Teacher creates ingenious exam question to find cheaters and catches 14 students(irishmirror.ie)
irishmirror.ie
Teacher creates ingenious exam question to find cheaters and catches 14 students
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/weird-news/teacher-creates-ingenious-exam-question-23228848
96 comments
That read exactly like an 'apocryphal' story (make up for effect). I was suspicious from the first sentence.
I wish more HNers could read articles for 'fake news' tells. Especially ironic as the article purportedly was about fake news.
I wish more HNers could read articles for 'fake news' tells. Especially ironic as the article purportedly was about fake news.
> Unfortunately the part about my department letting students go to the bathroom during exams with their phones was true, and is still true to this day
...what else can you do? You could confiscate phones before a test, but a student who was determined to cheat could have two phones.
Do you not allow students to use the bathroom? Do you give them a pat-down before and after they leave the room? Both are plausible strategies I suppose, but strike me as highly invasive.
...what else can you do? You could confiscate phones before a test, but a student who was determined to cheat could have two phones.
Do you not allow students to use the bathroom? Do you give them a pat-down before and after they leave the room? Both are plausible strategies I suppose, but strike me as highly invasive.
A school mandated field trip might involve a bus ride 2 or 3 hours long and it's understood that there probably won't be bathroom breaks along the way. They might make a special exception for one of two students occasionally but, by and large, the expectation is students should make the appropriate arrangements ahead of time and this is not an onerous provision.
If this burden can be borne routinely for bus trips, why not expect the same from an exam setting?
If this burden can be borne routinely for bus trips, why not expect the same from an exam setting?
You let them go to the bathroom but in such a way they're not together, and not allow students to return to items after the responses are submitted. You also don't allow them to leave until they have submitted a response to all presented items up to that point. Present items one at a time, require a response to one before presenting the next, and don't allow returns to previously presented and responded-to items.
If you wanted to be really thorough you'd timestamp everything and maybe offer different versions of the test to different students.
If you wanted to be really thorough you'd timestamp everything and maybe offer different versions of the test to different students.
Wouldn't that be easier to tell the student to leave their phone on the teacher's desk while they use the restroom?
Students can have multiple phones -one to give and one to use later-, or hide one in the bathroom Godfather style.
How difficult would it be to turn a restroom into a faraday cage?
That's not a sufficient solution, because you can download Wikipedia and Stack Overflow and put them on a phone for offline use. It would be better to ban all metal objects and check with metal detectors. Medical implants could be permitted with a doctor's note and higher resolution scanning to check that it's really just the implant triggering the detector.
That is ridiculous. Do you know how much trouble disabled students would have to go through to deal with this?
You know disabled students have the right to privacy too, without other students knowing their personal health information. It is not the professor's business either, unless the student wants to disclose the actual disability's name(s) or the specifics around it. Only disability status is required to be disclosed in the US.
I personally have 2 neurostimulators inside of me, a power injectable port in my chest (an indwelling central line), a semi-permanent continuous glucose monitor on my arm (external), and a semi-permanent insulin pump connected to my abdomen--and clipped to my waistband (external). All of these alarm to a metal detector.
Also, the neurostimulators and insulin pump are sensitive to metal detectors and millimeter wave technology, as in body scanners. The insulin pump is also sensitive to X-Ray radiation.
In the case of the insulin pump, it can interfere with the photosensor on the cartridge/reservoir that detects the level of insulin remaining in the cartridge/reservoir. This can literally cause the insulin pump to overdose the person with diabetes.
As for neurostimulators, one of the neurostimulators I have has formal reports in the FDA MAUDE database, where people had their lifesaving neurostimulator deactivated by metal detectors.
Oh yeah, I also forgot, I have 2 places in my body that have plates/pins: my left shoulder and left ankle. That would set off a metal detector too.
You know disabled students have the right to privacy too, without other students knowing their personal health information. It is not the professor's business either, unless the student wants to disclose the actual disability's name(s) or the specifics around it. Only disability status is required to be disclosed in the US.
I personally have 2 neurostimulators inside of me, a power injectable port in my chest (an indwelling central line), a semi-permanent continuous glucose monitor on my arm (external), and a semi-permanent insulin pump connected to my abdomen--and clipped to my waistband (external). All of these alarm to a metal detector.
Also, the neurostimulators and insulin pump are sensitive to metal detectors and millimeter wave technology, as in body scanners. The insulin pump is also sensitive to X-Ray radiation.
In the case of the insulin pump, it can interfere with the photosensor on the cartridge/reservoir that detects the level of insulin remaining in the cartridge/reservoir. This can literally cause the insulin pump to overdose the person with diabetes.
As for neurostimulators, one of the neurostimulators I have has formal reports in the FDA MAUDE database, where people had their lifesaving neurostimulator deactivated by metal detectors.
Oh yeah, I also forgot, I have 2 places in my body that have plates/pins: my left shoulder and left ankle. That would set off a metal detector too.
This is not legal in the United States. Intentional jamming of mobile phone signals is against FCC regulations and federal law. Schools have tried jammers in the past, but they have been forced to take them down. Prisons have wanted to utilize them, and have tried to get exceptions to FCC regulations, to no avail.
As for handing over mobile phones: that is a prudent step. One of my professors took them up before the exam without advance warning for the final exam, where restroom breaks were definitely going to be utilized due to the length of the exam.
Obviously it does not solve the problem. But, according to far more than a few studies, having the phone out of sight raises exam scores. Having the phone in a completely different room raises the exam scores even higher. Basically, your brain treats the phone as an extension to your brain, and in its presence, your brain effectively goes on holiday.
