Academic Integrity | Emory School of Medicine

Integrity is defined as a commitment, even in the face of adversity, to six fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage¹. The Emory School of Medicine seeks to involve every member of the community in cultivating a culture of academic integrity and promoting communal standards.

This section of the student handbook outlines the School of Medicine Honor Code, along with academic regulations and procedures, promotional guidelines, and graduation requirements.

Emory University School of Medicine Honor Code

Preamble

The students, faculty, and administration of the Emory University School of Medicine join together in support of this MD Student Honor Code for the purposes of:

providing an atmosphere of mutual trust, concern, and respect;
fostering honorable and ethical behavior; and
cultivating lifelong professional conduct.

To promote this purpose, matters regarding academic misconduct shall fall under the jurisdiction of the Honor Code. Matters outside of those that fall within the jurisdiction of the Honor Code, such as violations of the Student Conduct Code, will be handled in accordance with the applicable policy.

Students who matriculate in the Emory University School of Medicine must agree to abide by and uphold the Honor Code.

Statement of the MD Student Honor Code

Any action indicating lack of integrity and/or dishonesty in academic matters is considered a violation of academic ethics. Such offenses include, but are not limited to, engaging in, or attempting to engage in cheating, plagiarism, sabotage, falsifying or manipulating data, misrepresenting attendance, or knowingly passing off work of another as one's own.

Honor Code Violations Definitions and Policies Include:

Cheating. Cheating includes knowingly acquiring, receiving, or passing on information about the content of an examination prior to its authorized release or during its administration, provision or utilization of un-authorized aids, or impermissible collaboration.
Plagiarism. Plagiarism is the act of incorporating into one's own work, the work or expression of another without appropriately and adequately indicating the source.
Sabotage. Sabotage is defined as intentional and malicious actions that impair another student's academic performance.
Falsifying or manipulating data. Falsifying or manipulating data is the act of creating, enhancing, or otherwise changing actual results in academic, clinical, or research matters.
Honor Code Violations also include Emory University Honor Code definitions outlined in Appendices I – IV below.

Acts observed that appear to be in violation of the Honor Code must be reported to the Honor Council as detailed below. Failure on the part of a student to report such apparent violation will itself be considered a violation of the Honor Code.

Students are expected to abide by the terms of the Honor Code and a lack of knowledge of the actions prohibited by the Honor Code is not a valid defense and does not excuse a violation of the Honor Code.

To uphold this Honor Code and its purpose, an instructor may ask students to sign the following pledge at the end of all final examinations, quizzes, and other important projects:

"On my honor, I have neither given nor received any aid on this (examination, quiz, or paper), nor am I aware of anyone who did."

The absence of this pledge does not exempt the student or the assignment from abiding by this Honor Code.

Each student upon entering the School of Medicine must sign a matriculation pledge stating that the student has read, understands, and is aware of the student's responsibilities under the Honor Code.

The Medical Student Council on Honor

The Medical Student Council on Honor, hereafter, referred to as the Honor Council, will have jurisdiction over the supervision of the Honor Code as applies to students in the MD program.

The Medical Student Honor Council will consist of 5 (five) elected student representatives (1 M1, 1 M2, 1 M3, and 2 members of the M4 class), and four faculty members (two of whom will be alternates) appointed by the EAD. Two alternate members from each MD class will be elected.

Student Representatives and Alternates

Each medical school class shall elect class members to serve on the Honor Council for each election cycle.

The elections will be open to any student, including previous members of the Honor Council, who wishes to run. In order to be eligible to serve as a student representative or alternate student representative, a student must remain in good standing and cannot have previously been found to be in violation of the Honor Code. Student representatives and alternate student representatives must also be an enrolled member of their class.

M1 students will elect Honor Council members and alternates during the first month of classes. Vacancies will be filled by special election of the respective student classes.

Faculty Representatives and Alternates

To establish a pool of four faculty members, two of whom are replaced each year, the following process will be utilized:

The EAD will appoint four faculty members (clinical and basic science), two of whom will be alternates. The faculty members will serve a five-year term which will automatically renew once. Hence, each appointed member could serve no more than two terms.
The EAD will appoint new faculty members as vacancies arise.

