After 133 Years, Princeton Is Going Back to Proctoring Exams

What makes Princeton University special? When asked, one of my first responses has always been the Honor Code. So I was saddened and disappointed to learn that students will have proctored exams beginning July 1.

In my years at Princeton I never saw anyone cheat or heard of anyone cheating. I took great pride in being part of a learning community with such integrity. My Princeton classmates were not only smart and hard-working, they were people of good character.

I taught social studies in Niskayuna’s two middle schools for 30 years. Before the first test each year I told my students about my experience with the Honor Code while at Princeton. They were surprised to hear that professors would leave the room during examinations, even final exams.

There are so many positive life lessons associated with the Princeton Honor Code. Take responsibility for your own learning. Do your best. Work hard and prepare. Be honest. If you don’t do well on an assignment, learn from it and try to do better the next time.

I consider it an honor to have attended Princeton University. It will always be one of my greatest accomplishments. My hope is that our school will continue to be a special place, unlike any other. If our newest Princetonians commit to the Honor Code, I’m confident the University will continue to thrive. Living with integrity is incredibly rewarding.

First they abolished in 1969 the longstanding seven-point grading system with its brilliant bottleneck against grade inflation, secured by the widespread use of 2+ for a low A- and the rare bestowal of 1- for a high A-, along with the even less frequent markers of 1 (A) and 1+ (A+). Then they lowered the standards in the humanities, whereby, for example, in my former department, juniors no longer have to write in French first a 5-page paper (about 3,100 words) and then also in French a 10-page paper, culminating in a 20-page paper in English. Today, one 7,000-word paper in English with a 3-page French summary suffices. Now, in response to widespread cheating, exams will have proctors, recognizing a fatal blow to the ideals of the honor system that is no longer universally honored. Princeton undoubtedly will always have brilliant scholars, teachers, and students. And yet, to paraphrase Joachim Du Bellay’s lament as he gazed upon the ruins of ancient Rome in the mid-16th century, for new arrivals who seek Princeton in Princeton, nothing of Princeton in Princeton will they find.

Accustomed as I am to reading upbeat, inspiring stories in the PAW, I was taken aback by the litany of bad news in the June issue. It might as well as have had a solid black cover with the inscription, “The University has several memorials in this issue.”

Let me count the ways: 1.) President Eisgruber’s paean to the student-athlete ideal belied the reality that several top men’s basketball players have recently left for greener (more competitive) courts, resulting in the Tigers having one of the worst seasons in recent memory; 2.) the “pausing” of Trenton Arts at Princeton reveals how Trump administration hostility toward major private universities (especially to their DEI programs) is forcing a reduction in community outreach; 3.) continuing wars in the Middle East are making it more difficult for students from that troubled region to attend Princeton; 4.) “increased skepticism” about higher education is forcing the Graduate School to rethink how it structures its programs; 5.) extremely busy undergrads are increasing relying on dating apps to find someone “who is algorithmically the best person” for them; and 6.) and worst of all, the University has abandoned its sacrosanct, centuries-old Honor Code, introducing proctoring in light of the widespread view that “cheating on in-class exams has become widespread.”

I applaud this honesty — it may be the worst of times — but it does make one nostalgic.

I grew up rooting for Rutgers football teams, taken by my father (Rutgers class of 1928) and watching Dick Kazmaier ’52 destroy them. Being the children of immigrants, my father’s generation all went to Rutgers. For some reason, mother made me apply to Princeton, and I got in. I knew so little about the place that I went up and took an Orange Key tour with Walt Strine ’58 in June. We passed a room with 50 or so guys taking finals, with no guards and no one looking at what the others were doing. Having spent my high school career with people looking over my shoulder, it was case closed. I immediately decided to go to Princeton even though the rest of my family regarded me as a traitor. The honor system is a great loss. Perhaps Princeton should select a better class of people, and by class I do not mean social class.

I recall sitting against a tree at the E-Quad taking my final exam in Fluid Dynamics. I sat there with paper, pen, and privilege. The privilege of being trusted by the University. I didn’t earn that trust but I would not have considered violating it. It was part of the privilege of being admitted to Princeton. It was part of my education, along with our daily Princeton-out-of-South-Africa marches and our April 1978 Nassau Hall sit-in, tutoring in Trenton, and other outside-the-classroom education. It has had a lasting impact.

The University officially no longer trusts students. Without that trust, there is no Honor Code. Princeton is less.

(This is my first letter to PAW in 47 years since graduation.)

How can Princeton guard against widespread use of AI in conceiving of and writing the thesis?