As for handing over mobile phones: that is a prudent step. One of my professors took them up before the exam without advance warning for the final exam, where restroom breaks were definitely going to be utilized due to the length of the exam.
Obviously it does not solve the problem. But, according to far more than a few studies, having the phone out of sight raises exam scores. Having the phone in a completely different room raises the exam scores even higher. Basically, your brain treats the phone as an extension to your brain, and in its presence, your brain effectively goes on holiday.
Jammers, which indeed are banned, are not the same as shielded rooms - but the latter is also not all that practical and even if not against radio regulation still might have safety concerns.
[deleted]
The honest students will hand in their phones. The dishonest ones won't.
That is a very good catch
Don't answer questions you're not prepared to justify
Don't answer questions you're not prepared to justify
The same system taught them that cheating is usually rewarded.
Seems like un unnecessary harsh and vigilante way to try to correct the system single handedly.
I would prefer a professor or school who transparently communicates anti-cheating efforts (like online games do) and - most importantly - actually follows through with them systematically.
Seems like un unnecessary harsh and vigilante way to try to correct the system single handedly.
I would prefer a professor or school who transparently communicates anti-cheating efforts (like online games do) and - most importantly - actually follows through with them systematically.
As much as that sounds like a good idea, at most schools you can’t just share the name of cheaters with other faculty due to privacy issues. Yes, I’m not kidding.
There’s also the issue that students can appeal and the process usually takes a good amount of effort. But a student who might be looking at another year of tuition and delaying graduation has massively more incentives to challenge it than an assistant professor who is trying to keep his/her head down and get tenure. And that’s why sites like Chegg get away with it.
There’s also the issue that students can appeal and the process usually takes a good amount of effort. But a student who might be looking at another year of tuition and delaying graduation has massively more incentives to challenge it than an assistant professor who is trying to keep his/her head down and get tenure. And that’s why sites like Chegg get away with it.
From a legal standpoint, the fact that I’ve robbed a dozen banks is not evidence that I robbed a particular bank on a particular date. Similarly, from a quasi-legal standpoint, the fact that I cheated on one exam is not evidence that I cheated or will cheat on another.
This is one downside of very strict privacy laws. Your reputation should suffer if you are breaking the rules to get ahead. This is the very reason the mechanism of reputation was formed. It defends the group from bad actors. If you know that even if you get caught it will not be known publicly then it will always be profitable to cheat.
What broken logic is this? The system generally fails to catch cheaters, therefore it is unfair to be harsh to cheaters when they are caught?
Same logic how laws are more lenient and forgiving and full of 2nd chances for minors.
Adults creating fraudulent college degrees are not minors.
Honestly i'm not symphatic with the method used by the instructor. I've seen it many times that instructors who waste time on such plans like bullshit questions are usually the ones with mediocre teaching. It seems clever at first glance but when you look further the question comes up why the students felt the need to cheat and that's where the important digging start.
I found this comment shocking. The worst teacher in the world does not justify cheating. I have had truly horrific teachers, and I never tried using this as an excuse to cheat.
nowhere does this comment justify cheating. putting students with an impossible question in an already stressful situation under pressure is the equvialent of academic dishonesty but on the lecturer side.
A student has no expectation to know everything. A good test is impossible to score 100% and has a curve, to avoid ceiling effects.
Me I would have fired this teacher.
The purpose might be legitimate, but if you can remember your student years, you can imagine the stress that could incur the fact to suddenly encounter a question that they have no way to be able te reply.
Imagine a student that was well prepared for the exam, and suddenly there is a question he is supposed to be able to reply as it is in the exam but in no way related to what he prepared. Some stressed students could suddenly feel insecure and wonder what they did badly during their revision.
Also, it is like the police creating an illegal situation to catch someone. Would have the students attempted to cheat if there was not a question that made no sense to them?
As the article indicate itself, more students than usual went to the bathroom for this exam...
It is like a cop coming to you and saying "do you want free drug?", you reply ok and then he arrests you for drug possession charge...
The purpose might be legitimate, but if you can remember your student years, you can imagine the stress that could incur the fact to suddenly encounter a question that they have no way to be able te reply.
Imagine a student that was well prepared for the exam, and suddenly there is a question he is supposed to be able to reply as it is in the exam but in no way related to what he prepared. Some stressed students could suddenly feel insecure and wonder what they did badly during their revision.
Also, it is like the police creating an illegal situation to catch someone. Would have the students attempted to cheat if there was not a question that made no sense to them?
As the article indicate itself, more students than usual went to the bathroom for this exam...
It is like a cop coming to you and saying "do you want free drug?", you reply ok and then he arrests you for drug possession charge...
I encountered questions during my time as a student that I wasn't able to answer. I never thought to cheat.
still the students wasted time on a question they couldn't answer and that impacts a fail/pass grade. don't know in the uk but in germany this wouldn't be legal
My state exams have questions with 3 parts: a, b, c.
a is a question about fundamentals. Everyone pretty much needs to get this one correct. If you don't it means you don't know the subject matter.
b is a question to test what you have been taught. If you were paying attention and studying you should get most of the marks. It will still be difficult though and there's potential to lose marks.
c is a harder question. The students that are advanced in the subject will be able to tackle it. You might be able to get full marks in some of the c questions but probably not them all. In most you will be able to get some marks for effort shown.
a is a question about fundamentals. Everyone pretty much needs to get this one correct. If you don't it means you don't know the subject matter.
b is a question to test what you have been taught. If you were paying attention and studying you should get most of the marks. It will still be difficult though and there's potential to lose marks.
c is a harder question. The students that are advanced in the subject will be able to tackle it. You might be able to get full marks in some of the c questions but probably not them all. In most you will be able to get some marks for effort shown.
