USAFA Cheating Scandal

I have heard of cases were cadets are being disenrolled for failing Calculus and not cheating on their test. USAFA is cutting down on the cadet wing, should we not let the cadets who cheated go and keep the honest cadets, who just need a little more time to make up their grades, to me a great leader works hard to become successful not take a short cut. "nor tolerate among us anyone who does" what message are we sending out to the rest of the cadet wing? We dont care that you have been honest and have always done the right thing, we are making you tolerate the cheaters!! were is the moral going to go????
 
Good point, HOWEVER, there are still honor violations for which plebes are separated. A system that allows growth does not mean a system that allows plebes a "freebie" for any and all honor violations.

Yes, that's why I included "although naturally this depends on the specific offense". I'm trying to get the "any violation must result in separation" folks to understand that that might not be the best approach.

In this (these) specific case(s), as always, the public does not have all of the facts of the case(s). I submit that allowing the system to run its course is the best approach. The system allows for some discretion (apparently "remediation" in USAFA-speak). Even when a bunch of cadets are involved, the best punishment is rarely of the one size fits all variety.
 
You know why different sections of the same course have different WPRs, right?

To those who are demanding the guillotine (or gallows, or firing squad, pick your metaphor): at least in the case of the USMA honor system, cadets are expected to GROW into a self-policing honorable person. Plebes are expected to follow the code, firsties are expected to have internalized it. It is quite logical to be less "fatal" when it comes to punishing plebes (which is what most of the cadets who cheated on the math test were), although naturally this depends on the specific offense.

The link below has some good information on what USMA calls "discretion" (and note that discretion has been around for a LONG time) :

http://isme.tamu.edu/JSCOPE02/Beers02.html

Actually, at least in my experience, the WPR's are the same all sections are the same across all my different classes be it math, language, history, etc (with individual professor variation in history on what short answers to choose) unless you are taking the WPR at a different time than the scheduled slot for it. Once you've cleared the room and have handed in your test, talking about the WPR is fair game which is why they have different versions for make-ups and make-aheads. That's why we're also allowed to keep old WPR versions to study from, and trust me, departments like physics and math, there isn't much they can do really besides change a few numbers in how they ask questions. My history professor told us we'd be stupid not to talk to others about previous exams/writs, and this coming from the department that is the most uptight when it comes to honor violations.

I understand the idea of discretion and that plebes are given more leniency when it comes to what they're expected to have mastered. That does not change the fact, you can't put any ownership what so ever on anyone but the individual who cheated.

For me, I guess I see cheating as one of the more black and white aspects of the code, at least in cases of test taking just like stealing is. Either you took the test unassisted and or you misrepresented yourself by using some outside source that you were not allowed to use. There is no ambiguity about whether your told the whole truth or twisted the truth as can become difficult when you're talking to someone who isn't outright lying to you.
 
A My history professor told us we'd be stupid not to talk to others about previous exams/writs, and this coming from the department that is the most uptight when it comes to honor violations.
When I was at West Point, this was everyone's History TEE (final):

Explain the history of the world from the Babylonians through present day. Ensure you use specific examples. You have three hours. Good luck! :eek:
 
Let's be clear that no one gets separated for not cheating.

Obviously. The point is that had they cheated (like a good percentage of their classmates) they wouldn't be getting separated for failing the same class.

Actually, to clarify, the test these cadets cheated on isn't an actual "class" test. It's more of a skills/mastery test that all cadets have to take and score highly on (I believe it's either 85 or 90 percent) in order to pass the class. It's not like a chapter test or final exam.

My son does know several people (one a good friend) who were separated last year (2014) for failing the test (and hence Calculus). I think that's why he finds it even harder that members of 2015 are being allowed to stay when they passed the class by cheating. If nothing else, I believe they should have to retake the exam and pass it, or be separated for academics.

@lisah - the reason the failing sparked the investigation is that these cadets scored highly on this test during the semester and then failed the final exam (administered in the classroom under supervision). The cheating was done prior to the test that was failed.

