Princetonians Laud Honor System, Question Harvard Adoption of Plan

Two hundred heads were bowed, two hundred pencils making brisk, black marks in blue booklets: it was a typical examination day at Princeton. Suddenly from the back of the room came a growing clamor. Three young men were asking questions out loud about the test. They flagrantly pulled-out notes on the reading from their pockets.

The Princetonians were scandalized. The honor system on exams had been violated only occasionally and never so determinedly. As the noise continued, Princetonians could not control themselves. The three offenders were forcibly removed.

This incident of three years ago was the one large infraction on Princeton's sixty-year old honor system, and, as anyone acquainted with Princeton's system might guess, the cheaters were not even enrolled in the College.

They were Yale men, sent down by the Yale Daily News to decide whether the Princeton system was effective. As they limped back to New Haven, the editors professed only praise for the system.

Turnover

But Yalie Daily men come and go, and last March the new crop of yale editors still seemed highly skeptical of examination honor and any system which relied on it. In an editorial titled "Honor at Smith," the Daily said, "We think that any honor system is either unnecessary or doomed to failure."

To Layman E. Allen, Princeton '52 and member of the board of freshman advisors at Harvard last year, these words more arousing than an attack on the Tiger backfield.

To prove the Daily generality incorrect, Allen distributed polls to fellow graduates of Princeton who were also exiled in Cambridge graduate schools. He asked their opinions on eight topics, beginning with the worthwhileness of the honor system through to whether a similar system could be made to work at Harvard.

Allen sent out 165 polls and received 91 answers. Many of these answers revealed information about Princeton's system; all of the replies revealed a good deal about their authors.

Ruined Career

One Princetonian, describing the beneficial effect the system had upon his character, told of the summer he held a job as proctor for a D. C. bar examination. Out of 600 students, he caught one man cheating. As the Princetonian puts it:

"Now it's pretty important that lawyers be honest, but this guy had put in three hard years preparing for the exams, and I was wondering just how justified I was in ruining the guy's career. Recalling my Princeton experience with the honor system, I realized how necessary it was to give the guy the shaft.

"It was not a pleasant thing to do," he concludes, "and if it hadn't been for the Princeton system I don't think I could have turned him in."

If this graduate's experience was unique his views were not. On the first four of Allen's questions, there is singular agreement among all graduates.

THE Finest

Thirty-four of the men agreed with Allen that the honor system had been "one of the very finest, perhaps THE very finest aspect of my Princeton education." Fifty-four more thought the system clearly worthwhile, but the first statement a bit too fulsome.

No one thought any faults in the system out weighed its good points. Typical was the comment, "I am tempted to check the first category, for the system is a rather essential aspect of the fundamental assumption at Princeton that the student is a gentleman' and is entitled to be trusted as such."

Mr. X'Removed

Human nature being less than soap flake pure, however, the Daily Princetonian is forced to make one or two announcements of honor code violations each year. It prints simply, "Mr. X and Mr. Y have been removed from Princeton College for violation of the honor system." Names are never made public.

Because such transgression is rare and is handled with a minimum of sensation, most Princetonians are not aware of any infractions around them. "I never saw a student cheat on exams in my 4 years," they frequently say.

When Princetonians arrived at the prickly problem of transplanting their flowering code o ethics to Harvard, some of the solidarity of agreement melted away. About two-thirds did think an honor system would improve the education which Harvard offers. But several Princetonians were not so sure.

A student in the Law School, prefacing his remarks with an admission that he Law School was all he could discuss from experience, went on: This is a cutthroat community where grades mean money. Princeton never placed such emphasis on position in class. There was not the same degree or atmosphere of viscious competion at Princeton. There we trusted each other and relied on our own ability . . ."

Evolution

And if some graduates were doubtful, others were outspoken in their disbelief that an honor system could be effective here. One man spoke of progress: "In the evolutionary scheme of undergraduate bodies, the Princeton gentleman represents the most highly-developed species of gentlemanly characteristics; Harvardians are still at a more rudimentary level of development."

In his introduction to the poll, Allen explains that answers like the above are included in the interest of completeness, "even the few that appear to be down-right snobbish, unfair, or provinicial."

But Allen could well afford to spare the editorial blue pencil since most graduates tended to emphasize the similarities between Harvard and Old Nassau.

No Natural Right

The majority opinion was that "Princetion, nor any other school, has a 'natural right' to an honor system. It could work anywhere where human beings gather. But it must be a conscious effort. It is no naive evolution of the human mind."

Some men had more practical advantages to add to the list of honor system benefits. "The major advantage of an honor system, lies in the opportunity to go out for a walk during an examination, as I like to do, or for a smoke, which was highly valuable to me since I do better under such conditions."

One man recalls as the greatest thrill in his academic experience the day that he slept through a biology test. The professor allowed him to take the same test the following evening in the professor's office surrounded by textbooks and with no one else in sight.

When men do question the possibility of an honor system at Harvard, the comments are often general: "I cannot pin down the precise atmosphere the system needs to be successful. I merely feel that it is present in Princeton and missing at Harvard."

But as Princetonians completed their polls, most of them were left with mixed feelings. They cherished the honor system at Princeton; they thought its absence at Harvard an insult and an inconvenience. "I think it unpardonable," one graduate fumed, "that a lot of minor bureaucrats should look over my shoulder, control my smoking habits and follow me to the latrine!"

That, despite difficulties in instituting, the system is worth the effort was the overwhelming conclusion, however. Or, once again in the words of a Princetonian: "The Harvard student body seems to be a far more honorable group than procedures would imply . . . what little cheating there is would be decimated by an honor system.