> in germany this wouldn't be legal
Is the relevant law available on https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ ?
Is the relevant law available on https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ ?
Most likely. It could be the one that a person in power (here the teacher) must expect good faith from the persons underneath him (here the students). Laying out a trap (and given this is true) might show that this is not the case. Mind the test situation.
I'm not your lawyer, so this is just my 2 cents. If you're specifically asking for legal help, please consult a lawyer on your behalf so you can discuss the details.
I'm not your lawyer, so this is just my 2 cents. If you're specifically asking for legal help, please consult a lawyer on your behalf so you can discuss the details.
I'm not a lawyer and not asking for legal advice, rather I was hoping you would back up your claim with a citation of the relevant law.
I think you might have an overly broad conception of the duties of a teacher towards students. They should protect them from harm, so laying an actual trap (or just not warning about a potential danger) so that a student gets hurt would be in violation of the teacher's duty. But giving your students a test to make sure they're actually studying is such a common (and common-sense) expression of distrust that I'd be surprised if it were illegal to not expect good faith from their students.
Relevant: §2 LehrErzVDBest https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/lehrerzvdbest_1/DDNR00019... (Former GDR law that was kept in force after reunification. Not sure whether the part about not doing damage to the socialist society is still part of current law.)
I think you might have an overly broad conception of the duties of a teacher towards students. They should protect them from harm, so laying an actual trap (or just not warning about a potential danger) so that a student gets hurt would be in violation of the teacher's duty. But giving your students a test to make sure they're actually studying is such a common (and common-sense) expression of distrust that I'd be surprised if it were illegal to not expect good faith from their students.
Relevant: §2 LehrErzVDBest https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/lehrerzvdbest_1/DDNR00019... (Former GDR law that was kept in force after reunification. Not sure whether the part about not doing damage to the socialist society is still part of current law.)
Yes, you may confuse me with a different poster, so I can not provide a link for a different person, true.
From what I read from the reference in your comment, that law applies to the part which forms the former gdr in germany.
According to that website (run by two official ministries) the law is current and your comment about that part surprises me as well.
From what I read from the reference in your comment, that law applies to the part which forms the former gdr in germany.
According to that website (run by two official ministries) the law is current and your comment about that part surprises me as well.
> you may confuse me with a different poster
Whoops, sorry. I used to wonder why people make the elementary mistake of not noticing they're talking to a different person. Now I know: it's because the "threads" view shows the replies to your own comments, but not the comment you originally replied to. So there's not enough context to notice that the usernames are different.
Whoops, sorry. I used to wonder why people make the elementary mistake of not noticing they're talking to a different person. Now I know: it's because the "threads" view shows the replies to your own comments, but not the comment you originally replied to. So there's not enough context to notice that the usernames are different.
The professor can simply give the final grade as a percentage of the 95 points rather than 100. Just like if they made a mistake with a bad question.
What kind of mentality is it to fire/sue/witchunt people over the smallest things and try and destroy their lives?
Take into account that it is a teacher. The future of students is at stake here.
He is dealing with kids or young persons and he is purposely creating distress when the goal was to educate.
Even if it is not good for students to cheat, the way he dealt with that will have probably ruined a few students lives. Think about that...
And also take into account that him and the institution have created the conditions leading to these students cheating. If you have empathy you can easily guess that it is possible that some of the caught students were not 'bad persons' but just did it because they had the opportunity and on the other side a lot of pressure (future depending on the success of this exam, family poverty, violent family pressure to not fail).
It would have been better to do this thing as an educational move / warning to show the concerned students that there is a risk cheating.
And also using measures to avoid cheating in the first place: taking phones, not letting students go to toilets in middle (this is common) etc...
He is dealing with kids or young persons and he is purposely creating distress when the goal was to educate.
Even if it is not good for students to cheat, the way he dealt with that will have probably ruined a few students lives. Think about that...
And also take into account that him and the institution have created the conditions leading to these students cheating. If you have empathy you can easily guess that it is possible that some of the caught students were not 'bad persons' but just did it because they had the opportunity and on the other side a lot of pressure (future depending on the success of this exam, family poverty, violent family pressure to not fail).
It would have been better to do this thing as an educational move / warning to show the concerned students that there is a risk cheating.
And also using measures to avoid cheating in the first place: taking phones, not letting students go to toilets in middle (this is common) etc...
There is also the question if the teacher should be concerned with the test at all. Cheaters will sooner or later find themselves in a situation that demands knowledge and experience. Would this have been a job interview then there is little chance you'd be able to cheat your way out of such a situation.
Why give tests at all then? Give everyone a grade of “PASS” and eventually their lack of mastery will catch up with them.
No concrete details. No school. No teacher name and not even a class name. I call fake!
Wait, Why are students allowed to have a powerul internet machine with them during the test?
In India, all students are supposed to turn off their phones and keep them on the teachers table for the whole duration of the test. Having a phone on person is deemed to be cheating and failed in the test.
In India, all students are supposed to turn off their phones and keep them on the teachers table for the whole duration of the test. Having a phone on person is deemed to be cheating and failed in the test.
Yeah that was my experience at university in the UK (well you put it in your bag and got a ticket like at a cloakroom) and that was in 2008 so pre smartphones being common amongst students. If university's or schools are allowing kids to have access to phones during exams in 2021 they're idiots or silently encouraging their students to cheat in order to boost their rankings (not unheard of admittedly in the UK)
> In India, all students are supposed to turn off their phones ..
