Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Harvard. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Harvard. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Ba, 9 tháng 4, 2013

Does Harvard Need an Honor Code?

Harvard, the oldest and most prestigous institution of higher education in the United States, has never been famous for the virtue of its students. (Remember The Social Network? Kaavya Viswanathan? Marc Stuart Dreier?) But in the wake of several cheating scandals — in particular, the enormous cheating ring discovered in Harvard's "Introduction to Congress" course — a bunch of Harvardians are calling for a formal honor code that, once implemented and signed by students, would somehow discourage students from cheating, plagiarizing, or otherwise tarnishing the good name of Harvard. Here's why that might, but probably won't, work.

RELATED: Wisconsin, a Subway Ad, and Le Cirque

Honor codes vary by college, and remain pretty rare among schools of Harvard's size and focus.  The colleges which have them, or at least those which emphasize them, tend to be Southern and emphasize tradition, of which the honor code itself is usually an integral part. The Virginia Military Institute furnishes a good example: students there have followed its strict honor code — which instructs them not to lie, cheat, or steal — since the military academy was founded in 1839. That's not to say Harvard's peers lack honor codes. As the Associated Press pointed out in August 2012, when the allegations of cheating first emerged, Princeton and Dartmouth, both of which are known for their undergraduate focus, do have honor codes, whereas Harvard — home of Harvard Law and Harvard Business School — does not, and never has.

RELATED: Oops, Harvard Actually Spied on Its Dean Even More Than We Thought

Harvard's lack of an honor code, and the sense of tradition that accompanies it, raises a vexing question: Can you retrofit an honor code onto a school that has never had one? The difficulty here is not so much logistical as cultural; after all, other schools, like Bucknell, have adopted new honor codes that weren't part of the school's prior tradition. But Harvard's tradition — of academic excellence, certainly, but also material success and fame — is arguably deeper than any other collegiate tradition. The only reason Harvard would adopt an honor code would be to change its culture, and it's unclear if actual students, who by virtue of attending Harvard are at least somewhat onboard with its emphasis on success, actually want to declare that something is wrong with the way students go after what they want, however ethically ambiguous it may be.

RELATED: Harvard Forces Students to Get Jobs as Punishment for Cheating

Which is to say that Harvard's administration isn't simply hoping to tamp down on cheating; they're also trying to change the way its students operate. Seen in that light, it might be a bit easier to understand why honor codes have never really caught on at Harvard, where they've been proposed but never actually implemented. And even if an honor code was implemented, it's difficult to see how it would meaningfully alter Harvard's culture, at least at first. Nearly every well-known, successful honor code — like that of Harvard's peer, Princeton — has existed for decades, often centuries. The appeal of an honor code, after all, is that others have followed it, and at Harvard that obviously — obviously — won't be the case.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 11 tháng 3, 2013

Harvard Says It Spied on Teachers to Save Them

Harvard isn't sorry for snooping through the emails of more than a dozen of its own deans. On Monday the university issued a length statement explaining why it secretly sifted through the Harvard.edu email accounts of as many as 16 deans who received a confidential email discussing the procedure by which students who were implicated in last year's massive cheating ring would be adjudicated. And, well, the explanation is pretty thin: They spied to save!

RELATED: Harvard Spied on Its Own Deans During the Cheating Scandal

According to the statement — attributed to arts and sciences faculty dean Michael D. Smith and Harvard College dean Evelynn M. Hammonds — Harvard officials were  officially "concerned" that the leaked email, which was printed by The Harvard Crimson in September, suggested that other, more sensitive documents were in danger of being disclosed (in violation of federal law):

While the specific document made public may be deemed by some as not particularly consequential, the disclosure of the document and nearly word-for-word disclosure of a confidential board conversation led to concerns that other information – especially student information we have a duty to protect as private – was at risk. 

In other words, Harvard now seems to care a lot more about protecting further leaks and controlling its image as a bunch of cheaters than, you know, the privacy and professionalism of its faculty.

RELATED: Mark Zuckerberg's Harvard Career According to The Crimson

The statement indicates that Harvard's email probe, first reported by the Boston Globe this weekend as a secret process to search for certain email headers in the accounts of teachers who live on campus, turned up one resident dean who quickly admitted to forwarding the email in question to two advisees. (It's not indicated, however, if either of those advisees works for The Crimson.) Harvard says it decided to "[protect] the privacy of the Resident Dean who had made an inadvertent error," which is why it didn't tell other deans that their emails had been searched. Because, you know, deans talk?

RELATED: Singing Grandmothers in Russia, Harvard, and 'Hollywood Heights'

The explanation is unlikely to sit well with Harvard's faculty, members of which have already expressed their discontent with Harvard's clandestine hunt for a leaked email. One professor told The New York Times that he was "shocked and dismayed" about Harvard's conduct. Other professors were even more scathing: one called the extensive search "dishonorable"; another deemed it "one of the lowest points in Harvard’s recent history—maybe Harvard’s history, period.":

It’s an invasion of privacy, a betrayal of trust, and a violation of the academic values for which the university should be advocating. And all to try to hunt down the source of a leak on a story about which the university should have been forthcoming in the first place (but of course wasn’t).


View the original article here