Honor Council Liaison

An Assistant or Associate Dean in the School of Medicine (currently Dr. Douglas Ander, Assistant Dean for Medical Education and Health Profession Programs) will function as an ad hoc advisor to the Honor Council indefinitely in order to provide guidance and continuity in the day-to-day operations of the Honor Council. The Honor Council Liaison (hereafter called the HC Liaison) will be notified that an alleged violation of the Honor Council has occurred and will assist the Council to ensure the investigation and hearing are conducted according to policies. The HC Liaison will not be directly involved in investigations and/or hearings but will serve primarily in an administrative role facilitating contact between faculty advisors, students, and Honor Council members. The HC Liaison will:

Work with the EAD to ensure faculty and student representatives are selected
Coordinate and lead the two training sessions described below.
Provide guidance, as needed, to the student leadership, investigators, and the student and faculty representatives during the process of an investigation and hearing.
Be notified that an accusation has been made and will assist the Council to ensure the investigation and hearing are conducted according to policies.
The HC Liaison will only be given the name of the student who is alleged to have violated the Honor Code if a hearing is deemed warranted.

Training

The HC Liaison will coordinate and provide a formal training session for all new faculty and student representatives in the fall. Additional training will be provided on an as needed basis.

All members of the Honor Council are required to complete the training prior to participating in an investigation or hearing.

Leadership of the Honor Council

The chair, vice-chair and secretary will be chosen from the student representatives of the Honor Council. The HC Liaison will ask if any of the student representatives would like to volunteer to fill each position. If there are multiple student representatives who volunteer to fill a position, the Honor Council Liaison will coordinate an election where the positions will be voted on by the members of the Honor Council by majority vote. Any person who volunteers or is elected to fill one of the positions must ultimately be confirmed by a majority vote of the Honor Council.

Chair: The chair will be a M4 Council member.
Vice-Chair: The vice-chair will be a M4 Council member.
Secretary: The secretary will be a M2 Council member.
Rising M2, M3, and M4 class elections for the Honor Council will be held in April, and M1 class elections will be held by September 30th of each year.

Procedures for Reporting and Investigating Honor Code Violations

If an individual believes that a violation of the Honor Code has or may have occurred, that individual must report the violation as soon as possible to any member of the Honor Council. Failure to report the violation will itself constitute a violation of the Honor Code.
Once an allegation has been made, the individual making that allegation must draft, sign, and submit a brief statement to any member of the Honor Council.
Upon notification of a possible violation of the Honor Code, the following will occur:
- The Honor Council member will inform the Honor Council chair that a possible violation of the Honor Code has been reported.
- The Council secretary will then appoint two investigators from available student representatives. The investigators will be responsible for gathering information about the case.
- The Honor Council chair will inform the Honor Council faculty representatives and the HC Liaison that the Honor Council has received a complaint of an alleged violation of the Honor Code and an investigation will be conducted. All violations that include plagiarism, falsifying or data manipulation in any stage of research shall be brought to the attention of the Office of Research Integrity and Compliance (ORIC) oric@emory.edu by the investigators. The name of the student and details of the incident will remain known only to the chair, the secretary, the investigators, and any individuals the chair may deem necessary.
- The student named in the allegation will be informed of the investigation prior to its onset by the HC secretary and an investigation will proceed.
- After the investigators finish gathering information concerning the alleged violation, the investigators will submit that information to the Honor Council chair, who along with the two investigators, will determine whether sufficient evidence exists to warrant a formal hearing by a majority vote.

Prior to the Hearing

If the chair and investigators determine that sufficient evidence exists to warrant a formal hearing, the secretary of the Honor Council will notify the student accused of violating the Honor Code of that decision in writing and provide the date, time, and place of the hearing; the nature of the violation with which the student is charged; the evidence of the violation, including the name of the individual(s) making the allegation. Upon notification of the hearing, the student will be provided with a list of available faculty by the HC Liaison, with whom to seek advice during the honor council process. Alternatively, the accused student may select a faculty or staff member of the school of medicine with the guidance of the HC Liaison.
The hearing will take place no more than 21 days after the determination is made to move forward with a hearing. In rare instances, the Honor Council, at their sole discretion, may extend that time period if the Honor Council feels that the circumstances dictate such an extension.
Any student who is alleged to have violated the Honor Code will be permitted to continue academic endeavors until a final decision is made.
The student who is alleged to have violated the Honor Code may review the evidence of a violation and gather evidence prior to the hearing.
For each hearing, the hearing panel will consist of six members: two student representatives, the secretary, the chair (or vice-chair should the student alleged to have violated the Honor Code be from the same class as the chair) and two faculty representatives. The three student representatives are randomly selected by the chair from the student representatives, then from alternate student representatives, if needed. If any student or faculty representative is unable to serve for any reason, including conflict of interest, then the chair will select an alternate student or faculty representative. The student representatives who investigated a case will present pertinent information at the hearing but will not be allowed to vote in the proceedings or be present during deliberations.
The Honor Council secretary will inform the Honor Council members chosen to be on the hearing panel of the alleged violation (date, person involved, and nature of the accusation).