Also, for anyone not familiar with Wolfram Alpha, it's a site that allows you to type in pretty much any question and get the answer. It seems very hard to me to justify that was not cheating and that anyone could think otherwise. Apparently a big part of the investigation was that many students finished the test, and then used the site to check their answers to see how they did. So USAFA was comparing times for cadets to see if that was in fact the case (and they'd submitted the test online first) or if it was actually during the test. And for the folks saying that they just used it during the test to "check answers" as they went - I don't see how this is any different than looking at a classmate's paper during a test to see what they got and if it matches yours! Although in that case there was at least a chance they might be wrong too. I don't think anyone would argue that copying off someone isn't cheating - how can you think copying off a site designed to give the correct answer isn't or that these cadets, after nearly a year at the Academy, wouldn't?

@DHinNH - as Casey stated, I never saw different WPR's given during my time at the academy (or they were rare because a specific P wanted to) and yes, we reused old tests to study. I also NEVER knew anyone "found" on honor who wasn't separated. And several who were. It simply wasn't an option. You could be not found, meaning they didn't think you were cheating (etc) or had done so unwittingly but if found the only option was dismissal. That was my understanding. I'm curious why yours is different a year later. I thought all the remediation philosophies didn't come around until after around 2000.

@Falcongirl - I'm glad to hear that it's not a mass "remediation across the board" as the article implied. Thanks for letting us know.

And finally, as Scout points out for about the 10,000th time on this forum - Regs do NOT equal Honor. I've gotten into this debate SO many times on the parent forums so maybe it's something you do have to be a grad to understand. But I usually see the opposite - people claiming someone isn't "honorable" because they broke a regulation. Have to admit this is the first time I'm seeing parents justify honor violations because "everyone breaks rules". In fact that seems to be the underlying issue in this whole investigation - that of course the cadets knew it was cheating but "everyone does it".
 
Having the benefits of being old and perhaps littler wiser than when I was younger, I believe the honor code is about internalization of the code, not analyzing if an action is a violation or not before making the decision.

The Honor Code is a way to make cadets/midshipman a better officer/person. I know that some folks have hard time understanding the difference between a regulation violation and an honor violation. When I was a cadet, a discussion we had was if we cover up the window after lights out, is that a regulation violation or an honor violation. The Honor rep's answer was that it was a regulation violation. No human made process is perfect, but if cadets/midshipmen become more self-aware and do the right things the Honor Code served its purpose.


When making a decision, the first question should be what is the right thing to do, not if I do this am I violating the Honor code. If the first question is am I violating the Honor code, I don't think a cadet/midshipman internalized the Honor code.
 
"Get back here so we can make you leave!" :confused:

Interesting point. If the cadet/midshipman in question met the terms of their remediation/probation, is it proper or honorable for command to reneg on an agreement? Not sure about this one.
 
Having the benefits of being old and perhaps littler wiser than when I was younger, I believe the honor code is about internalization of the code, not analyzing if an action is a violation or not before making the decision.

The Honor Code is a way to make cadets/midshipman a better officer/person. I know that some folks have hard time understanding the difference between a regulation violation and an honor violation. When I was a cadet, a discussion we had was if we cover up the window after lights out, is that a regulation violation or an honor violation. The Honor rep's answer was that it was a regulation violation. No human made process is perfect, but if cadets/midshipmen become more self-aware and do the right things the Honor Code served its purpose.


When making a decision, the first question should be what is the right thing to do, not if I do this am I violating the Honor code. If the first question is am I violating the Honor code, I don't think a cadet/midshipman internalized the Honor code.

+1. Well Said. Honor, morals, values, are personal and ultimately need to be self imposed compared to laws, rules, and regulations. And lying, cheating, and stealing are not all inclusive of what constitutes being honorable.
 
When I was at West Point, this was everyone's History TEE (final):

Explain the history of the world from the Babylonians through present day. Ensure you use specific examples. You have three hours. Good luck! :eek:

This might more properly be posted under Summer Reading, but the subject seems too urgent to let it wait until everyone's putting on suntan lotion.

