The Group Project Free-Rider
Five students must submit one group report worth 25% of the final grade. The workload was split equally, but one member, Sam, stopped contributing after week 1, citing family issues. The other four completed all sections. Two members want to report Sam to the teacher and ask that Sam receive a lower mark; two want to protect Sam and share the credit. The teacher's policy says group marks are shared unless a member's contribution is "negligible," in which case the teacher decides after hearing all sides. The deadline is in three days. Sam has submitted nothing but has attended class and has not asked for an extension.
1. Apply the teacher's policy to decide whether Sam's contribution is "negligible."
Read the worked answer
"Negligible" is not defined numerically, so the group must reason from evidence. Facts: Sam contributed in week 1, then nothing; no submission; attended class; no extension request.
Week 1 contribution is real but small relative to a multi-week report. If the report spans, say, four weeks, Sam's share is roughly one week out of four - about 25% of the time, but likely less of the finished content, since early work is often planning.
"Negligible" usually means effectively zero. Sam's is low but not zero. A defensible reading: not negligible, but substantially below the agreed share. That distinction matters because the policy's consequence (teacher decides, possible lower mark) is triggered by "negligible," not by "unequal."
The group should document what Sam actually produced in week 1 before judging, rather than relying on impressions.
2. The group is split. How should they resolve the disagreement before the deadline?
Read the worked answer
Separate the decision from the relationship. Both sides actually agree on the facts; they differ on whether to invoke the policy.
Process: (1) Ask Sam directly, in writing, what was contributed and whether an extension is wanted - this is fair and creates a record. (2) Give a short, fixed window (e.g., 48 hours) for Sam to submit something, since the deadline allows it. (3) If nothing arrives, present the facts to the teacher and let the policy operate, rather than the group imposing a penalty itself.
Why not decide internally? The policy assigns the judgement to the teacher once "negligible" is alleged. The group's job is to supply evidence, not to sentence. The two who want to protect Sam can still do so by describing the family issues to the teacher - protection and honesty are not opposites.
Deadline discipline: raise it now, not after submission, so the teacher has time to hear all sides as the policy requires.
3. Evaluate the risk of each option (report Sam vs. share credit silently) for the group and for Sam.
Read the worked answer
Report Sam: Risk - the group may look punitive, and if the teacher finds the contribution not negligible, nothing changes and relationships sour. But it follows policy, protects the group's grade integrity, and is fair to the four who did the work. Sam gets a chance to respond, which is procedural fairness.
Share credit silently: Risk - the four absorb Sam's workload with no recognition, which breeds resentment and teaches that silence is rewarded. It also conceals information the teacher's policy exists to capture. Sam learns nothing and may repeat it. The grade becomes inaccurate as a measure of individual work.
Balanced option: report the facts (not a demand for punishment), request the teacher's judgement under the policy, and note the family issues. This minimises the punitive look while keeping the process honest. The worst option is deciding after the deadline, when no fair process is possible.