There is no rule like that. I'm an Indian student. All exams have different rules. They sometimes ask you to keep phones outside, sometimes near the invigilator, and maybe even in your pockets. Some also refuse to let you use the bathroom throughout the exam (usually 3 hours)
But students always find a way to cheat. Nothing will stop cheating.
There is no rule like that. I'm an Indian student. All exams have different rules. They sometimes ask you to keep phones outside, sometimes near the invigilator, and maybe even in your pockets. Some also refuse to let you use the bathroom throughout the exam (usually 3 hours)
But students always find a way to cheat. Nothing will stop cheating.
Ok. My wording was a bit off. My source of rules are national level exams, so I assumed most exams are similar.
Even what you described, is ultimately aimed at preventing the student from accessing heir phone during the exam.
Even what you described, is ultimately aimed at preventing the student from accessing heir phone during the exam.
> My source of rules are national level exams
Even my sources are the same. I took multiple national level exams organized by the government and private colleges just a few months ago.
The phones arent even allowed inside the exam hall. You have to keep them outside for national level exams.
Even my sources are the same. I took multiple national level exams organized by the government and private colleges just a few months ago.
The phones arent even allowed inside the exam hall. You have to keep them outside for national level exams.
How do you know they don't have a second phone hidden somewhere that they can check when they go to the bathroom?
Usually, they are patted down. Not as in full on frisked, but pockets and shirts checked. Women check girls.
Even pen / pencil boxes or pouches are not allowed.
Bathroom trips are usually not encouraged.
Even pen / pencil boxes or pouches are not allowed.
Bathroom trips are usually not encouraged.
You can't put cameras to toilets, you can't prevent semeone from using a toilet, and you can't search someone's pants.
Not letting people go to the toilet seems like an obvious solution. It's the same during many situations in life. If you really have to go you fail the test and try again later.
To me it's not obvious, if you consider the possibility to use a toilet a human right of the first class.
edit: pretty ridiculous that someone down voted my parent comment.
[deleted]
I don't think this is a good parable (regardless of veracity).
Occasionally students get hung up on difficult questions, determined to solve them, losing time for the remaining questions. Yes, this is an anti-pattern, but it is a fact of life. By incorporating an impossible question, you waste the time of honest[1] students.
Some will recognise that the question is impossible and move on. Some with good exam technique will know not to get stuck on a problem they can't solve until they've had a go at all of the other questions.
But some honest and hard-working students will have got a worse grade than they deserved because of this stunt.
[1] Consider, as well, 'desperate' students - students who need a certain grade for some reason or another. Maybe this class isn't these students' priority, but they need to pass to be able to study the classes they love. An impossible question could drive these students to cheat, when they never would consider it otherwise[2][3].
[2] Consider the detail "about half the class left the room to use the bathroom during the test - far more than the usual".
[3] This bears resemblance to vigilante groups targeting peadophiles. I don't know what to make of that.
Occasionally students get hung up on difficult questions, determined to solve them, losing time for the remaining questions. Yes, this is an anti-pattern, but it is a fact of life. By incorporating an impossible question, you waste the time of honest[1] students.
Some will recognise that the question is impossible and move on. Some with good exam technique will know not to get stuck on a problem they can't solve until they've had a go at all of the other questions.
But some honest and hard-working students will have got a worse grade than they deserved because of this stunt.
[1] Consider, as well, 'desperate' students - students who need a certain grade for some reason or another. Maybe this class isn't these students' priority, but they need to pass to be able to study the classes they love. An impossible question could drive these students to cheat, when they never would consider it otherwise[2][3].
[2] Consider the detail "about half the class left the room to use the bathroom during the test - far more than the usual".
[3] This bears resemblance to vigilante groups targeting peadophiles. I don't know what to make of that.
Wouldn’t you say that not getting hung up on the little details is a vital real-world skill? Like you say, it’s a fact of life that some do. Should we ignore it then, so that everybody has a “fairer” chance?
In fact, this is one of the most exam-tackling strategies: spot and rake up points with low-hanging fruits throughout the test.
In fact, this is one of the most exam-tackling strategies: spot and rake up points with low-hanging fruits throughout the test.
People make a lot of assumptions when taking a test, and a common one is: when I answer all questions correctly, I get a the best score (a 10, an A+, or a 1, depending on your country's system). So they try. They answer in "test mode". My guess is it would affect mediocre students most.
But, to put it in your words: exam tackling strategies are not vital real-world skills.
But, to put it in your words: exam tackling strategies are not vital real-world skills.
Since when are tests about examining vital real world skills? If tests were about that, reference lookup, team work and phones would not be against the rules. You can and should always do that in the real world.
The truth is tests are merely a game between student and professor. A game born of arrogance and gatekeeping. There are even metagames being played as exemplified by this article: would the professor really ask such as question?
The truth is tests are merely a game between student and professor. A game born of arrogance and gatekeeping. There are even metagames being played as exemplified by this article: would the professor really ask such as question?
I dont think general engineering exam should contain traps to test your ability to "not get hung up on little details" in the form of unsolvable exercise needed for full credit.
A bit offtopic to article, engineering exams tend to be about noticing little details and not ignoring them.
A bit offtopic to article, engineering exams tend to be about noticing little details and not ignoring them.
Are those then “little details” or “traps”?
The story doesn’t report that only an elite few were able to solve a specific next-level question to get full marks. It says some people are so hung up on grades that they went straight for the honey pot.
