Engineering students lead Honor Code update to allow exam proctoring
The change aims to reduce students’ stress during tests, as advanced technology brings new challenges to academic integrity.
Key takeaways
- The University of Michigan Engineering’s student-run Engineering Honor Council amended its Honor Code to allow faculty to use in-person proctors during exams beginning Oct. 7, 2026.
- The change responds to students’ concerns about technology-enabled cheating and the personal and academic costs of reporting peers.
- The policy does not require proctoring and prohibits artificial intelligence-based video monitoring and distracting or intimidating proctor behavior.
In response to the proliferation of AI and digital devices, students at University of Michigan Engineering have led a change to the College’s Honor Code that allows instructors to use in-person proctoring during exams.
The Engineering Honor Code, administered by the student-run Engineering Honor Council, has set expectations for academic integrity at Michigan Engineering for more than 100 years. The code, similar to those at an estimated 40 of the top 100 U.S. universities, is based on a promise of ethical conduct. It has historically relied on peer reporting of suspected violations and has prohibited an instructor or proctor from being in the room during assessments.
The Honor Council developed the amendment after gathering feedback on it from students and College leaders.
“People are more concerned about cheating during exams than they used to be,” said Taylor Henry, president of the Honor Council and a fourth-year undergraduate student in mechanical engineering. “In our town hall last year, student participants were either neutral or supported proctoring. No one was against it.”
Henry says the majority of cases involve people taking out a cell phone during an exam, and according to the Council’s memo to propose the amendment, a bulk of reported Honor Code violations since 2024 have involved the misuse of artificial intelligence tools. These concerns are not just present at Michigan Engineering. This year, Princeton and Stanford adjusted their Honor Codes to allow proctoring for similar reasons.
“The College strongly supports the Honor Council’s approach. In-person proctoring provides a fair and transparent way to protect exam integrity,” said Kevin Pipe, associate dean for undergraduate education and a professor of mechanical engineering.
Engineering students seek a fairer reporting system
Students told the Honor Council that the peer-reporting model was distracting and interfered with their own performance during an exam. They also expressed reluctance to report on peers because of potential conflict and social repercussions. At the same time, some said they felt disadvantaged when suspected misconduct went unchecked.
“We feel this will help with general stress during exams, and might lead to a decrease in cheating overall. Because proctors will be there to monitor, students will worry less about others cheating, and less about catching them. And they might generally feel less pressure to cheat themselves to keep up with the curve,” said Blake Deason, communications lead for the Honor Council and a second-year undergraduate student in aerospace engineering.
In-person proctoring will not be required or used for all classes, and students are still encouraged to report potential misconduct discreetly if they observe it. The policy also sets expectations for proctors, prohibiting conduct that could distract or intimidate students and the use of artificial intelligence-based video monitoring for either in-person or remote assessments.
Maintaining the spirit of a 100-year tradition
The Engineering Honor Council is one of the oldest continuously operating student-led academic integrity organizations in the nation, with a commitment to “ensure that Michigan Engineers graduate not only as skilled professionals, but as ethical leaders prepared to serve the world.”
The student leaders see the change as an update to the Honor Code’s policies, not a replacement of its values.
“The Honor Code needs to be modified. Times have changed and we need to change with them,” said Deason. “But I believe in what the Honor Code stands for.”