At my nieces school the students aren’t allowed any electronics when taking exams. At Interlochen she’s only allowed her phone two hours per week. We need to do the same. I’ve noticed this trend in my workplace and have had to have the talk about plagiarism with several young people. Seen whole PowerPoint presentations lifted without attribution. It’s crazy.
TOPICS: Cheating, Lying, Official corruption, U.K. Govt., Covid-19 policy scandals:
Matt Hancock, still (at this writing) a serving and not-yet-sacked minister in the present U.K. government's cabinet, used lies and exaggerations regarding the actual circumstances of Covid-19's threat when, as the then Health Secretary, he was recorded in conversations with colleagues as intent on "scaring the pants off" members of the public in hopes of inducing their acceptance of the government's restrictions on movement and gatherings of groups of people.
Thus, with this fresh revelation, coming three years late--though that doesn't stop the British press from congratulating itself on its professional skills-- shows us that Mr. Hancock had recognised certain of his defenders --that those who'd defended him as being only an incompetent fool rather than a lying incompetent fool -- as being _half_ correct.
The trajectory of cheating, in my experience, mirrors the general cultural malaise in which we now find ourselves. Twenty or so years ago I recall a final year student submitting an exceptional essay on ‘Sons and Lovers’ that, in its stylistic felicity and depth of analysis, was on par with a seasoned mid twentieth century academic critic. Parental involvement was the suspicion. Since then I have read many pieces of work produced by students that was either demonstrably plagiarised, or at least raised serious suspicions - and that without the aid of so-called plagiarism checkers. In this time frame the actual quality of the prose produced by cheaters has declined from the stylistic and analytical rigour that one occasionally encountered to the bloodless superficiality of more recent times - the sort of stuff that any teacher or professor can spot from fifty feet, if they know their students and are alert to the formulaic features of writing produced by plagiarism factories and algorithms. But who has the time or the resources? We all do if we make the effort and are prepared to take a stand. Viva voce presentations, class based examinations and hand written - yes, hand written - essays - under supervised conditions suggest themselves. To pretend we can do anything less, or must somehow adapt to using the emerging AI as an educationalist academic here in Australia recently suggested, will make us as culpable as Bradbury’s Chief Beattie in the achievement and maintenance of the ultimate philistinism.
Likewise with examinations. Last year I marked online psychology examinations in Australia. I was alarmed to detect that a cluster of my allocated papers contained word for word responses to two questions that were lifted from a text book. I report this, but was not informed of the ultimate outcome. I suspect - and this is the disturbing part - that no serious penalty ensued because heaven forbid it painted the examination authority in a negative light.
The trajectory of cheating, in my experience, mirrors the general cultural malaise in which we now find ourselves. Twenty or so years ago I recall a final year student submitting an exceptional essay on ‘Sons and Lovers’ that, in its stylistic felicity and depth of analysis, was on par with a seasoned mid twentieth century academic critic. Parental involvement was the suspicion. Since then I have read many pieces of work produced by students that was either demonstrably plagiarised, or at least raised serious suspicions - and that without the aid of so-called plagiarism checkers. In this time frame the actual quality of the prose produced by cheaters has declined from the stylistic and analytical rigour that one occasionally encountered to the bloodless superficiality of more recent times - the sort of stuff that any teacher or professor can spot from fifty feet, if they know their students and are alert to the formulaic features of writing produced by plagiarism factories and algorithms. But who has the time or the resources? We all do if we make the effort and are prepared to take a stand. Viva voce presentations, class based examinations and hand written - yes, hand written - essays - under supervised conditions suggest themselves. To pretend we can do anything less, or must somehow adapt to using the emerging AI as an educationalist academic here in Australia recently suggested, will make us as culpable as Bradbury’s Chief Beattie in the achievement and maintenance of the ultimate philistinism.
