Premeds are a much maligned group at Harvard. Not a week goes by when some joke about our little stressed friends appears on the Op-ed pages of some campus journal. The popular stereotype portrays them as cut-throat anal retentive control freaks--a mob of students armed with red-blue black green click pens and mechanical pencils converging on the Science Center en mass at precisely nine o'clock every morning.

We science major are supposed to have nothing but contempt for these M.D. wannabes. They clutter our classes. They clutter our classes. The clutter our classes. They flex inanely in section. And worst of all, you can never trust a premed.

They'll seat you problem sets. They'll sabotage you experiments. They'll spread nasty rumors about you and kiss up to the TFs. They'll do anything for an A.

This puerile image of the blood thirsty, ruthless Harvard student should be dismissed as a caricature, for both pre-meds and normal students. yet the University itself seems to have very little faith in our sense of academic ethics. At the beginning of Freshman year, we are all lectured about plagiarism, the Eighth Deadly Sin. And during finals, Harvard dispatches and armada of clerical workers to "proctor" every examination.

I object to proctored exams for two reasons. First, the role of a proctor is entirely unnecessary from a logistical standpoint. Their administrative workload could easily be shuffled onto teaching fellows, who normally make themselves available during exams anyway. A Ph.D. candidate in the GSAS is entirely capable of reading instructions, telling undergrads to sit in every other seat, and giving permission for students to go wee wee during the test. And the presence of a TF is just as effective in deterring any would be cheaters.

But aside from the administrative redundancy of proctors, the underlying assumption that they are necessary is almost insulting. Those accepted to this college were the cream of their high school classes. They were showered with academic laurels. They're used to studying. they have certainly never had to cheat for their grades.

By stationing proctors at final examinations, the University shows a lack of trust for its students.

An honor code would be a simple and effective way of demonstrating trust in the student body, yet the University is unwilling to adopt one. Tuesday's Crimson reports that administrators believe "ambiguous ethical questions are not the responsibility of the University."

Then why does the University require every undergraduate to take a half-course in Moral Reasoning? Issues of "Justice," "Moral Perfectionism," and "Self-Cultivation and Moral Community" are about as ambiguous as ethical questions get.

The Administration won't have to do much. First, issue a brief statement about morality, conscience and academic duty to be printed somewhere in the Handbook for Students. Then, start printing blue books with "ON my honor, I have neither give nor received aid on this examination" written on the inside cover.

The administration also worries about enforcement of an honor code. Yet the point of such a system is that the University wouldn't have to enforces it. An honor code would make the student body act as a self-monitor. Not only would students scrutinize their own behavior, it would be the responsibility of every student to report incidences of academic dishonesty.

An honor code is long overdue for the University. Any university that does so much in the name of academic honesty should reciprocate with a bit more trust.