Committee addresses in-class examinations, while the Committee on Discipline, made up of students, faculty and administrators, manages take-home exams, problem sets and papers). We would like to begin a campus-wide discussion about these issues and about any other questions or concerns that members of the Princeton community might have with respect to the Honor System.</p>
<p>To this end, the Honor Committee plans to host a town hall meeting in April that will be open to all members of the Princeton community. As always, we welcome your questions and concerns, which you can e-mail to <a href=“mailto:honor@princeton.edu”>honor@princeton.edu</a> or submit anonymously via the Honor Committee’s website. At the town hall meeting, we will address any inquiries that have been submitted, talk about the referendum and then open up the discussion to the audience.</p>
<p>As members of the Honor Committee, we critically examine elements of the honor system on a regular basis in an effort to recognize where improvements can be made. We would like to better involve the campus community in this process, and we hope that this article and the ensuing town hall meeting will help us take positive steps in that direction. The Honor Code is a shared agreement between students and faculty that underscores the values for which this University stands. It belongs to this community, and we encourage all undergraduates and faculty to exercise their ownership of it.</p>
<p>Alex Rosen is an economics major from Allentown, Pa. Peter Dunbar is a chemistry major from Oxford, Miss. Mr. Dunbar is the Chair of the Honor Committee. Mr. Rosen is the Committees clerk and will chair the Committee next year. They can be reached at <a href=“mailto:arr@princeton.edu”>arr@princeton.edu</a> and <a href=“mailto:pdunbar@princeton.edu”>pdunbar@princeton.edu</a>, respectively.</p>
<p>^^ I love the posts by JHS and I welcome his thoughts on this board, even if they are not in line with most other’s. I basically follow three forum’s MIT, UChicago and Princeton since that is where my son has applied.</p>
<p>The UChicago forum, where you will find many of JHS’s posts, (and also the MIT one BTW) is much more engaging than this one. We should all welcome what JHS and other posters have to add to the discussion even if we don’t agree. </p>
<p>Paysthebills is definitely bringing up some good and interesting points here. Sure beats the gazillion “chance me” threads on this forum.</p>
<p>As I’ve written previously, most of the time JHS is tempered and fair in his remarks. It seems to be only in the case of Princeton that he is less so and my compiling of his previous comments characterizing Princeton so negatively and so unfairly were in response to his statement in an earlier thread that he has “tons of respect for Princeton, and express[es] it frequently.” That statement was simply not true. JHS’s feelings about Princeton, at least as expressed here on CC, are quite clear even if not always openly stated.</p>
<p>As for Paysthebills’ last posting, any system, no matter how good, can be improved. I’ve already noted that Princeton’s Honor Code is not perfect. What’s bizarre about this entire thread, starting with the sensationalist title “Parent alert”, is that a system that works so well and that is used as a model by others is being characterized as a reason to be wary of attending Princeton! I had thought at first that Paysthebills’ son or daughter might have committed an infraction and been called to account for it, thus explaining the personal anguish. I had some sympathy for him or her assuming those were the facts. However, that’s clearly not the case and this poster is no different from the myriad other such posters who appear on the Princeton board at this time of the year.</p>
<p>I like to think that I am tempered and fair, but I also have an unfortunate tendency to try to be funny. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.</p>
<p>I might very well like PGrad in real life, but I clearly have a problem with him online. His bill of particulars against me is ridiculous, and includes a number of quotes taken out of context so that they fail to include positive things that were immediately adjacent to what was quoted. In any event, there is nothing I said that current Princeton students don’t say here on a regular basis – they are essentially commonplaces. Only PGrad interprets them as attacks.</p>
<p>I don’t quite know what the distinction is between a cheerleader and a tool in a context where there isn’t any game going on, not really, and one of my pet peeves is turning every conversation about colleges into a contest about who is better. I would not have called him a “tool” however if I had considered more carefully how clear it was from the Crimson articles that most Harvard suspensions were for academic performance. All I did was read the articles, and I had no doubt of that, so I thought it was pretty outrageous when PGrad came out with his “three times as much cheating at Harvard” line, and then I overreacted when he repeated it again. I was also upset at his simultaneous argument that people at Harvard were looking to Princeton as a model with the implication that it meant anything other than one of the most attractive possibilities on the table was a limited-scope honor code like Princeton and Stanford, as opposed to nothing, or to a comprehensive honor code like UVa or West Point. But, looking back at the Crimson articles, it was not as clear as I thought that the suspensions were not for cheating, so I don’t think PGrad was being as outrageous as I first thought. I DO think that an observer who is as smart as PGrad, but less single-minded in promotion, would not have made the mistake.</p>
<p>I respect people for having enthusiasms and points of view, and for being upfront about them, but not for constantly engaging in spinning.</p>
<p>I have no vendetta against you, JHS, and as I said before, I gathered your previous comments only to show that what you said about frequently expressing your support for Princeton was simply not true. I stand by the fairness of my quote selections and invite anyone who is truly that interested to read the entirety of each of your posts from which they came. They were not taken out of context and when it comes to Princeton there is little doubt as to your feelings. The pattern of your comments is unmistakable over the last six months or so. Previously, it hadn’t been this way and I’m confused as to the reason for the change.</p>
<p>I don’t believe anything I have ever posted here was intentionally false, though I’m certainly not perfect and make mistakes. I try regularly to post the results of competitions and major awards and quite frequently, Princeton is not at the top of those lists.</p>
<p>Unlike many posters, I rarely stray from the Princeton board and you will find no postings from me that are disrespectful to other individuals or institutions. I have regularly stated that I believe there are a great many equally fine universities in this country. The reason I began posting here is because I saw so many individuals with a single-minded agenda to denigrate Princeton making statements that either had no basis in fact or that were gross exaggerations. Again, this is odd since these types of posters rarely if ever appear on the boards of our peer schools.</p>
<p>As for the characterization of my posts as “spinning” I would suggest that your obvious feelings about Princeton make you believe that anything that casts it in a positive light must be the result of a twisting of the facts.</p>
<p>By the way, I might very well like you in person as well but I don’t think you’re representing yourself or Yale well on these boards. Shall we leave it at that?</p>
<p>“I had some sympathy for him or her assuming those were the facts. However, that’s clearly not the case and this poster is no different…”</p>
<p>Ptongrad2000, “that’s clealy not the case” , eh? How do you know what my facts are; you don’t even know me? I’m not revealing too much because of confidentiality embedded in the Honor Code. But I am a member of the Princeton Community and I see an erosion of something built on noble principles and this erosion is hurting innocent people and putting the University at risk. If people disrepect an institution, they will work AROUND it. That’s what Harvard is trying to fix and Princeton too. The only way to fix it is to first admit there is a problem…“the emperor is naked…” Forums like this and comments to the Prince have the sanitizing effect of sunshine and offer constructive ideas for improvement coming from people who care. Princeton WELCOMES comments from people who care as does any great institution that continutally strives to improve.</p>