Likewise with examinations. Last year I marked online psychology examinations in Australia. I was alarmed to detect that a cluster of my allocated papers contained word for word responses to two questions that were lifted from a text book. I report this, but was not informed of the ultimate outcome. I suspect - and this is the disturbing part - that no serious penalty ensued because heaven forbid it painted the examination authority in a negative light.
The trajectory of cheating, in my experience, mirrors the general cultural malaise in which we now find ourselves. Twenty or so years ago I recall a final year student submitting an exceptional essay on ‘Sons and Lovers’ that, in its stylistic felicity and depth of analysis, was on par with a seasoned mid twentieth century academic critic. Parental involvement was the suspicion. Since then I have read many pieces of work produced by students that was either demonstrably plagiarised, or at least raised serious suspicions - and that without the aid of so-called plagiarism checkers. In this time frame the actual quality of the prose produced by cheaters has declined from the stylistic and analytical rigour that one occasionally encountered to the bloodless superficiality of more recent times - the sort of stuff that any teacher or professor can spot from fifty feet, if they know their students and are alert to the formulaic features of writing produced by plagiarism factories and algorithms. But who has the time or the resources? We all do if we make the effort and are prepared to take a stand. Viva voce presentations, class based examinations and hand written - yes, hand written - essays - under supervised conditions suggest themselves. To pretend we can do anything less, or must somehow adapt to using the emerging AI as an educationalist academic here in Australia recently suggested, will make us as culpable as Bradbury’s Chief Beattie in the achievement and maintenance of the ultimate philistinism.
Likewise with examinations. Last year I marked online psychology examinations in Australia. I was alarmed to detect that a cluster of my allocated papers contained word for word responses to two questions that were lifted from a text book. I report this, but was not informed of the ultimate outcome. I suspect - and this is the disturbing part - that no serious penalty ensued because heaven forbid it painted the examination authority in a negative light.
Why can't the exams just be administered like they were in my day (late 90's) - in a proctored auditorium with pen & paper? No phones, laptops (or Apple watches - WTF??) allowed. I mean, with so many administrators, surely someone's around to lend a hand to proctor (and grade).
Is there some criteria for the hierarchy of comments that I should know about? I get lost in threads and forget what we're talking about. I'm old. I don't "get" a lot of what's going on in this world today. I'm gonna do something very out of character here and play devil's advocate. Usually I just jump on the bitch and moan bandwagon. Graduated Cornell in 1986, and I'm just not sure things are so different. The cheating tools and methods may be different because of technology, but so many were there to get the degree, get a good job, make a lot of money and have nice things. Not to learn. I didn't know how to cheat, and I suffered. It seemed that my peers knew how to get the grades and get through it all, and I struggled. I actually studied. It took me twice as long as everyone else to complete assignments, and I was a mediocre student. My friends, it seemed, knew how to be students, work the system and get the grades. If I were in school now, I would be the one NOT using technology to cheat and the result would be no different than it was back then. Mediocre grades, no great job offers after graduation and no wealth. I've argued forever that an Ivy League education isn't a better education, it just sets you up for a more prestigious life IF you know people and know how to manipulate the system. Maybe now, Ivy Leagues will be recognized for what they are. Elitist institutions creating elitist members of society. That hasn't changed.
You are rather unusual. Your eyes are wide open. You know what you see and what it indicates and you're not jaded or highly tooled in the trade-craft of scheming to get over the competition--indeed, you're not particularly inclined to regard your fellow-creatures as "the competition". Somehiow, you got through the winnowing maze with your dignity and your human decency in tact.
In short, the "system"'s intended program essentially "failed" in your case. And, as I see it,
Let's see. Affirmative action means that anyone can get into college, winked-at cheating means anyone can graduate from college with a 4.0 GPA and student loan cancellation means "students" don't have to pay for the experience. What about basic competency? Accountability? We're graduating all these people with shiny new degrees, but can they function in their chosen fields?