In the most recent PAW, I read with great sorrow, some frustration, and a touch of anger, that exams will be proctored beginning this fall. The article said that “cheating on in-class exams has become widespread,” which necessitated this action. 

Since graduating in 1958, significant changes have occurred, virtually all of which have been necessary and positive. For someone who thought that the Honor Code was something that set Princeton apart, it is a disappointing step backward.

I watched the Zoom broadcast about Bob Dylan and could not help but think about perhaps his most famous song “The Times They Are A-Changin.’” One of the lines that has long stayed with me goes “And don’t criticize what you can’t understand.”

I would have to admit that I fall reluctantly into this category. Very reluctantly.

What a shame.

Necessary, perhaps — surely the faculty that decides knows best — but sad.

If cheating is the problem, then the student body needs to take a hard look at itself. Meanwhile, how about checking in all electronic devices at the door, just as a precaution, and keep the honor system and our code alive?

The classes of 2027+ need to fight back to get their honor system rebooted and pledge to themselves and to their peers (that includes us alumni) that the cheating will not be tolerated.

I’m writing to express opposition and concern. Because cheating is easier should be no rationale for proctoring exams. The implication is “we expect Princeton students to cheat and perjure themselves when they sign the pledge.” Back in olden times (1960s) some departments had open book exams as memorizing the formula or the table was not expected but knowing which tool to employ was the test. By analogy, Princeton should consider some exams where access to the internet is expected. While others would be blue books and number 2 pencils — and cell phones checked at the door. Anyone caught cheating would be expelled. That’s what happened in the old ages.

I grieve that the honor system is now defunct.

I grieve that the University found ample evidence to support this change.

I grieve that students destined to become leaders in our society cannot be trusted to act honorably.

Pledge and honor are apparently old fashioned attributes that have no place in modern society.

Alas.

I was raised in a southern U.S. culture in which honor mattered. It should still matter at Princeton regardless of how learning is evaluated. It strikes me that deciding to proctor exams confronts the wrong problem. If F. Scott Fitzgerald eventually learned that some of his classmates cheated, then cheating is not really about AI or small electronic devices.

Assuming every Princeton undergraduate is academically capable, why cheat? I submit the issue is stress. Nearly all of us were near the top of secondary school classes but very quickly discovered that all of our college classmates are as smart or smarter than we are. I had to apply myself as hard as I could just to keep up with peers who were doing likewise. I don’t think I was unique. Peer pressure was relentless, and each of us dealt with it in our own way. I was relieved to achieve at least the median.

I learned during 40 years teaching at public universities that the demand to excel created by classmates is a factor that sets Princeton and institutions like it apart. If the objective is to achieve the highest standards of learning and reducing motivation to take shortcuts, then the solution lies in the design of assessments, not proctoring.

I also noticed that students have become increasingly concerned with grades themselves rather than the learning they allege to represent. Perhaps, the faculty could invest some attention helping undergraduates understand the difference between education and training? It might also help to get rid of grades of A to F and return to the inscrutable 1 to 7 grade system that existed decades ago. Undergraduates are sure they know what an “A” is, but what on Earth is a “1”?

My reaction to the decision to begin proctoring exams is one of resignation and sadness. The Honor Code bound us together in shared trust for more than a century. During my undergraduate days, I felt a tiny surge of pride each time I “signed the pledge” on an exam or assignment. Abandoning the central role of the pledge will diminish that trust and that pride. Technological advance almost always comes with a price. I imagine that the Honor Code will not be the last valued institution that AI will be responsible for demolishing.

Count me as one of many horrified old alumni when I read the article in The Wall Street Journal about Princeton abandoning its century-old honor code. While it is actually the case that unproctored exams were effectively proctored by the students themselves, this was true as long as the students reported violations. Now it appears that a culture of fear of social ostracism has developed, akin to self-censoring in classroom discussions. AI has certainly contributed new methods of cheating, but one would have expected that our astute faculty could provide clever countermeasures on a course-by-course basis, rather than broadly dispensing with a well-regarded tradition. When I was a professor of aerospace engineering, for large classes I used to give exams as open book/open note. Students with a better memory for complicated formulas no longer had an advantage, and surreptitious access no longer mattered. I would imagine that history courses, for example, do not depend on rote recall of dates. Demonstration of mastery of material in problem solving or learned essays in exams may be replaced by AI. Has this reduced students to stenographers? Is repeating what a professor said different from transcribing from a chatbot? The challenge is faced now by faculty to teach beyond AI, and should not require a loss of honor by students.

About time! Wait until you see how overall grades drop!