1. When I taught in the 90’s, we had over 100 engineering students turn in the a computer lab P-Chem assignment with the same time and date stamp on the output.  In other words, one student did the assignment and the others simply photocopied it.  When we raised this with the engineering dean, he tried to throw that back on us, saying “in engineering students frequently collaborate and you should have been more clear.”  Collaborate?  A simple computer exercise and he tells us with a straight face that all 100+ students worked together on it?  Fine, add yet another set of lines to the syllabus and move on.

2. Around hte same time, the professor who took over teaching the PChem laboratory course tweaked the labs.  In one lab which was  taught year after year, he cleaned up some notation, changing a few things like t-naugt to t-1 and some other symbols.  We got back somewhere around 18 lab reports that not only were very similar, they used *last* year’s notation.   Some were identical. Copy *.* from a previous year, others  changing only the name and a few with feeble attempts to change some of the writing.  We FAILED every student who did this even though it included chemistry and engineering majors who needed the course to graduate later that year.  Yep, our majors had to stay another semester to finish their degrees.  Engineering? Even though the course was required for their degrees, their dean made up a presumably no-show summer course to REPLACE the one they had failed so  they could finish their degrees on time. Our Department actually had to go to the University Senate and push through a rule that said if you failed a required course for cheating you had to take that SAME course over.

3. I believe it was an Organic exam, but the story was thirdhand and long ago. The instructor went over the exam in class. Afterwards, a student came up and said “that’s what I put for #8, but you gave me zero on it. Can I get it regraded?”  The instructor looked at the student and said “you are aware that we randomly photocopy exams before you hand this to me?”  The student nodded and asked for the regrade.  Turns out, we weren’t bluffing. The photocopy shows the space was left blank.  Not sure if we failed her for the exam or the course, but she took it to the ombudsman saying “Oh, I guess I must have written that down there as I was following along in class and didn’t realize it.”  The ombudsman overturned us. No penalty.

4. Someone who I know very well….let’s say his name is BOB.  Bob tells me that when he sits on a thesis committee, either for the candidacy (masters/PhD deciding one) or final defense, he likes to loosen the students up with self-deprecating softball questions to make the students feel comfortable and get their self-confidence up. Questions like “It’s been a long time since I have done/encountered [word in their thesis title], can you give a quick recap of that for me…” In case 1, a candidacy exam, the student couldn’t correctly describe anything at all about what they had supposedly been working on for 2 years, not even how many valence electrons were in the element in their computational study. The committee failed the student, but their adviser allowed him to redefend just 2 weeks later, having memorized the answers he failed the first time…and since the advisor was also chair well,  they passed him.  In case 2, a PhD defense, the student couldn’t even explain a key term in his thesis title or distinguish it from two similar phenomena, even after lots more softball questions.  This term was central to the work, something the student had worked on for FOUR years, and student and advisor had published papers on the topic.   As a junior faculty member and knowing his place, Bob said he would go along with whatever the committee decided, and well, gee, the student passed, imagine that.

5. More recently, I have taught a special topics course in Nobel Prize Chemistry. Which is a fun course, doesn’t require a text, is wonderfully inter/multidisciplinary, and looks at all kinds of interesting reasoning and how the line between genius and junk science can sometimes be indistinguishable. On Day 1, I assign a 5-7 page (minimum) term paper nominating someone (1-3 people are allowed on a Prize) for a Nobel in Chemistry (or something Medicine or Physics-related if you play up the chemistry as we have so many biochem students). I supply them with the Nobel Committee criteria, a list of web sites that routinely predict prize winners (including major media and chem blogs, some of which have extensive lists with odds), a list of precursor prizes that often predict Nobel success etc.  Each student must pick a unique topic (once a topic is selected I post it on a list of taken projects)  and students must get the topic approved after presenting supporting arguments/ideas not too far into the semester so they are working on a project that can succeed. The final  paper must include primary literature references, a discussion of prior art/work, who else could have been considered but has not been included etc.  And they will present the idea to the class as well. The papers are not due until near the end of the term. It’s a TON of work to grade as students (esp biochem) will write on stuff I have no background or knowledge of myself, but that’s fine with me as learn stuff I would not normally have exposed myself to. I’m comfortable with the term paper approach as it’s virtually  impossible to copy off the Internet since it’s a unique assignment.

I also go through a lengthy discussion of plagiarism, having encountered that all too often (Google up my name and plagiarism; I authored an early work back in the 90’s containing definitions and specific Chemistry examples. Many schools adapted it for their own use…with my permission).  I also state in class and write in the assignment that the university had a subscription to the plagiarism service, Turnitin, which runs papers against all known paper mill papers and literature.

The first time I ran the course, I had about 30 students and no issues.  The last time I ran it (before the pandemic), wow. FOUR out of the 17 papers were plagiarized so badly I had to refer them to the Dean and fail the students on the assignment. Two others had borderline cases I did not refer.  I wish I was making this up, but at least one of them took stuff right from Wikipedia as their opening paragraph.  BTW, the administration followed the procedures to the letter on this, so it was all handled properly, unlike cases 1-4. Yay, actually rigor.

A reasonable and interesting  assignment with the student free to follow their own interest, a clearly defined set of rules, a wealth of supporting resources, and unlimited access to me if the students wanted help with the assignment or writing. You can do all that and still end up with this kind of [what is the word??].  Debacle. HOW?  I TOLD them over and over how seriously I took plagiarism.   WHY?  With all the opportunity and support why did they resort to this? They had alll semester and the course was not particularly difficult. It’s not like the students who cheated were some Hollywood malevolent jerk student stereotypes - these were just regular nice kids who showed up to class, had varying degrees of engagement, and seemed no different from any other students.  I know there’s a certain intimidation/power dynamic with students speaking up, but while I’m firm, I am supportive; I’m one of those who makes sure he calls on every student in the room and thinks there is no such thing as a stupid question. [I have ANOTHER (much shorter, promise) story about how witnessing intimidation/bad teaching when I was a student impacted my entire pedagogical outlook if anyone cares to hear that later].  Sigh. So while I have sympathy for all sides in the Jones story, I can certainly empathize with those taking the instructor’s side. I also have a low tolerance for KYA and bad teaching, of course (cases 1-4).

So, I will summarize that  there is so much crap and malfeasance within the system, so much going on behind closed doors, and so much you can’t publicly disclose regarding student performance, that none of us will ever know what truly transpired in the Jones case other than the poor communication which is self-evident. But I do know that when people who pour their heart and soul into their teaching are faced with unfathomable student intractability or are asked to lower standards, it takes a huge emotional toll, one that we don’t talk about nearly enough.

Rob Toreki