In accordance with instructions for the faculty to investigate the problem of cheating, the Faculty council wishes to present the following report for discusx also by the faculty at the next faculty meeting. Believing that any thorough study of the problem of student cheating would have to take more accurate account of faculty opinion than was heretofore available the Faculty council, through its subcommittee on discipline, sent out a questionnaire to 205 members of the In~ stitute staff. Over 100 replies to this questionnaire were received-many more than is usually expected from such polls. From this sampling the results are be- lieved to be fairly indicative of faculty opinion. Granting the questionnaire had many faults and that it did not secure enact data on the amount of cheating per instructor, some otherwise reliable in- formation was collected. l. The faculty, as sampled, believes cheating is prevalent at Illinois in- stitute of Technology. It is of little importance what the exact figures are; as long as the faculty and the students believe cheating exists in more than occasional instances, the situation is present and undesirable. The faculty, as sampled, believes cheating is a serious offense, serious enough that measures should be taken to get at the root of the prob lens and to eliminate it as far as is possible. The faculty, as sampled, did not be» lieve, as is commonly asserted, that students cheat as a kind of game indulged in to “beat the system.” It believed that cheating is the result of situations characteristic of the educational pattern followed at Illi- nois Institute of Technology. The faculty, as sampled, was agreed that such situations as student-in- structor relationship (autocracy, aloofness, indifference, servility, etc), poor instruction (“take—it-or~ leavewit,” “don’t ask any questions,” “drill-master sergeant stud”) , heavy student load (“not enough time to get free from a sense of grind”), the use and character of tests (“everything depends on the test grade,” “students live from test to test,” “all that matters is what you i5 r" On March 27, 1950, the following report was prepared on student cheating. can remember,” “nobody gets a chance to think in the exams”) are largely responsible for cheating. The faculty, as sampled, did not be‘ lievc that the methods of grading; or that grading on a curve were signifi— cant factors in the cheating prob- lem. 6. Some faculty members submitted suggestions, both provocative and interesting for the control of cheat- ing, some of which are incorporated in the paragraphs below. The Faculty council, in an attempt to interpret and clarify these data, sug— gests that there are two ways of dealing with the problem of cheating: 1. Work within the present framework of instruction and examination methods. In this case the problem is largely one of policing, apprehen- sion, indictment, and trial. If this is to be the method employed, the committee on discipline is charged with the responsibility of setting up and enforcing a system throughout the school. It would have to increase and enforce proctor-lug, provide bet- ter physical facilities for giving examinations, and might have to im- pose stifi'er penalties. Cheating, no doubt, would continue but where detected it would be punished. Or, as the results of the poll may indicate, more drastic changes might be contemplated: open-book examin- ations, comprehensive examinations, a pass-fail system of grading. These changes would involve far more than cheating; they would involve a com- plete rel-thinking of our educational philosophy—our aims, purposes. and methods. There is evidence in schools where such devices have been de- veloped that cheating declines in proportion to the intellectual respon- sibility placed upon the student. Such might, or might not be, the case if tried at Illinois Institute of Technology. The Faculty council believes the de- cision rests with the faculty. It can continue to consider cheating an inevit~ able part of the educational system and maintain police methods to control it. Or it can consider cheating a symptom of organic disorder and try to remove its P‘ or an accounts MESTAKES CATCH UP with us, just like unfinished lab reports. It’s time I tried to straighten up some of the errors that have had wrathful, mis» quoted and misguided students berat~ ing me. I admit we erred with the probation figures published in the March 24 issue. As was stated in a letter to me, James Getz, ME 8, found percentages of 14.3 for Spring ’49, 14.0 percent for Fall ’49 and 26.3 last semester, while the best we could do was 14.3, 18.3 and 25.3, respectively, onenthird correct. This lamebrain calculating weakened our emphasis of the sharp difference of figures for the last two semesters' proba~ 1].... tion casualties. Mr. . Getz snorts at the ex- . ample of mathematics at which “the cream 1' of the crop” was cur pable, asking, “Is the , . growth of probation 3,, l i s t is unreasonable f when such conditions exist?” “Yes,” is my answer; but, don’t take my math for it. REPORTING DillFlCULTlES have beset our News stall" lately. Though it was our purpose to make ITSA stories important, we have committed errors many times. For instance, there is the mixup of dates for the TBP and AIEE dances, which incited Mr. Stein’s let— ter in the next column. We have re- peatedly called the Junior Week Prom the Junior Prom, stirring the wrath of than that, some of our announcements have initially reported that the Prom was formal, when actually it is semi- formal—I repeat, semi—formal. What hordes of irate Prom bid promoters‘wc had on our tail for that one! The publications board is irked at me for allowing opinion to be recorded in a news article, a place where it should not be. Last week, the front— page story on the integral executive interviews included the misleading “candidates will be judged on their per- sonalities and their “viewpoints regard~ ing editorial issues. Letters of recom- mendation from the present editor will aid the board in lmaking its final de— cision.” Lord, what a mess! There are other mistakes