The Hearing

The chair (or vice-chair) will preside over the hearing and participate in the discussion and deliberation of the case but will not have a vote.

Order of Proceeding

Call to order.
Reading of Parts I and II of the Honor Code (Preamble and Statement of the Honor Code).
Statement of the alleged Honor Code violation.
Presentation of evidence: The investigators and the student alleged to have violated the Honor Code may present testimony and other evidence as appropriate and relevant to the case. The chair and members of the Honor Council, and the student alleged to have violated the Honor Code, may ask questions of witnesses.
The chair will determine whether the hearing board can properly weigh or take into consideration any evidence offered by a party or witness based upon relevance. Rules of evidence applicable to criminal or civil court proceedings will not apply.
Discussion and deliberation by the Council is held in a private executive session.

After all admissible evidence has been reviewed, the hearing panel shall deliberate to decide the case.

Rules Governing Proceedings

All hearings will be conducted in closed-door sessions and will remain confidential. Participants in the hearing will be limited to the following:

Chair (or Vice-Chair) of the Honor Council.
The four selected Honor Council representatives (2 faculty, 2 students, not including the chair, vice-chair, or secretary)
The secretary or, if needed, a temporary secretary appointed by the permanent secretary.
The student accused of the Honor Code violation.
The two investigators assigned to the case.
Relevant witnesses who may be present only while testifying.
The faculty advisor selected by the accused. This individual is not permitted to testify, ask questions, or to make statements of any nature.

The Secretary or their appointee will take notes during the hearing and make them available to the Honor Council.

Decision and Penalties

For a student to be found responsible of an Honor Code violation, the unanimous vote of the five voting members of the Honor Council is required [the chair (or vice-chair) is not eligible to vote]. For all cases, the standard that shall be used to determine whether a violation was committed is "preponderance of the evidence", i.e., it is more likely than not that a violation of the Honor Code occurred.

If a student is found to have violated the Honor Code, the hearing panel will make a recommendation to the EAD for a sanction. The hearing panel will make the decision on the sanction by majority vote of the voting members of the Honor Council. In case of a tie, the chair (or vice-chair) will cast a vote.

The HC Liaison and EAD will be informed of the decision of the hearing panel and recommendation for sanction, where applicable, promptly following the decision of the hearing panel.

Recommended Sanctions for Violations of the Honor Code

The standard sanction for violation of the Honor Code is (a) a mandatory leave of absence from Emory University School of Medicine for at least one academic term (semester); and a grade of "Incomplete" for all courses in which the student is enrolled at the time of the infraction.

The Honor Council may recommend to the EAD a penalty more severe than a mandatory leave of absence (e.g., permanent expulsion) or may recommend a less severe penalty (e.g., disciplinary probation for Honor Code violation), dependent upon the circumstances of the case.

Upon receipt of a mandatory leave of absence, the student cannot advance to the next term until they have completed the term in which the "Incomplete" grades were given.

If the student is in the first or second year of medical school, they will return from a mandatory leave of absence to the beginning of the uncompleted term which will likely require waiting an entire year due to required course and thread sequence. If the student is in the third or fourth year of medical school, they will return from a mandatory leave of absence to the beginning of the uncompleted clerkship. Due to scheduling, availability of clerkship rotations, and the nature of longitudinal small group activities, students may require waiting a year before returning to clerkships.

A student on a mandatory leave of absence may enroll in graduate resident status.

