4 ms·

> In 2015, Ophardt explained, the academy made changes to the honor code allowing for second chances. Why did they change this? Did the other US military acade

> In 2015, Ophardt explained, the academy made changes to the honor code allowing for second chances. Why did they change this? Did the other US military academies (USAFA, USNA, USCGA) change their codes/concepts, as well? The Honor Code is (was?) straightforward and if you broke it, you were gone.

teorema 6y ago
For whatever reason, the stance toward academic dishonesty has changed everywhere in higher education for reasons that aren't clear to me. The two other institutions I taught at used to have very strict policies about it and then at some point they became laxer in a similar way. It used to be a no warnings policy, and then became more wishy washy. I always assumed it was to be more realistic, in that many students were being granted exceptions of sorts. There also can be a lot of grey area with cheating. Overall my impression was that some lawyers recommended the change to avoid liability. But I really don't know.
- cbozeman 6y ago
  Its completely clear to me. If you kick out a first-year student, you've deprived the university of the next three years of income from that student. We've allowed money to become the guiding principle of higher education, rather than ability. The sad truth no one wants to admit to, is that most people don't need to go to college, and frankly, if we were go to back just 60 years to the rigor of those curriculums, most people couldn't hack it, either.
  - neapolisbeach 6y ago
    That doesn't really apply in this case-- for service academies student's are all on a full-scholarship and are paid a stipend. If anything it would be cheaper to kick them out. But that is at odds with the goal (competent service-members).
gnopgnip 6y ago
A zero tolerance policy often has unwanted outcomes. Because the punishment is so extreme even for minor problems it isn't enforced that way in practice, unwritten policies are used. It means that problems cannot be corrected, you can't learn from mistakes

teorema 6y ago

For whatever reason, the stance toward academic dishonesty has changed everywhere in higher education for reasons that aren't clear to me. The two other institutions I taught at used to have very strict policies about it and then at some point they became laxer in a similar way. It used to be a no warnings policy, and then became more wishy washy. I always assumed it was to be more realistic, in that many students were being granted exceptions of sorts. There also can be a lot of grey area with cheating. Overall my impression was that some lawyers recommended the change to avoid liability. But I really don't know.

cbozeman 6y ago
Its completely clear to me. If you kick out a first-year student, you've deprived the university of the next three years of income from that student. We've allowed money to become the guiding principle of higher education, rather than ability. The sad truth no one wants to admit to, is that most people don't need to go to college, and frankly, if we were go to back just 60 years to the rigor of those curriculums, most people couldn't hack it, either.
- neapolisbeach 6y ago
  That doesn't really apply in this case-- for service academies student's are all on a full-scholarship and are paid a stipend. If anything it would be cheaper to kick them out. But that is at odds with the goal (competent service-members).

gnopgnip 6y ago

A zero tolerance policy often has unwanted outcomes. Because the punishment is so extreme even for minor problems it isn't enforced that way in practice, unwritten policies are used. It means that problems cannot be corrected, you can't learn from mistakes