Most declined to comment or did not respond. The ‘Prince’ contacted every TA and graduate student listed under the course’s staff on Blackboard twice. A TA is not there to create whatever traps for students and allow this to happen, and it seriously affects the trust that students could have.” “They don’t have that position … That’s the position of professors, teachers, COD, other people. “I don’t think a TA should ever do this, or ever take this power,” they said. One accused MAT 202 student who spoke to the ‘Prince’ expressed frustration with the TA’s approach. Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Johnson declined to comment on the TA’s actions or the ongoing investigation on May 12, and did not respond to an additional request for comment on May 24. “It was chosen to show that the student who reproduced it had not read the copied solution carefully and checked its details, since the irrelevance of the quoted theorem was quite obvious,” Johnson added. Jennifer Johnson, in an email to Joyce Chen Shueh obtained by the 'Prince' While I believe the TA's having taken this initiative is peripheral to the case, I wanted to be transparent about the facts as the Committee considers these cases." The TA assured me that no markers were added to the other problems in Homework 9 that were identified as problematic by our instructors. It was chosen to show that the student who reproduced it had not read the copied solution carefully and checked its details, since the irrelevance of the quoted theorem was quite obvious. This unique marker was designed to provide stronger evidence of wrong-doing should students choose to violate the rules and copy the posted solution. Reference to a Theorem that had no relevance to the problem at hand. "The TA rewrote this pre-existing wrong solution to problem 23 in Section 8.1 in order to add a specific marker in the form of a “On 5/11 one of the MAT202 TA’s alerted me that he had looked at Slader, where he found and modified an incorrect solution to one of the homework problems,” Johnson wrote in the email, later obtained by the ‘Prince,’ with the subject line “update on COD investigation - further details.”
In her email, Johnson wrote that she did not have firsthand knowledge of the TA’s actions and “never looked at the Slader or Chegg websites” herself. On May 16, Johnson told Chen Shueh that a MAT 202 TA had posted an intentionally-incorrect phrase online in order to more easily identify students using forbidden resources. That problem set came after the COVID-19 pandemic forced the University to move online, meaning students completed it remotely. Through several obtained documents, the ‘Prince’ is aware of at least 21 students who were suspected of academic integrity violations in relation to a MAT 202 problem set due in mid-April. Johnson declined to comment on the exact number of students reported, but in an email sent to Senior Associate Dean of Undergraduate Students Joyce Chen Shueh and later obtained by the ‘Prince,’ Johnson referred to the students suspected of academic dishonesty as a “very sad list” and the COD’s preparation of documents as a “large task.” The Committee on Discpline (COD), comprised of faculty, students, and administrators, adjudicates “violations of rules and regulations pertaining to any academic work that is not performed in class.” “We have reported many of you to the Committee on Discipline for these infractions,” she wrote.
0 kommentar(er)