If for some reason you've been unable or unwilling to study world history all semester and your only choices are to flunk out or survive the on-line exam by any means necessary, then you might want to borrow (i.e., plagiarize) from an out-of-print book titled The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody by Will Cuppy. The following passages are an example of what should be good for at least a C Plus. I've left in Cuppy's footnotes, which could make all the difference:

Alexander the Great
Alexander III of Macedonia was born in 356 B.C., on the sixth day of the month of Lous. He is known as Alexander the Great because he killed more people of more different kinds than any other man of his time. (Footnote) He did this in order to impress Greek culture upon them. Alexander was not strictly a Greek and he was not cultured, but that was his story, and who am I to deny it?

Alexander's father Philip II subdued the Greeks after they had knocked themselves out in the Peloponnesian War and appointed himself Captain General so that he could uphold the ideals of Hellas. The main ideal of Hellas was to get rid of Philip, but he didn't count that one.

Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons.

[Footnote] Alexander was often extremely brutal to his captives, whom he sold into slavery, tortured to death, or forced to learn Greek.

Hannibal

The Romans were stern and dignified, living hard, frugal lives and adhering to the traditional Latin virtues, gravitas, pietas, simplicitas, and adultery.
[Footnote] Carthage was governed by its rich men and was therefore a plutocracy. Rome was also governed by its rich men and was therefore a republic.
[Footnote] The Phoenicians employed an alphabet of twenty-one consonants. They left no literature. You can't be literary without a few vowels.
Hamilcar also told Hannibal about elephants and how you must always have plenty of these animals to scare the enemy. He attributed much of his own success to elephants and believed they would have won the First Punic War for him if things hadn't gone slightly haywire; for the war had turned into a naval affair. But even when the fighting was on land, the Romans did not scare nearly so well as expected. The Romans had learned about elephants while fighting Pyrrhus, whose elephants defeated him in 275 B.C., and even before that, in Alexander's time, King Porus had been undone by his own elephants. Thus, if history had taught any one thing up to that time, it was never to use elephants in war.
Then Hamilcar … was drowned in 228 B.C. while crossing a stream with a herd of elephants.
Taking elephants across the Alps is not as much fun as it sounds. The Alps are difficult enough when alone, and elephants are peculiarly fitted for not crossing them.
Whenever a thousand or so of his men would fall off an Alp, Hannibal would tell the rest to cheer up, the elephants were all right. If someone had given him a shove at the right moment, much painful history might have been avoided.
[Footnote] Livy informs us that Hannibal split the huge Alpine rocks with vinegar to break a path for the elephants. Vinegar was a high explosive in 218 B.C., but not before or since.
Most of the original group [of elephants] succumbed to the climate, and Hannibal was always begging Carthage for more, but the people at home were stingy. They would ask if he thought they were made of elephants and what he had done with the elephants they sent before. Sometimes, when he hadn't an elephant to his name, he would manage to wangle a few from somewhere, a feat which strikes me as his greatest claim to our attention.
And he [Hannibal] probably believed, up to the very end, that everything might still come out right if he only had a few you-know-whats.

Cleopatra
Julius Caesar stayed in Egypt from early October until late in June settling affairs of state. It was a boy and they called him Caesarion, or Little Caesar, so Cleopatra now regarded herself as practically engaged. Caesar might have married her, but he had a wife at home. There's always something.
[Footnote] The first of Caesar's three marriages — to Cornelia, a very rich girl — resulted tragically. Sylla, Caesar's enemy, confiscated her dowry soon after the wedding.

Nero
In some respects, Nero was ahead of his time. He boiled his drinking water to remove the impurities and cooled it with unsanitary ice to put them back in. He renamed the month of April after himself, calling it Neroneus, but the idea never caught on because April is not Neroneus and there is no use pretending that it is. During his reign of fourteen years, the outlying provinces are said to have prospered. They were farther away.
[Footnote] At the age of twelve Nero had shown a lively interest in the arts, particularly music, painting, sculpture, and poetry. Why was nothing done about this?
 