Decision of the Executive Associate Dean (EAD) of the School of Medicine and Appeals

The final decision on responsibility and the sanction rests with the EAD. The decision of the EAD will be effective immediately, unless there is an appeal to the dean. The appeal, including the basis for the appeal, must be submitted by the student in writing to the dean within one week after the student is notified by the EAD of the decision. If a student files an appeal, the EAD will appoint an ad hoc committee consisting of three faculty members from the School of Medicine. The EAD will provide the committee with the information reviewed by the hearing panel, the minutes of the hearing, and the student's appeal. The committee will then make a recommendation to the dean that the decision of the appeal committee be affirmed or remanded to a new hearing panel. The dean will then review that recommendation and make the final decision in the matter.

Amendments to the Honor Code

Amendments to the Honor Code may be proposed by the Honor Council at any point in the academic year; proposed amendments must be reviewed by Emory School of Medicine General Counsel and approved by the EAD before becoming effective. If an amendment is approved while a case is under active review that amendment will not apply to that case. Any new amendment, once approved, will become effective as soon as all medical students have been notified of the change via mail or email.

Emory University Honor Code Appendices

Appendix I: Crediting the Work and Ideas of Others: Use of Sources

An author's facts, ideas, phraseology, and other work, such as tables and graphs, should be regarded as their property. Any person who uses an author's facts, ideas, phraseology, or other work without giving due credit is responsible for plagiarism.

Information may be put into a paper, report, or other assignment without a citation only if it meets all of the following conditions:

It may be found in several sources on the subject.
It is written entirely in the words of the student.
It is not paraphrased from any particular source.
It therefore belongs to common knowledge.

Generally, if a student writes while looking at a source or while looking at notes taken from a source, a citation should be given.

Content generated by artificial intelligence programs must be cited and properly acknowledged, and students should only use this content in instances when the professor of the course has authorized it. Editing content generated through artificial intelligence programs is not considered to be work "written entirely in the words of the student" and must, therefore, be cited.

Whenever any idea is taken from a specific work, even when the student writes the idea entirely in their own words, there must be a citation giving credit to the author responsible for the idea. The methods of citation vary and may include:

Footnotes
Endnotes
Parenthetical citations
Numerical citations

The point is that the student should give credit where credit is due. The student should follow the guidelines for citation in the manner specified by the instructor of the course or the department. In the absence of any specific guidelines, students should follow a standard citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago notes).

The student is entirely responsible for knowing and following the principles of proper paraphrasing: "In paraphrasing you are expressing the ideas of another writer in your own words. A good paraphrase preserves the sense of the original, but not the form. It does not retain the sentence patterns and merely substitute synonyms for the original words, nor does it retain the original words and merely alter the sentence patterns. It is a genuine restatement. Invariably it should be briefer than the source."*

*Floyd C. Watkins, William B. Dillingham, and Edwin T. Martin, Practical English Handbook, 3rd ed. (Boston, 1970), p. 245.

Direct quotations (copying a passage word for word) require the following:

The quotation should be placed in quotation marks or indented for block quotations.
A citation must be given.
The quotation should not be altered in a way that would change the meaning of the text. Ellipses may be used to indicate omitted words and square brackets may be included to clarify meaning or make small changes to integrate the quotation into the passage.

Even when a student uses only one unusual or key word from a passage, that word should be quoted. If a brief phrase that is common is used as it occurs in a source, the words should be in quotation marks with a citation.

It is the prerogative of the instructor to prescribe that no secondary sources may be used for particular assignments.

A student who uses a secondary source must remember that the very act of looking up a book, article, or other source should be considered as a pledge that the student will use the material according to the principles stated above.

Emory has various resources to assist students with using and citing sources, including:

Emory Writing Center, Appointments, and Online Resources for Writers
Emory Libraries, Research Help, Citing and Using Sources

Appendix II: Common Forms of Academic Misconduct

This appendix provides typical examples of academic dishonesty. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. If you are in doubt about any action, contact your professor for clarification.

Exams

Any attempt to gain or give an unfair advantage during an exam is considered a violation of the Honor Code. Such violations include:

Attempting to look at or copy from another student's exam
Attempting to provide answers to another student
Programming a calculator with answers or other information
Accessing information on a smart device
Using notes or other unauthorized information during an exam
Looking at an older version of the exam without the professor's permission
Using a test bank or tub file without the professor's permission
Taking an exam for someone else or having someone take an exam for you
Submitting someone else's name on an exam

Because study partners often have similar answers on an exam, the Honor Council recommends that students not sit near their study partners during a quiz or test.

The use of an electronic device (outside of testing purposes) for any reason during an exam or testing situation without permission is strictly prohibited and violates the Honor Code.