I can think of, but I see the end of the column ap— proaching. I hope this is the apology to end all apologies; let’s be buddies again and get our stories straight. CHEATING being still a popular topic of discussion, compare the report of our faculty on cheating with some of the worries and attitudes that have made the temptation strong as depicted by “Little Rob” in our cartoon. I main— tain that an opinion poll conducted jointly by faculty and students will be useful in measuring the prevalence of these attitudes and help us see the problem more clearly. iTSA Social Chairman Wardell. Worse, To the Editor: I wish to thank you in behalf of the AIEE for calling our group a “progressive, ma» ture body," and can assure you that we are doing our best to continue to practice “re sponsible citizenship." , I believe both the I’l‘SA article and your editorial in last week's issue of Technology! News presented the account of the propose AIEE dance from a‘onosided point of View, . and hope that you will, in the interests “of good citizenship, print my reply. The statement was made that “bids were. / sold to people outside of the AIEE.” Thi is not the case, and was never proposed by» us. In fact, no bids were sold to anyone! The dance was planned for the 150 couples, and of this number, half were to be sold to student members of the Northwestern unis versitybranch. Since these students would not have patronized the Junior Prom in any case, I fail to see why it was deemed dan- gerous competition for '?b members of the AIEE to attend a dance of their own eight days prior to the all-school dance, when an affair by 60 members of TBP on the same day was considered not to be competing with the Junior Prom. Further, I wish to inform you that com trary to your statement, our dance was not proposed to boost our revenues, but that 50 per cent of its cost was to be paid from our treasury. We did not “think to observe a more for- mality by submitting a date for approval after having signed a contract with the Sheraton hotel. Our' chosen date was sub~ omitted to the vice-president of ITSA sevua eral"weeks before we closed said contract. ' Lastly, I wish to quote from l’l‘SA’s article “A summary of the responsibilities which student groups have toward lTSA will be available within a short time.” Since ITSA, upon our request, has failed to show in writing to this date what these responsi- bilities are, or that ITS/l has any jurisdic— tion over a financially independent group such as ours, we must assume that these rulings, on the basis of which our dance was barred, have not yet been written. Is this democratic procedure? ll. P. Stein, Vice-President, Amid Editor’s Note: , We apologize to Mr. Stein and to TBP for wrongly stating that the: TBP dance was on the same date as AlEE”s proposed affair (April 28.) Other apol- ogies appear in “As I See IT.” its students of Illinois Institute at Technology, 3300 5. Federal. Chicago In, Illinois. Entered as second class mutter October lo. 1940. at the post office at Chicago, Illinois, under the Act of March 1, “179. Represented for national advertising by the National Advertising Service, Inc., 420 Madison Ave., New York W, N. V. Advertising rates furnished upon ruquotl. Sub- radiations—Domestic: 3|.50 per term. Foreign: $2.00 nor term. a» it it ‘ Editor-inudhlel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .so hilltlh‘llitlfl business launmgor. . . . . . . . . . . . . .cnrr NEWER! Associate Editor. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jtllibibllll lilib‘l‘ Managing Editor. . . . . . . . . . . noun Sflllldwllhi. News bullion...................llllll’i‘ @fillil‘d dam-is Editor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mlllllw SNMMQ restore Editor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .sos littllllilll «toms Willem”....................l@§ B31955 Precautions Editor. . . . . . . . . .DAWS [Wilma Newsletter Editor. . . . . . . . . .Vll‘lflli lunnsotnls Makeup Editor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .WALE‘! HIAlSER Professor, in the middle of a joke, “Have I told you this one before?” Class: “Yes.” Prof.: "Good, then maybe you’ll un- derstand it this time.” it ii- at Conductor: “Madam, that child is over five years old and he will have to pay full fare.” Lady: “But l’ve only been married four years.” lionductor: “lust gimme the fare, lady. l’m not interested in your past.” 4:- r- a Life Ambition: To marry a rich girl who is too proud to let her husband cause. \ a '5 work. A good girl always sticks to “no” A bad‘girl always “yesses” A smart girl makes them sound, alike And holds the boys on guesses. {i ii- 9': She: “OK, come over tonight and we’ll play strip poker.” Techawk: “All right, but couldn’t we bet a little money to make it inter— esting?” Y1 it» s:- lt may cost a lot of dough to say it with flowers, just now, but remem- ber—«it’s still a lot cheaper then put- ting it into writing. Eutectic Eddie Lieutenant General Leslie R, the alumni at their reunion din General Groves, who directed V’the first atomic bomb, is now v for the Remington-Rand company , The alumni reunion will be a par ., of Illinois Tech’s JW~OH festivi ties, May 4-6. While all groups 0 alumni will be represented, ever .five-year class from the perio I 1900-1945 will celebrate specie reunions. x Two members of the HT alum: association will be presented sex the awards at this dinner. (3. Herrick Hammond, super- vising architect for the state of Illinois and member of the architectural firm of Burnham and Hammond, Inc, will re- ceive the association’s distin- , guisbetl service award for . achievement in architecture. Harris Perlstein, trustee of th college and president of the Fab: Brewing company, will receive th alumni service award for his rec o’rd of service to Illinois Tech an the Alumni association. He is ger , oral chairman of the college’s long "range, development program. when Starred as the laugh School Senior imagine the thrill of owning Elgin ‘Wacchcsi Their szyling h praise ofrlmcrica‘s “best-chem once and dependability are assoc achievements as the Borehole