CS106B and the Honor Code

Since 1921, academic conduct for students at Stanford has been governed by the Honor Code, which reads as follows:

The purpose of this handout is to make our expectations as clear as possible regarding the Honor Code. The basic principle under which we operate is that you are expected to submit your own work in this course. Claiming independent authorship for work that was derived in whole or in part from the work of others constitutes plagiarism, which is a serious violation of basic academic standards.

Under the Honor Code you are obligated to follow all of the following rules in this course:

Rule 1: You must not look at assignment solutions that are not your own.

It is an act of plagiarism to take work that is copied or derived from the work of others and submit it as your own. For example, using a solution from the Internet, a solution from another student (past or present), a solution taken from an answer set released in past quarters, or some other source, in part or in whole, that is not your own work is a violation of the Honor Code. Many Honor Code infractions we see make use of past solution sets. The best way to steer clear of this possibility is simply to not search for solutions to the assignments. Moreover, looking at someone else’s solution in order to determine how to solve the problem yourself is also an infraction of the Honor Code. In essence, you should not be looking at someone else’s answers in order to solve the problems in this class. This is not an appropriate way to “check your work,” “get a hint,” or “see alternative approaches.”

Additionally, you must not solicit solutions from anyone, animate or inanimate. For example, it is a violation of the Stanford Honor Code to ask another student to share their answers with you, to ask a tutor to provide other students’ solutions to you, to request solutions on sites like Stack Overflow or Chegg, or to prompt an AI tool to generate solution code.

Rule 2: You must not share your solutions with other students.

In particular, you should not ask anyone to give you a copy of their answers or, conversely, give your answers to another student. Similarly, you should not discuss your solution strategies to such an extent that you and your collaborators end up turning in the same answers. Moreover, you are expected to take reasonable measures to maintain the privacy of your solutions. For example, you should not leave copies of your work on public computers nor post your solutions on a public website.

Please be aware that part of maintaining the privacy of your solutions is ensuring that you lock any computer that contains code you are working on for this course whenever you step away from it, even if only briefly, and even if in seemingly secure environment (such as your dorm room). You should also ensure that your solutions are secured if you share an account on your computer with another individual (e.g., by moving your work to a secure account in the cloud that the person you share an account with cannot access).

We ask that you take these precautions in response to a troubling rise in the number of Honor Code cases that have involved allegations of code theft in recent quarters. Getting in the habit of reflexively locking your computer every time you step away from it is also good practice for information security in your personal life and is a fairly common expectation in the corporate world. On Windows, hit WIN+L to lock your computer. On Mac, hit CTRL+CMD+Q.

Rule 3: You must properly cite any assistance you received.

If you received aid from a person/resource external to the course staff or course materials, you must cite from whom you received help and what specific help you received. A proper citation should specifically identify the source (e.g., person’s name, book title, website URL, etc.) and a clear indication of how this assistance influenced your work. For example, you might write “Student X mentioned the idea of having the base case be Y and the recursive step work in way Z.” If you make use of such assistance without giving proper credit – or, if you provide a misleading or inaccurate statement describing the help you received – you may be guilty of plagiarism.

It is also important to make sure that the assistance you receive consists of general advice that does not cross the boundary into having someone else write the actual solutions or show you their solutions. It is fine to discuss ideas and strategies, but you should be careful to write your solutions on your own, as indicated in Rules 1 and 2.

Rule 4: You may only reuse past work in certain, limited situations.

We tend to reuse assignments from quarter to quarter. Following the general principle that the names affixed to a submission should accurately represent its authorship, you may only resubmit work from prior quarters provided that the exact same set of people who initially turned in the assignment resubmit. This means, in particular, that

• if you completed an assignment individually in a previous quarter, you may only resubmit that assignment if you do so individually; and
• if you completed an assignment with a partner in a previous quarter, you may only resubmit that assignment if you submit with that exact same partner.

To elaborate on that last point, if you worked with a partner in a previous quarter, you are retaking the course or resolving an incomplete, and your partner is not also retaking the class or resolving an incomplete, you may not resubmit the past work you did on that assignment in any circumstance.