Well said Hornet, I often wonder how such legendary leaders like Robin Olds might have fared. He was walking tours until a half hour before graduation, stripped of rank as an upperclassman Olds was a clean sleeve at West Point. Great leaders are not always the model cadet. Those people you speak of are truly inspirational examples.

I doubt that Robin Olds was walking tours for honor violations. Great leaders are often not toe-the-line "Joes" with respect to regulations about cleanliness of one's room, etc, but I doubt that you can name someone who is recognized as a truly great leader who also was known to have had an honor violation.
 
If over 70 people cheated on a Calc test, I am willing to bet that they have/will cheat on many other tests ESPECIALLY when teacher walks out of the room as they do at the USAFA.

In my 47 years of life, I have learned that most people are generally honest. But when someones back is against the wall, they will behave in ways that will surprise you. That person could be your Mom, best friend etc. You don't really know a person till their back is against the wall. For instance my next door neighbor (and former good friend) was on the parish council at his church and I knew him to be an honest person. Later he had a sever financial crisis and he did things to survive. For instance I suspect he started his house on fire, he factually didn't pay his taxes and our fine state is chasing him down, he borrowed money from his brother and never paid him back, he stiffed contractors, etc. His true colors came out and he rationalized his behavior somehow. I believe you are who you hang with and I no longer consider him a friend and I have not talked with him in 5 years. I'm not saying that everyone will cheat if their back is against the wall. But I am saying you don't really know them until you see how they act when it is against the wall. :)

So it seems these cadets are in an academic "survival mode" as a freshman. My mind is drifting... Excluding ethics, what does that say about the caliber of students? I realize that calculus isn't exactly easy for a lot of students. But I thought only the top students got into the USAFA program.:confused:

It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation to who cheated. I am going with the theory that the people who cheated felt they had to because their back was already against the wall. Calc 1 shouldn't be that tough for some of the brightest students in the USA. Hence, I suspect there are students that are getting in that may not have qualified to enter an elite academic institution. This isn't good for the reputation of the USAFA. I'm sure the non-cheating students are disappointed. I know I would be.

Does anybody know which semester of Calc the students cheated on? The report said that some sophomores also took the test as well. I would have guessed that the "smartest" students tested out of the 1st semester class because they took it in high school.
 
My understanding was that it was a Calc 2 exam, meaning the normal progression for second semester for someone who didn't validate any calculus coming into the academy.
 
My point is that they are not as experienced in working in a military environment being that its their first year. Putting them on remediation for admitting to a mistake seems more fitting than expelling them.

Again, in this post I'm going to remove my ALO hat and speak as an AF officer and USAFA graduate.

I will respectfully disagree with you.

You are correct, they perhaps aren't "as experienced" as others in working in a military environment. However, they've been there a year...they've had numerous honor lectures, discussions, etc., and they've all agreed to live by the honor code, to uphold its high standards, and to live their lives by its very creed.

As a military commander, I've had 18 year old airmen working "for me" in my organization. And they've gone out drinking underage, and they've cheated on tests, lied to their supervisors, and they've gone to "Rave's" and taken a single hit from a bong, etc...etc...

And I've punished them according to the law...yes, I spoke with legal officers (JAG) prior to doing anything to accord them all their rights but at the end of the day I've seen an 18 year old airman, 6 months out of high school, sentenced to jail time and a dishonorable discharge for ONE hit from a meth pipe. Try going through life with that discharge...

Was that "harsh" or "unfair?" I say no, that's the law...airmen are told/taught about the UCMJ but more importantly, they're told what they should not/may not/WILL NOT do. It's that simple. Should a cadet be treated to a different, more lenient standard than that airman?

Same thing with the honor code. Cadets are told what is and what is not "honorable" and within the code's limits/guidelines. To violate that is to make a conscious choice and there are consequences to all our choices, both good and bad.

So I do not think disenrollment to be too harsh a punishment for someone who has violated the honor code, even as a four-degree. I saw plenty of folks removed for honor while I was at USAFA. The "rare case of discretion" was recommended by honor boards when the accused "set themselves apart" and showed they were worthy of that "second chance."

