Princeton University announced the biggest change to its Honor Code in 133 years: proctored exams. The change comes as the result of prevalent use of artificial intelligence, and it may foreshadow further change in higher education.
The history of Princeton’s Honor Code
The original Princeton Honor Code dates back to the 19th century, when students proposed a unique solution to the cheating that ran rampant on campus: a pledge.
The pledge required students to sign their test papers with the statement, “I pledge my honor as a gentleman that, during this examination, I have neither given nor received aid (or assistance).”
Under this system, students agreed to two responsibilities: obey the Honor Code, and report any violations they observed by other students.
The Honor Code constitution stated that faculty would take the student’s word instead of proctoring exams. It also established a student committee to judge Honor Code violations and assign punishment.
This system has been in place since its adoption in 1893. “It has been successful because generations of undergraduates have respected it, and by common agreement, have given it highest place among their obligations as Princeton students,” as stated in the university’s undergraduate policies.
Up until now, there have been minimal changes to the original Honor Code constitution. (Minor adjustments include an increase in the number of committee members, allowing for more lenient punishment in exceptional cases, removing the word “gentlemen” from the signed pledge and requiring all incoming freshmen to agree to the code when matriculating.)
Monday’s amendment, reinstating proctoring, is the most significant change made to the Honor Code in more than a century.
Reasoning behind the revision
The proposal cites several reasons for the change, namely the advent of generative AI technologies that “significantly lower the barrier to gaining unfair advantage in the context of an in-class examination,” the proposal states.
The use of personal devices to access these tools is also listed, especially given that these violations are harder for surrounding students to observe and thus report.
And student reporting on violations — or the lack thereof — is also a reason for the change. Students are becoming less likely to report their peers for fear of being shamed online through social media. If students do report, they do so anonymously, making it difficult to follow up and take action on violation concerns.
Michael Gordin, dean of the college, said the change was highly requested by faculty and students. Both groups, Gordin said, requested proctoring as a solution to what they believe is a widespread increase in cheating.
This perception is supported by a report published by the Daily Princetonian, the university’s student-run newspaper. In a survey of more than 500 seniors at Princeton, 29.9% said they had cheated on an assignment or exam in violation of the Honor Code. Less than 1% of seniors say they had ever reported a peer for violating the Honor Code, despite the fact that 44.6% said they had knowledge of a peer doing so.
Princeton’s Undergraduate Student Government conducted a survey of undergraduates and found that a majority either favored or were indifferent to the idea of proctoring, but this sentiment was not unanimous. A sizable minority opposed the idea, believing that it undermined the sense of honorability and trust that should exist between faculty and students at the institution.
The impact of the amendment
Gordin presented the proposal for faculty vote on Monday. The motion received near-unanimous support, with only one opposing vote. The new policy will go into effect on July 1 of this year.
The Honor Committee will continue to adjudicate alleged violations and students will still pledge their honor with a signed declaration at the bottom of each exam.
Undergraduates and faculty do not expect the change to eradicate cheating, but they do hope that it deters it and reduces pressure on students to report.
Other universities have also recently issued guidelines on the use of AI.
Columbia and UPenn have both implemented AI policies that require students to disclose their use of AI.
Dartmouth’s policy states that students cannot use generative AI for submitted coursework without express permission.
Harvard has created a list of approved AI tools that abide by security and privacy protections and ensure appropriate use.
Luiza Jarovsky, co-founder of the AI, Tech & Privacy Academy, said she hopes other universities will adopt similar action to address the growing use of AI in higher education, including returning to paper exams instead of online alternatives.
She compared the use of AI to similar technological developments that have impacted education.
“There were misconceptions and miscalculations with smartphones and social media, and those mistakes should not be repeated with AI,” she said in a post on X. “Schools and universities should take bold decisions now and adapt accordingly (and fast).”