<p>I’m a junior here at Harvard, and I have… a lot of thoughts about this story. Here are my two cents. Sorry for the rant. </p>
<p>First of all, I can see at least two obvious ways in which the supposed ‘cheating’ wasn’t anything reprehensible. </p>
<p>The part of this article that resonated the most with me was the claims of the accused students that the course’s teaching fellows (TF) were pretty much just giving out answers to the take-home exam to those who sought them, and that this accounts for the similarity of many answers (since if many people go to the same perfectly acceptable source, a TF, they’re all going to have the TF’s answer).</p>
<p>This is an EXTREMELY familiar experience - I’ve /often/ been in classes where, due to some combination of poorly-formulated questions, inaccessibility of professors, bad planning, and maybe TF laziness, answers are pretty much just handed out. I’ve never seen it done on a take-home exam, but that’s only because I’ve never been in a class with a take-home exam. I can say from personal experience that it’s REGULARLY done in biology and mathematics (mostly the intro series, like 21a/b) classes. </p>
<p>The students in the article say that the TFs themselves regularly didn’t understand the exam questions, and that there was an ill-defined term on this particular exam that would naturally lead many students to seek help from TFs. I have no trouble at all believing that the TFs outlined answers to questions for the students. </p>
<p>I obviously don’t know what form the “similarity” of the answers that prompted this investigation took. If the sentences are EXACTLY the same, then that’s a different story. But I can easily believe that the particular approach to answering a question was common to many exams, that this caught the attention of the Ad Board, and that this is accounted for by the giving out of answers by TFs. </p>
<p>As someone else has already mentioned, it’s also entirely possible that the students collectively compiled a study guide before the exam, and that this study guide was used on the open-note take-home final. This is an EXTREMELY common practice in the humanities and social sciences here, so I’m having trouble understanding how the Ad Board is distinguishing this perfectly legal possibility from outright cheating.</p>
<p>Beyond that, though, I’m deeply disappointed in this entire situation. </p>
<p>None of the possibilities that I’ve mentioned above, although they would alleviate the charge of academic dishonesty, are anything that I’m proud of saying happens at my school. If a class is so bad and/or students are so desperate for grades that TFs are regularly giving out answers to those who seek them, there is something fundamentally wrong. If students aren’t really learning the material for whatever reason but are instead compiling massively collaborative study guides that they then essentially copy onto their exams, there is a fundamental problem. This is the darker side of academics here. People cut corners because they ARE desperate to get the grade, and there are essentially institutionalized ways of going about the corner-cutting, though this is more prevalent in some academic disciplines than others. </p>
<p>I’m disappointed in Jay Harris’ decision to publicize the investigation. This is an internal matter that should be handled within the confines of the school. When I, a Harvard student, am finding out key pieces of information about this story not from the administration or even from the Crimson but from the New York Times, something is wrong. </p>
<p>Every school has cheating scandals. This isn’t new. But most of them don’t publicize it, because it can be handled internally and because it makes the school look bad. Harris chose to needlessly publicize this when he certainly knew that the Harvard name would attract a lot of press, tarnish the school’s reputation, devalue the degrees of those of us who do put forth an honest effort to learn material honestly and thoroughly, and, most relevantly, make it extremely dicey for undergrads to take this semester off. (If you’re a potential employer, and you see Gov 1310 on a Harvard student’s resume after learning that they’ve taken the semester off, and you’ve seen all the media coverage, you’re pretty obviously going to jump to some conclusions.) Basically, I find it extremely inconsiderate, presumptuous, and inappropriate to publicize this information BEFORE the Ad Board has concluded their investigation. </p>
<p>I’m disappointed in how atrociously slowly the Ad Board has handled this case; accused students now have to decide whether or not to move in and start classes for the semester when they could be booted out in November, despite the Ad Board having had all summer to investigate further. </p>
<p>Basically, this entire situation leaves me with a bad taste - about the school’s underlying academic problems and about our ridiculous bureaucracy of an administration that always seems to put the well-being of its students last, or to not consider it at all.</p>