Bizarre. Apparently, in five years, a college degree at any level - bachelor's, master's, doctorate - will be virtually worthless as an indicator of ability. Pun intended.
A continuation of what Lukianoff and Haidt talked about in depth about what is happening on college campuses since about 2013. The technology part is just another nail in the coffin of higher education where on most campuses it is not about turning out critical thinkers who can grow and make a difference. Rather it is that the customer is always right and it is sold on the hotel like dorms, first class food and amazing campus amenities. Oh, by the way, we also have classes if you are so inclined. We can only hope that we get growing administration that is strong enough to stand up to this self-destructive behavior and make college and grad school a true learning and growing environment.
All my school and college years 1980-1990 all liberal arts and some STEM exams were oral presentations.
You get into the exam room, you randomly pick a card, turn it over, read the topic, sit down for 15 minutes to get your sh*t together and bam! You present to your professor or to a group of professors a comprehensive answer to a question and then you answer their questions. Very little room for cheating and a well rounded evaluation of your knowledge and understanding of the subject.
Finding all these multiple choices and fill in the blanks exams in the US universities seemed very strange to me after that.
In the current US academic climate I woud just go to this old world format of oral presentations. But it means getting very personable, which is a skill long lost in the US. And it’s harder to do with the STEM, which relies more on written tests.
My daughter is a PhD student in physical chemistry at UC Berkeley. Her qualifying exam to advance into the PhD level was oral, in front of several professors and a white board. So, it is still happening.
The nation’s colleges and universities should have their 501c status revoked because they are political organizations first and as such are not eligible for nonprofit status.
USA has abandon all sense of integrity.
Stay away from such people
The end.9
At my nieces school the students aren’t allowed any electronics when taking exams. At Interlochen she’s only allowed her phone two hours per week. We need to do the same. I’ve noticed this trend in my workplace and have had to have the talk about plagiarism with several young people. Seen whole PowerPoint presentations lifted without attribution. It’s crazy.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN CHEATING* BECOMES THE NORM?
* variant of "lying"
Case in point:
TOPIC KEYS: Covid-19, government scandals, official lying, pandemic,
News report reference:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/project-fear-covid-lockdown-files-matt-hancock-whatsapp/
-------------------------------
TOPICS: Cheating, Lying, Official corruption, U.K. Govt., Covid-19 policy scandals:
Matt Hancock, still (at this writing) a serving and not-yet-sacked minister in the present U.K. government's cabinet, used lies and exaggerations regarding the actual circumstances of Covid-19's threat when, as the then Health Secretary, he was recorded in conversations with colleagues as intent on "scaring the pants off" members of the public in hopes of inducing their acceptance of the government's restrictions on movement and gatherings of groups of people.
Thus, with this fresh revelation, coming three years late--though that doesn't stop the British press from congratulating itself on its professional skills-- shows us that Mr. Hancock had recognised certain of his defenders --that those who'd defended him as being only an incompetent fool rather than a lying incompetent fool -- as being _half_ correct.
---------------------------------------
The trajectory of cheating, in my experience, mirrors the general cultural malaise in which we now find ourselves. Twenty or so years ago I recall a final year student submitting an exceptional essay on ‘Sons and Lovers’ that, in its stylistic felicity and depth of analysis, was on par with a seasoned mid twentieth century academic critic. Parental involvement was the suspicion. Since then I have read many pieces of work produced by students that was either demonstrably plagiarised, or at least raised serious suspicions - and that without the aid of so-called plagiarism checkers. In this time frame the actual quality of the prose produced by cheaters has declined from the stylistic and analytical rigour that one occasionally encountered to the bloodless superficiality of more recent times - the sort of stuff that any teacher or professor can spot from fifty feet, if they know their students and are alert to the formulaic features of writing produced by plagiarism factories and algorithms. But who has the time or the resources? We all do if we make the effort and are prepared to take a stand. Viva voce presentations, class based examinations and hand written - yes, hand written - essays - under supervised conditions suggest themselves. To pretend we can do anything less, or must somehow adapt to using the emerging AI as an educationalist academic here in Australia recently suggested, will make us as culpable as Bradbury’s Chief Beattie in the achievement and maintenance of the ultimate philistinism.