The policies above apply equally to reading, copying, or adapting solutions you submitted in previous quarters. For example, if you submitted an assignment individually in a previous quarter, you should not refer to your submission on that assignment if you are planning on redoing the assignment in a pair. Similarly, if in a previous quarter you worked with a partner who is not retaking the class, you must not reread or copy anything from that previous submission in the course of redoing the assignment.

Rule 5: Tutors cannot assist with graded work.

You are welcome to make use of tutoring resources, both on-campus and off-campus, to help solidify conceptual content, to deepen understanding of course topics, to fill gaps in understanding, and to work through ungraded practice problems. Tutoring can be a great way to work through topics you're having trouble understanding and to get input from someone with more experience than you.

Tutoring, however, is not appropriate for help with work that will be submitted for a grade. When you have questions about the assignments or exams, please direct them to the course staff - we're happy to help out!

Our formal tutoring policy is as follows. The word "tutoring" has a broad meaning, and we'll interpret it to mean any assistance with the course content or topics from someone who is not currently enrolled in the course and is not a member of the course staff. For example, CTL and AARC tutors and help websites like Chegg or Stack Overflow count as tutoring. Similarly, support or advice from past students (say, someone in your dorm who has already completed a course you're taking) counts as tutoring. We consider anyone who offers you support in this context is a tutor, regardless of formal titles.

You and your tutors must abide by the following rules:

1. Tutors must be familiar with the Honor Code policy for a course prior to giving help. Importantly, not knowing the Honor Code and tutoring policies for a course does not protect you or your tutors from any Honor Code infractions. A student and tutor should review the course Honor Code policy together to set appropriate expectations and establish clear boundaries.

2. Tutors must not review, look at, offer advice, or otherwise offer assistance with any work that you will submit for a grade or which could be reasonably expected to be submitted for a grade. This means, among other things, that tutors cannot help debug or write code for or related to programming assignments, review drafts of short answers for the assignments, etc.

3. Tutors must not refer to course materials from previous offerings of the course. For example, tutors are not allowed to refer to lecture slides or solution sets used in previous quarters. They are permitted to reference the current quarter’s materials, subject to the restrictions from (2).

4. Tutors must not share any other student’s work with you, including their own. For example, tutors may not share past submitted problem sets or coding assignments as a reference, even if the tutor was the original author of that work.

5. Tutors and students are obligated under the Honor Code to ensure students and tutors do not ask for or receive unpermitted aid.

Failure to abide by these rules may constitute a violation of the Honor Code.

Rule 6: Use of generative AI tools is disallowed on graded work.

While artificial intelligence (AI) tools can be valuable in certain contexts, in this course it is important that students develop their own skills to create, modify, and debug code without the use of this technology. To maximally gain from the intentionally designed learning experiences in the course, it will be crucial that that students rely on personal efforts rather than use of AI tools. In fact, in many cases, it will be the effort itself (not the product) that is most valuable!

For this class, all code submitted for a grade must be independently written by you. Just as you cannot take credit for using code written by others, you are disallowed from using generative AI tools (like ChatGPT) to create, modify, or debug code which you then submit as your own work. Doing so in this course is a violation of the Stanford Honor Code.

University guidance on the use of generative AI in classroom settings treats use of generative AI analogously to receiving assistance from another human. As a result, using ChatGPT or other generative AI tools on any graded work is a violation of the Honor Code, regardless of whether that use is disclosed.

Note: All submissions are subject to automated plagiarism detection.

The Stanford CS department employs powerful automated plagiarism detection tools that compare assignment submissions with other submissions from current and previous quarters, including intermediate versions. The tools also compare submissions against a wide variety of online solutions and code produced by generative AI. These detection tools are effective at identifying unusual resemblances in programs, which are then further examined by the course staff. The staff then make the determination as to whether submissions are deemed to be potential infractions of the Honor Code and referred to Stanford's Community Standards office.

A final note on the Honor Code.

We have no desire to create a climate in which students feel as if they are under suspicion. The entire point of the Stanford Honor Code is that we all benefit from working in an atmosphere of mutual trust. Students who deliberately take advantage of that trust, however, poison that atmosphere for everyone.

If you have any questions about what is and is not permitted, please contact the course instructor directly. We're happy to clarify our policies and help ensure folks get the support they need while keeping everything above board.