The story doesn’t report that only an elite few were able to solve a specific next-level question to get full marks. It says some people are so hung up on grades that they went straight for the honey pot.
The article talks about whole unsolvable exercise needed for full credit, which is a trap. It is not little detail at all. You used the expression "little details", I have put it in quotes because I dont think it is accurate characterization at all.
> It says some people are so hung up on grades
So? Practically, grades matter pretty often. And even if they did not, there is nothing wrong with being motivated by grades or having grades related ambitions.
> It says some people are so hung up on grades
So? Practically, grades matter pretty often. And even if they did not, there is nothing wrong with being motivated by grades or having grades related ambitions.
> The article talks about whole unsolvable exercise needed for full credit, which is a trap.
You say this like full credit is required to pass. A perfect score is often practically impossible, and at least a big achievement in most of higher education, not something most people can walk in expecting to get.
You say this like full credit is required to pass. A perfect score is often practically impossible, and at least a big achievement in most of higher education, not something most people can walk in expecting to get.
> You say this like full credit is required to pass
I don't. I did not said nor implied that. I said full credit, because I meant full credit. I did not meant "required for barely passing".
> A perfect score is often practically impossible, and at least a big achievement in most of higher education, not something most people can walk in expecting to get.
It is pretty often practically possible and achieved. In any case, motivated talented hard working student is entitled to expect full credit to be possible.
Average student is entitled to expect all exercises to be possible to solve and within range of what was taught in the course. Even if he personally cant solve everything, it should be doable.
I don't. I did not said nor implied that. I said full credit, because I meant full credit. I did not meant "required for barely passing".
> A perfect score is often practically impossible, and at least a big achievement in most of higher education, not something most people can walk in expecting to get.
It is pretty often practically possible and achieved. In any case, motivated talented hard working student is entitled to expect full credit to be possible.
Average student is entitled to expect all exercises to be possible to solve and within range of what was taught in the course. Even if he personally cant solve everything, it should be doable.
The story was admitted fake by the author, so the details of the story aren't to be used to justifying anything.
I would argue that students who haven't learned this skill have a certain expected value of penalty already applied, when they take a legitimate test. An impossible question compounds the penalty.
EDIT: In other words, if you know to hoover up the easy marks, you get a better score anyway.
EDIT: In other words, if you know to hoover up the easy marks, you get a better score anyway.
It breaks trust with the teacher. You are paying for knowledge and an honest evaluation of your mastery of that knowledge. That real-world skill is not a good fit for a test without the foreknowledge or training.
An alternate reading ...
If a teacher takes no real measures to prevent some students from cheating, that breaks trust with the honest students. This story - true or not - is of a teacher trying to create trust with the honest students by ensuring that at least some of those who cheat don't get away with it.
If a teacher takes no real measures to prevent some students from cheating, that breaks trust with the honest students. This story - true or not - is of a teacher trying to create trust with the honest students by ensuring that at least some of those who cheat don't get away with it.
What is cheating anyway? Looking up the answers in one's books or phone? Talking to your fellow students? That sort of artificial difficulty shouldn't even be part of the rules in the first place. If your tests are so easy they can be solved via Google, they're pointless and it doesn't really matter if someone is cheating in the first place.
Honestly the problem is this mass education model where professors have hundreds of students to assess. Tests are necessary in this environment because they scale to any number of students. If people want an honest appraisal of their skills, a mentor who focuses on a single student exclusively is much better positioned to provide it.
Honestly the problem is this mass education model where professors have hundreds of students to assess. Tests are necessary in this environment because they scale to any number of students. If people want an honest appraisal of their skills, a mentor who focuses on a single student exclusively is much better positioned to provide it.
> What is cheating anyway?
Not abiding by the rules that have been set.
> Looking up the answers in one's books or phone?
Yes, if the rules have said that you are not permitted to do so.
> Talking to your fellow students?
Yes, if the rules have said that you are not permitted to do so.
> That sort of artificial difficulty shouldn't even be part of the rules in the first place.
If you are studying a subject that is intended to have you gain certain skills, then it is reasonable and appropriate to assess whether or not you have done so. Being able to recall certain facts and to carry out certain procedures without external assistance is sometimes/often included in the skills you are expected to acquire as part of the course.
> If your tests are so easy they can be solved via Google, they're pointless and it doesn't really matter if someone is cheating in the first place.
Suppose you are learning calculus, and your instructor wants to know if you can differentiate a particular function from first principles. This is an important skill to ensure you are ready to move to the next stage, but it's trivial to search for it on the internet.
This is just one example that counters your assertion.
> If people want an honest appraisal of their skills, a mentor who focuses on a single student exclusively is much better positioned to provide it.
True. Given the current trends in teacher numbers versus student numbers, that's unlikely to happen. So in the meantime we must do what we can with mass assessment, and try to make that assessment fair. Preventing cheating is part of that.
Not abiding by the rules that have been set.
> Looking up the answers in one's books or phone?
Yes, if the rules have said that you are not permitted to do so.
> Talking to your fellow students?
Yes, if the rules have said that you are not permitted to do so.
> That sort of artificial difficulty shouldn't even be part of the rules in the first place.
If you are studying a subject that is intended to have you gain certain skills, then it is reasonable and appropriate to assess whether or not you have done so. Being able to recall certain facts and to carry out certain procedures without external assistance is sometimes/often included in the skills you are expected to acquire as part of the course.
> If your tests are so easy they can be solved via Google, they're pointless and it doesn't really matter if someone is cheating in the first place.
