Is sharing post-test study guides cheating?

In the academic world, cheating and plagiarism have always been regarded as the ultimate "no-no's" of a university's standard of conduct. However, whether fearless of the consequences or fearful of potential failure, students around the country continue to push the envelope of deceit in an attempt to boost GPA's and self-esteems. Many times an individual's true character emerges in times of great pressure and stress, two familiar sentiments that are no strangers to college students. Experiencing emotional strain due to academic overload is not a crime; counteracting these feelings by taking the low road (aka "cheating") is. Unfortunately, this moral disease has recently swept its way into the classrooms of South Alabama's nursing program. As finals concluded last month, two students were caught using a study guide created by a former student who had the same class with the same professor the semester prior. The "study guide" supposedly featured a list of what to study for, including likely exam questions, charts and recommended textbook pages to read over. Skepticism arose when the two students ended up acing their exams. Careful speculation led administration to believe the students were guilty of possessing a study guide in violation of South Alabama's code of conduct. In a statement released by the Committee on Academic Conduct in the College of Arts and Sciences regarding cheating and exams, they claim "using notes (unless expressly allowed by the teacher), altering an exam for re-grading, getting an advance copy of the examination or hiring a surrogate test-taker are all flagrant violations of University policy." In association with the University's 2006-07 "The Lowdown," which states, "Any dishonesty related to academic work or records constitutes academic misconduct including, but not limited to, activities such as giving or receiving unauthorized aid in tests and examinations ...," this case constitutes cheating. However, since many other students most likely used similar guides to assist them with their exam prep, is it fair to punish two students on behalf of the entire speculated group of "cheaters?" And could there be a chance that what these students committed falls into the "exception" category? Since the alleged actions were premeditated, and given the amount of trouble the students must have gone through to carry out their misdemeanors, some form of punishment would seem just. After all, administration could very well use this it to send a clear message to students contemplating similar actions. The key to the severity of the crime boils down to the study guide itself. The combination of the study guide painting a broad picture of what might be on the exam versus what will be on the exam, and the subtle vagueness in "The Lowdown" may prove to be "lifesavers" for the accused students. With that said, I still believe the students are far from being innocent of academic dishonesty. So what if hundreds of people committed the same offense? Justifying sin does not help anybody or anything. Granted, the administration must make an astute decision to keep its reputation at a respectable level. But I would think anyone with an active conscience knows using exam-prep notes and guides, not distributed or encouraged by the professor, is flat-out wrong. In other words, obtaining any study guide not handed out in class, and secretly reviewing any material foretelling what likely will be on the exam versus what might be on the exam, without written or verbal consent by the professor, is cheating and should be dealt with according to the University's academic policies.