Written Assignments

Plagiarism is the use of someone else's words, ideas, or work without providing proper credit. Whether the act is intentional or not, the Honor Council considers any form of plagiarism to be a violation of the Honor Code. Some examples of plagiarism and other academic misconduct in written work include:

Submitting the same or similar work for more than one class without the approval of both professors (double submission or self-plagiarism)
Using someone else's words without quotation marks and proper attribution
Using information or ideas without acknowledging the source
Paraphrasing a text without acknowledging the source
Improperly paraphrasing a passage by using language or structure that is too similar to the original source
Purchasing a paper or using an online paper assistance website
Having any one than yourself write any part of your paper or assignment (including using artificial intelligence programs for any part of an assignment without authorization and acknowledgment)
Using false page numbers or creating false citations

Group Work and Collaboration

Collaboration on a paper, test, lab, homework, or any other assignment is only allowed with the express permission of the professor. Do not assume that because you are allowed to collaborate on one type of assignment or in one class that you are allowed to do the same with other assignments or other classes. When in doubt, always ask your professor. Violations involving multiple students and group work include:

Copying any part of an assignment, including answers, graphs, figures, and data
Sharing your paper or assignment with another student without the professor's permission
Including someone's name on a project for credit when they didn't contribute to the work

The Honor Council advises students to refrain from sending or providing copies of their work to other students to prevent this work from being stolen or copied.

Dissemination of Content Related to the Course

Lectures, classroom presentations, and course materials presented or distributed in person or online are for the sole purpose of educating students enrolled in the course. The release of such information (including but not limited to directly sharing, screen capturing, or recording content) is strictly prohibited unless the instructor clearly states otherwise. Doing so without the permission of the instructor will be considered an Honor Code violation and may also be a violation of state or federal law, such as the Copyright Act.

Other Issues

There are a number of other actions that constitute academic misconduct. These include, but are not limited to:

Providing false information to a professor (e.g., falsely claiming sickness or a family death to get an extension)
Creating false data for an assignment
Signing someone else into class
Forging a signature on an academic document
Falsifying a transcript or other university document
Seeking to gain or provide an unfair advantage during registration
Resubmitting altered work for a higher grade
Intentionally sabotaging the academic work of another student
Intentionally disrupting the conduct of an exam to gain or provide an academic advantage
Intentionally preventing other students from accessing resources for an assignment
Offering a professor a bribe for a higher grade
Using artificial intelligence programs for any part of an assignment without acknowledgment in the assignment. Note that faculty may also prohibit the use of outside resources, including AI programs, entirely.

Appendix III: Academic Misconduct in the Online Learning Environment

As members of Emory University's academic community, you are expected to adhere to the standards set forth in the Honor Code regardless of whether you are completing course work in person or online. Accordingly, be aware that the Honor Code can be implicated in certain instances when you interact and collaborate with others, or when you consult, discuss, use, or share your own work or the work of others, especially in the online learning environment. In addition, there are other forms of misconduct that may be speciﬁc to online formats. The list below is not intended to be exhaustive. If you are in doubt about whether actions you are contemplating are problematic, you should contact your professor directly for clariﬁcation.

Exams Administered in Synchronous & Asynchronous Formats

Any attempt to provide or gain an unfair advantage may be considered a violation of the Honor Code. Such violations include:

Asking another individual to complete an exam on your behalf
Attempting to access another student's exam
Attempting to provide answers to another student through any form of communication. This may include: email, text message, phone call, instant messaging applications or programs, file sharing, screen sharing, or screen mirroring of any kind
Disseminating information about the contents of an exam to one or more students
Attempting to screen capture, copy, or retain exam questions for yourself or others without the permission of the instructor
Sharing your login credentials with others for the purpose of providing or seeking unauthorized assistance
Accessing course content or materials related to the course during an exam (except when permission has been given for an open-book or open-resource exam)
Plagiarizing content in an open-book or open-resource exam
Accessing the internet beyond the exam administration platform (e.g., Canvas, ExamSoft)
Failing to share your screen with the instructor when requested
Failing to cooperate with the exam proctor. This may include: failing to keep your webcam on as instructed, leaving the view of your webcam, or failing to use the webcam to demonstrate that your exam space is clear
Failing to follow any instructions related to the Honor Code or academic integrity

Electronic Device Policy

The online teaching environment requires the use of a computer to complete your work. Be advised that the use of other electronic devices for any reason during an exam or testing situation without explicit permission from your professor is strictly prohibited and violates the Honor Code. This includes but is not limited to calculators, mobile phones, tablets, smartwatches, or any other device.