Suppose you are learning calculus, and your instructor wants to know if you can differentiate a particular function from first principles. This is an important skill to ensure you are ready to move to the next stage, but it's trivial to search for it on the internet.
This is just one example that counters your assertion.
> If people want an honest appraisal of their skills, a mentor who focuses on a single student exclusively is much better positioned to provide it.
True. Given the current trends in teacher numbers versus student numbers, that's unlikely to happen. So in the meantime we must do what we can with mass assessment, and try to make that assessment fair. Preventing cheating is part of that.
Searching for help on the internet is also a valuable real world skill. Does that not mean then that the cheaters should receive extra credit instead of a zero?
Not for proctored exams that are designed around you studying in the lead up to the exam, not looking stuff up during the exam.
If it was an open-book exam then arguments could be made that looking stuff up online is an extension of looking it up in the official textbooks (unless you are _only_ allowed the official textbooks... but you get my drift).
Every school and uni exam (for the most part) will have past papers you can test yourself with. The exam doesn't deviate a whole lot (in my experience) from the past papers with the changes usually revolving around the made-up scenario, e.g. "a boat with a speed of 34kph..." vs "a plane travelling at a speed of..."
They could have studied the past papers and done well but they wanted the easier route.
So, no, they cheated. They deserved their punishment.
If it was an open-book exam then arguments could be made that looking stuff up online is an extension of looking it up in the official textbooks (unless you are _only_ allowed the official textbooks... but you get my drift).
Every school and uni exam (for the most part) will have past papers you can test yourself with. The exam doesn't deviate a whole lot (in my experience) from the past papers with the changes usually revolving around the made-up scenario, e.g. "a boat with a speed of 34kph..." vs "a plane travelling at a speed of..."
They could have studied the past papers and done well but they wanted the easier route.
So, no, they cheated. They deserved their punishment.
Not to mention that this was posted and answered online, and it's possible that one or more of the students might have actually seen the question beforehand and memorized it. Some people have eidetic memories.
I have no respect for cheaters, but catching innocents in this little trap is absolutely unconscionable to me.
I have no respect for cheaters, but catching innocents in this little trap is absolutely unconscionable to me.
This is mitigated somewhat by "there was one particular question that wasn't related to what they had all been taught in class"
But I agree
But I agree
I don't think that actually is a mitigation. I had professors that asked questions on a take home that were related but had not been discussed during any class. I still find some of the views on this strategy to be odd.
It's incredibly unlikely that you wild stumble across a specific random false trivia fact in the whole of the internet, and internalize it without noticing it's wrong.
Not to mention, many professors set questions of this sort that you need to correctly answer for an A.
While I don’t have sympathy for the cheaters who were caught, I really dislike this method of trying to catch them. When encountering an impossible problem, an honest student winds up not only wasting time trying to solve it, but also may get discouraged by the failure to do so. Both of these can result in underperforming for honest students.
All that makes me wonder why the teacher didn’t do what most would (and what is common across standardized tests): prevent using the bathroom during the test.
All that makes me wonder why the teacher didn’t do what most would (and what is common across standardized tests): prevent using the bathroom during the test.
As for banning restroom breaks altogether, there are students who are not on the record, with respect to disability services, that have serious bladder/bowel issues. Also, this can adversely affect these student's grades, as they have to purposely skip eating or dehydrate themselves hours in advance of the exam.
Personally, while I am registered at disability services, my issues are particularly severe. I have two rare immune-mediated neurological diseases affecting my peripheral nervous system.
If I hold my bladder, I literally experience something life threatening known as autonomic dysreflexia, which is just about the worst feeling in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_dysreflexia
I also look completely normal, and I can walk. So, while I do not appear disabled, I am severely disabled, and I cannot hold it. I also have severe bowel issues too, but it's TMI. I am on a last resort medication for that.
My professors limit the amount of bathroom breaks (an arbitrary amount) during the exam, and sometimes it is inadequate, especially for somebody like me who gets extended testing time. So, I had to go to disability services and explain my situation (degrading) to be allowed to use the restroom as needed. I had to have another accommodations meeting over these rules.
As for a TA escorting me to the restroom and literally standing outside the stall. Yeah, it's degrading, but go ahead, be my guest.
Personally, while I am registered at disability services, my issues are particularly severe. I have two rare immune-mediated neurological diseases affecting my peripheral nervous system.
If I hold my bladder, I literally experience something life threatening known as autonomic dysreflexia, which is just about the worst feeling in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_dysreflexia
I also look completely normal, and I can walk. So, while I do not appear disabled, I am severely disabled, and I cannot hold it. I also have severe bowel issues too, but it's TMI. I am on a last resort medication for that.
My professors limit the amount of bathroom breaks (an arbitrary amount) during the exam, and sometimes it is inadequate, especially for somebody like me who gets extended testing time. So, I had to go to disability services and explain my situation (degrading) to be allowed to use the restroom as needed. I had to have another accommodations meeting over these rules.
As for a TA escorting me to the restroom and literally standing outside the stall. Yeah, it's degrading, but go ahead, be my guest.
At my school an instructor cannot prevent a student from leaving an exam to go to the bathroom if they insist. Keep in mind these exams can be four hours long.
Don't recall for sure if it's a CYA policy or the state law, tend to think it was the latter. They can claim it's not allowed, but more savvy students will know better and you have to allow them. You can however have a TA accompany them and wait outside the stall. You can also make them leave their phone but of course they can keep another phone on them.
Don't recall for sure if it's a CYA policy or the state law, tend to think it was the latter. They can claim it's not allowed, but more savvy students will know better and you have to allow them. You can however have a TA accompany them and wait outside the stall. You can also make them leave their phone but of course they can keep another phone on them.
