PAGE FOUR Published Theaday through italarday mornings during the University year, the Daily Collegian is a student operated sowspoper. F:ntered as second-elasa matter Jul, 5, 1934 ■t the State College, Pa. Post Office ■nder the ■ct of March 3, 1879 MIKE FEINSILBER, Editor MIKE MILLER, Associate Editor STAFF THIS ISSUE: Night Editor, Judy Harkison; Copy Editors, Rog Alexander, Ron Leik; As sistant:, Dick Fisher, Bob Franklin, Pauline Metza, Li] Junas, Ginny Phillips. When Tests Count Too Much: Cheating A practice which encourages dishonesty ought to be discouraged. About this everyone can It might be worth considering, then, a pro po,al that would discourage the practice. The proposal: That no test, term paper, re port, or any single unit of work done for a course, may determine greater than one-third of the grade a student receives in any course, excluding those courses exempted from this regulation by the dean of the college in which the course is offered. We are convinced that such a regulation would have the effect of cutting cheating. It is a safe assumption that a study would show that cheating is proportional to the pressure on the student. The greater the pressure, the more likely cheating will be employed as an escape from it. Pressure on the student results from over weighted examinations. When one single blue book or final can affect a student's final course grade excessively, many students take the easy way out: they cheat. A final which counts 50 per cent of a stu dent's course grade is an example of such an overloaded test. But it is not a rare example. There are many courses in which the professor adopts, as standard operating procedure, a sys tem of two tests and a final. In these cAses, the final determines at least 40 per cent of the final course grade. As the Senate Subcommittee on Academic Honesty at Penn State put it in its excellent report adopted last spring: ". . , Incentive to cheat must be reduced ... Here again the fac ulty can help greatly. Cheating occurs largely where students feel that only thus can they get a grade they feel they must have. The faculty should avoid making any individual grade more important to the student than is absolutely necessary." Who determines what "absolutely necessary" means? Any professor can read this report and nod his head confident that his tests which weight 50 per cent of the final mark are "ab solutely necessary." But we can think of few courses which would be greatly altered by giving more than three tests, cutting down on the importance of each. Double Jeopardy: The Reasons Why The disciplinary policy of the University as it affects students who have already been subject to civil punishment has been the occasion of much student resentment. Many students contend that for the Univer sity to discipline a student after he has already received civil punishment places the student in "double jeopardy" and is thus unjust. One punishment for one infraction i 3 sufficient, they contend. We believe that much of the resentment directed to the administration has resulted from a misinterpretation of the University's policy in regard to such matters. The policy of the University is essentially this: It does not deny that a student who is punished by both civil and University author ities is placed in double jeopardy. It contends, however, that such double jeopardy is neither unjust nor peCuliar to the University. The ad ministration feels that many civil infractions of students reflect to such a degree on the in stitution that 'they demand attention by Uni versity authorities. Wilmer E. Kenworthy, director of student affairs, puts the administration policy this way: "It is a simple fact that a student who 'gets in trouble' is in double jeopardy. This is not a situation peculiar to Penn State or to colleges and universities. Every individual is responsible not only to the laws of the. borough, state, and nation, but to his family, his friends, his em ployer, and such organizations as his church and clubs. "It is well known that when a man is guilty of misconduct he pays his penalty before the law, and then faces the fact that it may cost And They Wilt Fraternity men proved themselves wise men Monday night. Their Interfraternity Council representatives voted to discourage corsages at the IFC-Panhel dance. A corsage represents a beautiful gift and is a nice gesture, that cannot be denied. But it also all to• often represents a financial burden to the giver. When a man pays $5.00 to take his date to a dance in addition to the sundry expenses of a big weekend at Penn State. corsage giving be comes impractical to the great majority whose financial means are limited. Many schools have long banned corsages from their dances to alleviate such financial strain and to encourage more people to attend the dance. This is sensible and it is proper for the IFC to adopt this policy. We hope the sponsors of other University dances follow 'this sensible step. —Mike Miller alle Daily Colltgian Sueeesaer to THE FREE LANCE, est. 1881 .I