Likewise with examinations. Last year I marked online psychology examinations in Australia. I was alarmed to detect that a cluster of my allocated papers contained word for word responses to two questions that were lifted from a text book. I report this, but was not informed of the ultimate outcome. I suspect - and this is the disturbing part - that no serious penalty ensued because heaven forbid it painted the examination authority in a negative light.
The trajectory of cheating, in my experience, mirrors the general cultural malaise in which we now find ourselves. Twenty or so years ago I recall a final year student submitting an exceptional essay on ‘Sons and Lovers’ that, in its stylistic felicity and depth of analysis, was on par with a seasoned mid twentieth century academic critic. Parental involvement was the suspicion. Since then I have read many pieces of work produced by students that was either demonstrably plagiarised, or at least raised serious suspicions - and that without the aid of so-called plagiarism checkers. In this time frame the actual quality of the prose produced by cheaters has declined from the stylistic and analytical rigour that one occasionally encountered to the bloodless superficiality of more recent times - the sort of stuff that any teacher or professor can spot from fifty feet, if they know their students and are alert to the formulaic features of writing produced by plagiarism factories and algorithms. But who has the time or the resources? We all do if we make the effort and are prepared to take a stand. Viva voce presentations, class based examinations and hand written - yes, hand written - essays - under supervised conditions suggest themselves. To pretend we can do anything less, or must somehow adapt to using the emerging AI as an educationalist academic here in Australia recently suggested, will make us as culpable as Bradbury’s Chief Beattie in the achievement and maintenance of the ultimate philistinism.
Likewise with examinations. Last year I marked online psychology examinations in Australia. I was alarmed to detect that a cluster of my allocated papers contained word for word responses to two questions that were lifted from a text book. I report this, but was not informed of the ultimate outcome. I suspect - and this is the disturbing part - that no serious penalty ensued because heaven forbid it painted the examination authority in a negative light.
The trajectory of cheating, in my experience, mirrors the general cultural malaise in which we now find ourselves. Twenty or so years ago I recall a final year student submitting an exceptional essay on ‘Sons and Lovers’ that, in its stylistic felicity and depth of analysis, was on par with a seasoned mid twentieth century academic critic. Parental involvement was the suspicion. Since then I have read many pieces of work produced by students that was either demonstrably plagiarised, or at least raised serious suspicions - and that without the aid of so-called plagiarism checkers. In this time frame the actual quality of the prose produced by cheaters has declined from the stylistic and analytical rigour that one occasionally encountered to the bloodless superficiality of more recent times - the sort of stuff that any teacher or professor can spot from fifty feet, if they know their students and are alert to the formulaic features of writing produced by plagiarism factories and algorithms. But who has the time or the resources? We all do if we make the effort and are prepared to take a stand. Viva voce presentations, class based examinations and hand written - yes, hand written - essays - under supervised conditions suggest themselves. To pretend we can do anything less, or must somehow adapt to using the emerging AI as an educationalist academic here in Australia recently suggested, will make us as culpable as Bradbury’s Chief Beattie in the achievement and maintenance of the ultimate philistinism.
Likewise with examinations. Last year I marked online psychology examinations in Australia. I was alarmed to detect that a cluster of my allocated papers contained word for word responses to two questions that were lifted from a text book. I report this, but was not informed of the ultimate outcome. I suspect - and this is the disturbing part - that no serious penalty ensued because heaven forbid it painted the examination authority in a negative light.
Just another example of a society in a state of moral decay.
Why can't the exams just be administered like they were in my day (late 90's) - in a proctored auditorium with pen & paper? No phones, laptops (or Apple watches - WTF??) allowed. I mean, with so many administrators, surely someone's around to lend a hand to proctor (and grade).