> I really dislike this method of trying to catch them
Look at it from the teachers' point of view:
1. They know students are cheating by going to the bathroom and looking up answers (not all of them, but enough)
2. They can't prevent them from going to the bathroom
I suppose they could insist that everyone wears trousers and tops that have no pockets and they all put their phones in their bags (and demonstrate that this has been done) but I could imagine this being a violation of some sort of rights...
The point is that there was a question in the exam that was hard. Impossibly hard by the sound of things. Some students threw their hands up and said "I have no idea" and skipped it. Some went to the bathroom, looked up the (wrong) answer, and cheated... it's black and white for me I'm afraid.
Look at it from the teachers' point of view:
1. They know students are cheating by going to the bathroom and looking up answers (not all of them, but enough)
2. They can't prevent them from going to the bathroom
I suppose they could insist that everyone wears trousers and tops that have no pockets and they all put their phones in their bags (and demonstrate that this has been done) but I could imagine this being a violation of some sort of rights...
The point is that there was a question in the exam that was hard. Impossibly hard by the sound of things. Some students threw their hands up and said "I have no idea" and skipped it. Some went to the bathroom, looked up the (wrong) answer, and cheated... it's black and white for me I'm afraid.
tl;dr: an engineering prof made an unsolvable problem and had a TA ask the same problem online, and answer it with a wrong answer. Those who answered with the online answer (because they went to the bathroom and found it on their phone) got a zero on the test.
There are so many details lacking (e.g. when and where did this happen?) that I question its veracity, but if it did happen it seems pretty inconsiderate to the non-cheating students to put an unsolvable question on there.
There are so many details lacking (e.g. when and where did this happen?) that I question its veracity, but if it did happen it seems pretty inconsiderate to the non-cheating students to put an unsolvable question on there.
It's from the Mirror so you can't really expect more.
I had a few CS professors at the University of Illinois that allowed students to answer “I don’t know” for any question and receive 25% of the points on that question. (I utilized this multiple times myself)
If this professor did that, would people be less angry about him putting an unanswerable question on the exam?
If this professor did that, would people be less angry about him putting an unanswerable question on the exam?
Nice idea, especially when it's really about learning something.
Was it thought that these questions were intentionally without answers?
Was it thought that these questions were intentionally without answers?
Tests suck. I understand they are necessary, and I don't have a better idea on how to do them, bit they suck.
I remember the mechanics exams from University. You would get a test that is simply impossible to finish in the given time, which meant that you had to practise doing the calculations really fast. You had to speedrun through the whole exam, pattern matching the examples against stuff you practised. No time to think about them.
Knowing fully well that the exam could only be finished in time via this method, they made sure to put examples in it that we had never seen before. And while this is the right way to test understanding, and the way I prefer my tests to be, I really don't understand how they can ask you to do both at the same time, with that time pressure.
We had more than 50% fail rate at these exams, which the professor was proud of.
And all of this combined with the worst teaching I ever witnessed.
I also had a fun experience getting between two professors once. I failed the second semester math exam, and the assistant professor held a refresher course in the third semester, for the roughly 100 people who also failed. It was 1.5 hours for something like 6 weeks. It was the best class I've ever been in, and I really deeply understood all the stuff for the first time.
The professor proper then prepared an exam for us that 95% of the people failed (I managed to get a passing grade, along with 5 other people).
Literally an old professor being angry at a younger one who does better teaching. And that old professor was even pretty good, to be fair.
I remember the mechanics exams from University. You would get a test that is simply impossible to finish in the given time, which meant that you had to practise doing the calculations really fast. You had to speedrun through the whole exam, pattern matching the examples against stuff you practised. No time to think about them.
Knowing fully well that the exam could only be finished in time via this method, they made sure to put examples in it that we had never seen before. And while this is the right way to test understanding, and the way I prefer my tests to be, I really don't understand how they can ask you to do both at the same time, with that time pressure.
We had more than 50% fail rate at these exams, which the professor was proud of.
And all of this combined with the worst teaching I ever witnessed.
I also had a fun experience getting between two professors once. I failed the second semester math exam, and the assistant professor held a refresher course in the third semester, for the roughly 100 people who also failed. It was 1.5 hours for something like 6 weeks. It was the best class I've ever been in, and I really deeply understood all the stuff for the first time.
The professor proper then prepared an exam for us that 95% of the people failed (I managed to get a passing grade, along with 5 other people).
Literally an old professor being angry at a younger one who does better teaching. And that old professor was even pretty good, to be fair.
Time-pressure tests are completely indefensible except for tests of specific time sensitive skills like landing a plane.
Ah the mirror, reposting stories from /r/prorevenge. Quality journalism at its best.
I did CS as an undergrad. I'll never forget one assignment that was given to the class. It was difficult and we were all struggling to produce the correct results. Most of us were working on it separately in the computer lab but a few had grouped up to solve it. At one point, someone announced they had found the exact problem and answer detailed online. Everyone (except me) crowded around and confirmed it was the same question. The URL was shared and most people had the answer. Unfortunately it didn't turn out like this article. I scrapped a pass while everyone else in the class got top marks.
It left a sour taste in my mouth as I refuse to cheat - even in a pub quiz - but it gave me a reality check I suppose.
It left a sour taste in my mouth as I refuse to cheat - even in a pub quiz - but it gave me a reality check I suppose.
Our Functional Programming professor told us that we're free to use the internet for our homework. Since we'll be doing that at work, we might as well learn how to search for the solution we need.
