Academic Integrity
Academic integrity is essential and expected, and students at Caltech are held to the highest standard in their academic conduct. Academic integrity is the foundation of learning and research, not only at Caltech but in science and academia broadly.
It is the expectation that the work you submit is you own. You should understand the entirety of any solution, problem set, or assignment that you submit, and be able to reproduce your work or describe your process to demonstrate that the work submitted is your own.
Academic and personal integrity is its own reward. When you engage in your work ethically, you know that you can be proud of your work and accomplishments. Furthermore, you know that you have done your best to fortify and demonstrate your knowledge.
Academic Integrity Violations
In order to better help students understand the expectations for academic integrity, the Honor Code Handbook provides examples of academic integrity violations that are not in keeping with the Honor Code and are prohibited. These violations include:
Exceeding the time limits of a given assignment without permission from the instructor or a pre- approved accommodation due to disability.
Use of references or other resources not allowed per the assignment or permitted by the instructor.
Collaborating with others on an assignment beyond the scope permitted by the instructor.
Using another's work, in whole or in part, without acknowledging the source and presenting that material as one's own academic work.
Any attempt by a student to answer questions on an assignment by means other than their own knowledge, without authorization from the instructor. This also includes completing work on behalf of another student or asking another student to complete work on your behalf as well as misrepresenting attendance for yourself or another student.
Submitting the same academic work for credit more than once unless specifically authorized by the instructor of record.
Knowingly using or presenting invented or fabricated information, falsified research, or other findings. Falsification or theft of results ("drylabbing") are serious acts of intellectual dishonesty, as is claiming undue credit for another's work or ideas. The Research Misconduct Policy is applicable to all researchers, including undergraduate students.
Knowingly assisting another student in prohibited academic conduct. This may include sharing work or previous course materials with another student, completing another student's work for them, or providing false information in connection with any inquiry regarding academic integrity.
Board of Control Process
Suspected academic integrity violations can be reported by any member of the community by completing and submitting the Online Incident Referral Form. This form collects information about the nature of the concern, available evidence, and the courses and instructors involved. The Board of Control leadership and the Director of Conduct and Community Standards will make an initial assessment of the allegations, evidence, and likely sanctions for a responding student’s case. If possible, they will offer the responding student the chance to participate in the Early Resolution Option (ERO), according to the guidelines outlined below. A student may choose to forgo the Early Resolution Option if they wish to contest the allegations against them or if they prefer to have the case heard by the Board of Control.
Early Resolution Option
The Early Resolution Option (ERO) is available for most first-time academic integrity violations. In accepting the ERO, the student acknowledges that they are responsible for the academic integrity violation as alleged by the faculty.
The standard sanctions for cases resolved through the ERO are loss of credit on the assignments in question and educational sanctions.
Board of Control Hearing
If a student is not eligible for or declines the ERO, the case is referred to the Board of Control hearing process.
BOC leadership and the Director of Conduct and Community Standards have a preliminary meeting with the respondent, determine whether there is a reasonable possibility of a violation, and either recommend dismissal or referral to a full Board hearing.
If it is dismissed, the Director of Conduct and Community Standards will inform the respondent, as well as the relevant faculty. The case is considered closed.
The respondent may elect to participate in a mediated conversation. The mediated conversation is intended to be an educational opportunity for the respondent to engage with a faculty member to discuss the allegation and the Honor Code in general before it is determined if there has been a violation of the Honor Code. If both the respondent and the faculty member agree to meet, the meeting will be facilitated by the Director of Conduct and also attended by a member of the BOC leadership. Following the mediated conversation, the reporting faculty member may recommend for the case to be dismissed or for the case to continue to a full Board hearing.
If an academic integrity concern is not resolved in a preliminary meeting or mediated conversation, the case will proceed to a Full Board hearing. The BOC chairs will collect additional evidence from the respondent and faculty and may request for all anonymized case materials to be reviewed by a member of the faculty.
A Full Board, consisting of two chairs and five BOC representatives, convene to review the evidence and interview the respondent. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board votes to determine whether the respondent is responsible for an academic integrity violation based on the preponderance of the evidence. The BOC chairs then submit their recommendation to the Dean of Undergraduate Studies.
Following the Full Board hearing, the respondent receives a written report summarizing the case, the BOC's findings, and rationale for the finding of responsibility. The respondent then has the opportunity to respond to the report, either in writing or in am meeting with the Dean of Undergraduate Studies. The Dean makes the final determination of responsibility.
The Dean will make a final decision and inform the respondent in writing. The respondent has the option to appeal in writing to the Vice President of Student Affairs.
Grounds for an appeal are limited to the following:
- New evidence that was not available at the time of the investigation or hearing that would impact the outcome of the matter;
- A sanction that is disproportionate to the violation;
- A procedural error that would impact the outcome of the matter.