Is there some criteria for the hierarchy of comments that I should know about? I get lost in threads and forget what we're talking about. I'm old. I don't "get" a lot of what's going on in this world today. I'm gonna do something very out of character here and play devil's advocate. Usually I just jump on the bitch and moan bandwagon. Graduated Cornell in 1986, and I'm just not sure things are so different. The cheating tools and methods may be different because of technology, but so many were there to get the degree, get a good job, make a lot of money and have nice things. Not to learn. I didn't know how to cheat, and I suffered. It seemed that my peers knew how to get the grades and get through it all, and I struggled. I actually studied. It took me twice as long as everyone else to complete assignments, and I was a mediocre student. My friends, it seemed, knew how to be students, work the system and get the grades. If I were in school now, I would be the one NOT using technology to cheat and the result would be no different than it was back then. Mediocre grades, no great job offers after graduation and no wealth. I've argued forever that an Ivy League education isn't a better education, it just sets you up for a more prestigious life IF you know people and know how to manipulate the system. Maybe now, Ivy Leagues will be recognized for what they are. Elitist institutions creating elitist members of society. That hasn't changed.
You are rather unusual. Your eyes are wide open. You know what you see and what it indicates and you're not jaded or highly tooled in the trade-craft of scheming to get over the competition--indeed, you're not particularly inclined to regard your fellow-creatures as "the competition". Somehiow, you got through the winnowing maze with your dignity and your human decency in tact.
In short, the "system"'s intended program essentially "failed" in your case. And, as I see it,
_you_ won.
Yes they can write ok.
Things fall apart
Let's see. Affirmative action means that anyone can get into college, winked-at cheating means anyone can graduate from college with a 4.0 GPA and student loan cancellation means "students" don't have to pay for the experience. What about basic competency? Accountability? We're graduating all these people with shiny new degrees, but can they function in their chosen fields?
Curious what "function" means within the women's studies, gender studies, and black history fields?
Bizarre. Apparently, in five years, a college degree at any level - bachelor's, master's, doctorate - will be virtually worthless as an indicator of ability. Pun intended.
I have no intention of waiting five years to regard these degrees as worthily virtueless in character.
"...Climb o'er the house to unlock the little gate."...
A continuation of what Lukianoff and Haidt talked about in depth about what is happening on college campuses since about 2013. The technology part is just another nail in the coffin of higher education where on most campuses it is not about turning out critical thinkers who can grow and make a difference. Rather it is that the customer is always right and it is sold on the hotel like dorms, first class food and amazing campus amenities. Oh, by the way, we also have classes if you are so inclined. We can only hope that we get growing administration that is strong enough to stand up to this self-destructive behavior and make college and grad school a true learning and growing environment.
All my school and college years 1980-1990 all liberal arts and some STEM exams were oral presentations.
You get into the exam room, you randomly pick a card, turn it over, read the topic, sit down for 15 minutes to get your sh*t together and bam! You present to your professor or to a group of professors a comprehensive answer to a question and then you answer their questions. Very little room for cheating and a well rounded evaluation of your knowledge and understanding of the subject.
Finding all these multiple choices and fill in the blanks exams in the US universities seemed very strange to me after that.
In the current US academic climate I woud just go to this old world format of oral presentations. But it means getting very personable, which is a skill long lost in the US. And it’s harder to do with the STEM, which relies more on written tests.
My daughter is a PhD student in physical chemistry at UC Berkeley. Her qualifying exam to advance into the PhD level was oral, in front of several professors and a white board. So, it is still happening.
Was there any reviewable record of the Q & A kept and available to the student? How was that made and stored?
No, there wasn’t even such a concept back in the day.
The nation’s colleges and universities should have their 501c status revoked because they are political organizations first and as such are not eligible for nonprofit status.
Great add to Vivek's platform!