He also told us to wait at least 1-2h after reading a solution online before implementing it so we could (1) avoid plagiarizing and (2) learn how to apply what we just learned.
How is your degree in Googling Stuff working out? :) I'm joking. That situation sounds different.
How is this so different to a question being included that wasn't covered in the course material? I've sat several exams where this has happened and the grading took that into account when it was pointed out. In this particular case the question was only worth five points too - not something to tear one's hair out over. Move on to the next and circle back if you have time at the end.
Urg. This is dumb in so many ways. I think articles like this are written as clickbait. Idiots think it's smart and the rest of us argue over fairness/practicality/wider issues.
Our professor performed a much simpler trick. An assistant was watching over us and halfway through the test the professor silently entered the room and several students flinched and looked up while the rest of us were heads down working on the exam. He then asked those students to step outside and bring all their materials. This was before smartphones, so most cheaters had crib notes.
One other form of cheating I noticed during exams was students having ear peaces to get instructions from someone outside.
Your professor made all students who looked up from their sheet go outside in the middle of the exam?
I think it was just a couple of them that got startled and looked suspicious or maybe he was there long enough to spot them whispering. After he called them out, I don't remember if he just checked their sheets and notes and let them return or if he called them to continue the test in another room under stricter supervision. I doubt that the students got wronged or treated unjustly in any way. The assistant might have pointed them out or something but I don't really remember all the details, just the brief anecdote.
A lot of comments here focus on two things. One is honest students losing time/being confused. Another is tempting to cheat which might turn some semi-honest students into dishonest ones.
I would like to point to a reason I think it's a very good policy to try to catch cheaters and punish then severely and why it's almost always worth the cost. The reason is that it's absolutely soul crushing, motivation killing and unfair for honest people to function in a competitive environment with cheaters. Standards and requirements get higher. Workloads get bigger. Difficulty goes up. You either spend all your time trying to compete or give up. One way or the other the cheaters still win, get all the recognition, status and prizes. It's very easy to lose faith in humanity and just become either cynical about it all or just spiral into mental problems.
I see two reasonable solutions. Either make schools not so competitive, there is very little reason for putting so much weight on tests scores or grades. Maybe it's time to re-think it all. Until we can do that I am all for catching cheaters and throwing the book at them. If you try to get ahead by cheating you're hurting all the honest people you left behind. It's not only about you getting an A instead of a B. It's about poisoning the whole environment you operate in.
I would like to point to a reason I think it's a very good policy to try to catch cheaters and punish then severely and why it's almost always worth the cost. The reason is that it's absolutely soul crushing, motivation killing and unfair for honest people to function in a competitive environment with cheaters. Standards and requirements get higher. Workloads get bigger. Difficulty goes up. You either spend all your time trying to compete or give up. One way or the other the cheaters still win, get all the recognition, status and prizes. It's very easy to lose faith in humanity and just become either cynical about it all or just spiral into mental problems.
I see two reasonable solutions. Either make schools not so competitive, there is very little reason for putting so much weight on tests scores or grades. Maybe it's time to re-think it all. Until we can do that I am all for catching cheaters and throwing the book at them. If you try to get ahead by cheating you're hurting all the honest people you left behind. It's not only about you getting an A instead of a B. It's about poisoning the whole environment you operate in.
I saw this done to beautiful effect at a pub quiz once.
Far more common in the UK than anywhere else I've lived, pub quiz is the time honored tradition of drinking in a pub while a guy on a microphone gives everyone questions to answer on a piece of paper. Each table is usually a team, and the winners split some small prize. It's the best.
So one night at the Edinburgh University pub, the quizmaster asked a really obscure and weird question, like what was the name of the dog of some character that appeared twice on TV show off the air for twenty years.
Naturally, the answer was on Wikipedia. Naturally, the host had changed the answer the day before. And any team that gave his wrong answer lost half their points and were publicly mocked.
It was a great night.
Far more common in the UK than anywhere else I've lived, pub quiz is the time honored tradition of drinking in a pub while a guy on a microphone gives everyone questions to answer on a piece of paper. Each table is usually a team, and the winners split some small prize. It's the best.
So one night at the Edinburgh University pub, the quizmaster asked a really obscure and weird question, like what was the name of the dog of some character that appeared twice on TV show off the air for twenty years.
Naturally, the answer was on Wikipedia. Naturally, the host had changed the answer the day before. And any team that gave his wrong answer lost half their points and were publicly mocked.
It was a great night.
We really don't need any more fake science spread on the net.
Which has this edit at the bottom:
> Edit 2: Hi guys I'm writing this 5 months after the initial post. I'm glad this post is getting attention again and I'm once again receiving messages from people wanting to get in touch with the professor or students from the class, so now that this post has run its initial course, I'll burst everyone's bubble by admitting that I mostly made this story up. It's based on a real incident that happened in my department a couple years ago, but I wasn't in the class personally, I only heard about it third-hand from someone I didn't know that well. So while the general plot and end result of the story is true, I changed some details to keep the professor and school anonymous, and took creative liberty in writing it from a first person viewpoint. Unfortunately the part about my department letting students go to the bathroom during exams with their phones was true, and is still true to this day, and to my knowledge the incident this is based on is the only time that a professor actually took a stand against this shitty policy.
> So yeah I don't know the professor personally since the class he taught is not part of my program's curriculum, so I won't put anyone in touch with him or anyone else who knows about the real incident and could expose his identity.
> Before anyone reports this for being fake, I will once again stress that while I changed the details, the actual events played out in a similar way and the real professor did in fact get his revenge on the cheaters.