The best example I remember; and will remember for the rest of my life was when I was a 2-degree. And if the members will indulge me, I'll recite it here in "short version."

A "firstie" went to England on leave...met a nice lady, and they traveled together. She was driving one day and they had an accident. She was terrified...the police arrived, and in a split-second, when asked HE said he was driving, the accident was his fault. So he was charged, paid a large fine, and that was that.

Several months later he went to his squadron honor representative and reported the entire incident; he said it had been bothering him since that day.

Eventually he went before an honor board...it was "cut and dried" and he was found to have violated the honor code. However...the board recommended to the commandant that he be granted "discretion" and retained at the academy.

Why?

Because NOBODY would have ever learned of this lie, had he not come forward. But his inner sense of honor, his acceptance of the honor code, what it meant, and his acceptance of the potential consequences, showed this to have been a "pop off" and more importantly, it showed his HONOR was intact.

He graduated that year and went on to serve a long and distinguished career.

For every "gimme" the academy gives because it's "viewed as harsh, etc..." you dishonor people like this officer and all the others, including those that were found guilty and disenrolled.

Just my opinion; and yes, I am an "old grad" with perhaps "archaic" views on this compared to folks today. But you know, for all the kidding we give each other in our services...USMA has been doing this since 1802 if I remember correctly, and USNA since around 1846...and they've been doing it pretty well.

Steve
USAFA '83
 
It seems like the punishment system is completely our of context. I got ARC'd last year because I failed a class and was one vote from getting kicked out, yet these kids won't even face that kind of board. They will most likely receive a passing grade for a course they cheated on and got caught (at least) once and not even face real consequences for their actions. I had a classmate in the same situation last year (before all this happened) but in the same class. He failed the FSE twice and is no longer at the academy, great cadet too.

Later,

Brian
 
That does not change the fact, you can't put any ownership what so ever on anyone but the individual who cheated.

For me, I guess I see cheating as one of the more black and white aspects of the code, at least in cases of test taking just like stealing is. Either you took the test unassisted and or you misrepresented yourself by using some outside source that you were not allowed to use. There is no ambiguity about whether your told the whole truth or twisted the truth as can become difficult when you're talking to someone who isn't outright lying to you.
Well said. Almost exactly how my son explained his "feelings" about this matter.
 
Did any of the accused cheaters self report? I understand that is also an integral part of the USAFA Honor Code. I would give a little more leniency to a cadet who self reported, rather than one who didn't come forward until they were accused (caught).

Steve's example about the auto accident and the cadet "self reporting it" - I agree with him, it shows that honor is intact.

But I also agree with scoutpilot in that there is nothing honorable about cheating and admitting the cheating to avoid additional punishment.

However we as citizens, alumni, active duty, or cadets/mids feel about it, the USAFA has a written defined policy that seems to excuse honor violations in some cases and instead of "nor tolerate any among us who does" in fact tolerates them and even gives a detailed instruction manual as to when to tolerate them.

The manual can be read here:

AIR FORCE CADET WING HONOR CODE REFERENCE HANDBOOK - Volume II – The Honor System
 
My son does know several people (one a good friend) who were separated last year (2014) for failing the test (and hence Calculus). I think that's why he finds it even harder that members of 2015 are being allowed to stay when they passed the class by cheating. If nothing else, I believe they should have to retake the exam and pass it, or be separated for academics.
My son told me that the cadets caught cheating on this test were supposedly going to recieve failing grades on the course and would be required to retake the entire course. Maybe just another rumor, but he heard it from a classmate that cheated.
And finally, as Scout points out for about the 10,000th time on this forum - Regs do NOT equal Honor. I've gotten into this debate SO many times on the parent forums so maybe it's something you do have to be a grad to understand. But I usually see the opposite - people claiming someone isn't "honorable" because they broke a regulation. Have to admit this is the first time I'm seeing parents justify honor violations because "everyone breaks rules". In fact that seems to be the underlying issue in this whole investigation - that of course the cadets knew it was cheating but "everyone does it".
Excellent point!
 
Back
Top