With all due respect for the
January 13 Cavalier Daily editorial
suggesting an end to take-home
exams. I must take exception to
what I believe is a poor proposal.
The editorial is, I think, based on a
misconception of the honor system
- or perhaps it is just plain distrust.
My undergraduate college had
no formal honor system. But it
seems to one uninitiated (until this
year) in the system that the very
core of the honor code is to tempt
and test the student - whether in
the classroom or at his dorm. The
system is based on an optimism in
the honor of gentlemen which is
strangely lacking the The Cavalier
Daily editorial, which speaks of
take-home tests as "suicidal" for
the honor system, "dangerous" and
"gruelling."
The honor system itself is met
with such criticisms at other universities,
gentlemen. "Why put students
to an unnecessary test?" an
MSU or Ohio State would say.
"Just as it is folly to drop a glass to
see if it will break, it is madness to
tempt students unnecessarily by
putting them on their honor in class
during a test." You see, the editorial
is based on a distinction
between "difficult temptation"
(take-home exam) and "easy temptation"
(in-class exam). Should one
be allowed - as a most important
element of the honor code - and
the other be forbidden as "too
dangerous?" Let us admit it - both
are difficult. But we permit both (I
would like to say "encourage
both") because we believe that even
"students who are fearfully uncertain
of their own honor" will
withstand the temptation. We are
optimistic, we trust in the honor of
gentlemen. That's the way the
system works. And we would be
doing it and ourselves a disservice
by changing it to keep only the
"easy risks."
