Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

Version 1 Next »

1. Students’ Freedom of Expression and Inquiry At its meeting of January 21, 1974, the Committee on Faculty Affairs approved the following statement for inclusion in the Faculty Handbook:

The professor in the classroom and in conference should, consistent with the nature of the course, encourage free discussion, inquiry, and expression. Student performance should be evaluated solely on an academic basis, not on opinions or conduct in matters unrelated to academic standards.

Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion, but they are responsible for learning the content of any course of study for which they are enrolled.

Students should have protection through orderly procedures against prejudiced or capricious academic evaluation. At the same time, they are responsible for maintaining standards of academic performance established for each course in which they are enrolled.

 

2. Review of a Grade Although the individual faculty member is the sole judge of students’ academic performance in a course, students have a right, consistent with the statement printed above, to be informed of the basis for the evaluation of their academic performance in courses of instruction.

The Dean of the Faculty and the Dean’s Advisory Council have established the following procedure for students who desire a review of an instructor’s evaluation of their academic performance in a course: The student should first discuss the matter with the instructor in the course, who should endeavor to explain the basis for his or her evaluation of the student’s academic performance. If the student finds this to be unsatisfactory, he or she may request that the division director (or department chair) convene a meeting of the instructor, student, and division director (and/or chair), at which the instructor will explain the standards and criteria used in evaluating the student’s academic performance in the course in question. At this meeting, the student may present reasons why he or she feels that the evaluation was incorrect or improperly made. The final responsibility for evaluating students’ academic performance in a course, however, rests with the instructor.

If the division director (or department chair) finds that there is reason to believe that the instructor’s evaluation of the student’s academic performance was prejudiced or capricious, the division director (or chair) should immediately bring the matter to the attention of the associate dean of the faculty for such action as the associate dean finds appropriate.

Grades appearing on a student's academic record may normally not be changed after one semester from the end of the term in which the grade was awarded. Under extraordinary circumstances, appeals for grade changes beyond one semester but before graduation may be made to the associate dean of the faculty.

 

3. Academic Dishonesty In May 1999, the Colgate University Board of Trustees approved a new Academic Honor Code that went into effect in the Fall semester, 2000:

At Colgate University, we believe honesty and integrity are fundamental in a community dedicated to learning, personal development, and a search for understanding. We revere these values and hold them essential in promoting personal responsibility, moral and intellectual leadership, and pride in ourselves and our University. As Colgate students, we will represent ourselves truthfully, claim only work that is our own, and engage honestly in all academic assignments. Since articulated standards and expectations can influence attitudes, and because each of us shares the responsibility for maintaining academic integrity, we are committed to upholding the Academic Honor Code.

Along with the code, the reporting procedures and an outline of the forms of academic dishonesty as defined and recognized by the University discussed below can also be found in the Colgate Student Handbook 2007–2009. A separate Academic Honor Code booklet, which is distributed to first-year students through the first-year seminars and can also be obtained through the office of the Dean of the College, contains the Academic Honor Code, articles on college-level writing and academic honesty, and other information.

Upon matriculation to Colgate, students sign a statement agreeing to abide by the Academic Honor Code. Students are responsible for knowing and understanding the procedures associated with the University’s Academic Honor Code and the definitions of academic dishonesty as recognized by the college. Each first-year seminar at Colgate devotes at least one class period to a discussion of the University policy on academic dishonesty. In addition, all instructors are strongly urged to inform their students in advance, preferably in writing, of their specific policies and procedures concerning examinations, especially “take-home” exams, as well as papers, tests, laboratory assignments, and other academic exercises in a  course.

Under the provisions of the Honor Code, faculty may choose to offer self-scheduled examinations. Self-scheduled final examinations are administered under the direction of the Office of the Associate Dean of the Faculty.

Members of the Colgate community who misrepresent themselves or their work, or who suspect another of such misrepresentation are expected  to acknowledge their concerns to the instructor in the class or to their academic or administrative adviser. A student who observes what may be academically dishonest behavior on the part of another student is expected to share that concern with the other student in a timely fashion. If the observer and the other student determine that no violation of the academic honor code has occurred, no further action is required. However, if either student believes that an academic honor code violation may have occurred, the student observed is expected to self-report the incident immediately  to the instructor in the class or to his or her academic or administrative adviser. Self-reporting does not constitute an admission of responsibility but is an essential step, necessary to prevent misunderstanding and apprehensions. Within three class days, the observer will also contact the Associate Dean for Administrative Advising to insure that the self-report has indeed taken place. The instructor will review the elements of the complaint, and if the instructor believes that the academic honor code has been violated, he or she will contact the university Judicial Officer, who will convene a University Student Conduct Board hearing as outlined in the Student Handbook.

Colgate University defines academic dishonesty as any attempt to misrepresent one’s performance on any academic exercise submitted for evaluation. Departments, at their option, may further clarify this general definition in writing (and distribute this clarification in courses in that department), and a violation of the department’s statement shall be considered a violation of the academic dishonesty policy of the University as a whole. In any situation where a student questions the appropriateness of representing a work as his or her own, it will be the student’s responsibility to raise the question with the instructor. Ignorance of University policy concerning academic dishonesty shall not be a defense in any Conduct Board proceeding.

Colgate University recognizes four forms of academic dishonesty: cheating, fabrication (of data or sources), facilitating academic dishonesty, and plagiarism. They are defined in the Student Handbook. All students are urged to read these definitions carefully to gain a complete understanding of behavior that the University considers academically dishonest. Ignorance of the definitions will not be seen as a defense in University Conduct Board proceedings.

Cheating is defined as attempting to use prohibited materials, information, or study aids in any academic exercise. To prevent possible claims of cheating, there should be strict adherence to the following guidelines:

1. Faculty members should state, in advance, their policies and procedures concerning examinations and other academic exercises. Students should request such information if a faculty member neglects to offer it.

2. It is especially important that clear guidelines be established and followed concerning the use of “take home” examinations.

3. Students completing an “in class” or “take home” examination should assume that any external assistance (e.g., books, notes, calculators, conversations with others) is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the instructor.

4. Substantial portions of the same academic work may not be submitted for credit or honors more than once without the permission of the instructor(s).

5. Students must not allow others to conduct research or prepare any work for them without advance authorization from the instructor. This comment includes, but is not restricted to, commercial term paper companies and files of past papers.

Fabrication is defined as the attempt to falsify or invent without authorization any information or citation in an academic exercise. To prevent possible claims of fabrication, there should be strict adherence to the following guidelines:

1. “Invented” information may not be used in any laboratory experiment or other academic exercise without notice to and authorization from the instructor. It would be improper, for example, to analyze one sample in an experiment and covertly “invent” data based on that single experiment for several more required analyses.

2. A student should acknowledge the actual source from which he or she obtains cited information. For example, a writer should not reproduce a quotation found in a book review and indicate that the quotation was obtained from the book itself.

Facilitating academic dishonesty is defined as attempting to help another to commit an act of academic dishonesty. For example, if a student gives another student a specific answer to a homework assignment and knows that such assistance was either prohibited or would not be acknowledged, he or she is facilitating academic dishonesty.

 

  • No labels