Written Assignments Submitted in the Online Teaching Environment

Collaborating with others when the work is expected to be individual (this could be as broad as sharing ideas)
Seeking editing assistance from unauthorized individuals such as paid tutors or editors
Seeking assistance of any kind from a native speaker in language courses
Soliciting others to complete your academic work (whether for pay or not)
Completing academic work for other students (whether for pay or not)

Dissemination of Content Related to the Course

Appendix IV: On The Use of Artificial Intelligence for Assignments

Using an artificial intelligence program to generate any content for any assignment (including, but not limited to examinations, papers, homework, and creative work) constitutes plagiarism and is a violation of the Honor Code unless students acknowledge in the assignment the extent to which an artificial intelligence program contributed to their work and outside resources are permitted for the assignment. The use of an artificial intelligence program for an academic assignment when outside resources are not permitted or when the use of artificial intelligence programs is prohibited may also constitute seeking unauthorized assistance or violate other provisions of the Honor Code. Students should reach out to their professors to inquire about the appropriate use of artificial intelligence programs if students are unclear about the expectations.

Honor Council Necessary Personal Belongings Policy

Objective

To optimize the testing environment in all rooms where EUSOM and NBME tests/exams are administered.
To implement a clear policy, which would hopefully, in turn, minimize opportunities to cheat and minimize the chance someone could be perceived as cheating.
The testing procedures laid out by third-party testing companies, such as the NBME, should be followed per their specific policies and procedures. If third parties do not have established policies and procedures, the Necessary Personal Belongings Policy should serve as the policy for any test administered by the School of Medicine.

Actions

OMESA staff will display a PowerPoint slide at the start of each test that will explicitly refer to the Honor Code to remind students of the "Necessary Personal Belongings Only" policy.
This policy applies to all medical students, first through fourth year classes.
This policy will be enforced by the students who are in the testing room.
Any student found in violation of the policy should be reported to the Honor Council.

Policy

Only necessary personal belongings are allowed at a student's testing station (or in the possession of a student) while taking any exam administered by EUSOM. All other belongings must be placed in the student's locker or at an appropriate location as designated by the below policy.

Possible necessary personal belongings that may be at the students testing station include: laptops without sticky notes or other academic stickers, unmarked laptop chargers, simple writing instruments, a water bottle without academic stickers, unwrapped food items in clear containers or food provided by SOM, unmarked Emory Student ID, disposable ear plugs, and any medically necessary items such as an insulin pump, all within reason and subject to inspection.
Unnecessary personal belongings include, but are not limited to: study materials, such as books, notes, drawings, and flash cards; bags of any kind, such as backpacks, briefcases, and purses; extraneous clothing; cell phones; wired/wireless earbuds; smart watches; food wrappers.

Students may start the exam wearing a sweater/sweatshirt/vest and can take it off and hang it on the back of the chair during an exam. Students cannot start the exam with any extraneous clothing or outerwear at their desk. Students may only put back on their original layer during an exam.

All unnecessary personal belongings, including cell phones and smart watches, are to be placed in bags and not on any student's person during an exam.

During the examination and during breaks, students cannot remove their laptop (or device being used to take exam) from the examination room. If cell phones are removed from your personal belongings when exiting the room, they must be placed back in your personal belongings before restarting the examination.

First- and second-year students should store all unnecessary personal belongings in lockers. If the lockers are too small to accommodate large items, students must make prior alternative arrangements to keep all unnecessary personal belongings outside of the testing room.

Third- and fourth-year students, as students without lockers and those taking exams outside of the SOM, are encouraged to minimize the belongings brought to the test. If this is not possible, any items that fall under "unnecessary personal belongings" should be placed against the wall at the front of the testing room. Students are not permitted to put bags on the sides or back walls of the testing room, or in the hallways near testing rooms. Note this does not apply to third-party testing. Please refer to specific policies for NBME, Aquifer or other third-party exams.

It is the responsibility of the students testing to enforce this policy and report any violations to the Honor Council.

¹ Additional information about academic integrity values.

Print as PDF

Last modified: 07/17/2024.