> 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 yo

> 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.