3 ms·

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

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.

ColinWright 6y ago
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.
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  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.
  - ColinWright 6y ago
    > 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.

ColinWright 6y ago

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.

matheusmoreira 6y ago
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.
- ColinWright 6y ago
  > 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.