4 ms·

The root problem is that a lot of higher education is nurturing a culture of cheaters right now. Your future doctors, scientists, government officials, etc...

by neilv 11mo ago

The root problem is that a lot of higher education is nurturing a culture of cheaters right now. Your future doctors, scientists, government officials, etc... will have had to compete and gain coveted academic and career opportunities, in an environment that both has been heavily gamified, and is being overrun by cheaters. Insulting measures like this TopHat practically endorses the culture of cheating, by telling students that they can't be trusted, and turning into yet another cheating challenge/task. Schools with any integrity should be bending over backwards to find, nurture, and support students of integrity. And to save those who only got admitted by being sketchy, but first semester is a chance to unlearn the bad lessons from before. Not by treating them as criminals to be monitored, but by treating them like the respectable people they should aspire to be, and which the school expects and requires that they be. And, for any hopelessly shitty students, who fail to honor this first semester extension of trust, the school should smack them to the curb. Lost tuition income, lost named buildings/chairs, and expensive lawsuits from helicopter parents, be damned.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
munchler 11mo ago
In this moral framework, would it be acceptable for the lecturer to take attendance orally, or is that also insulting?
- neilv 11mo ago
  The instructor clearly sets their expectations for attendance (whether it's mandatory, or otherwise), and then just expects everyone to follow that.
  - nlawalker 11mo ago
    It is verification of attendance, specifically, that "endorses the culture of cheating... telling students they can't be trusted, and turning into yet another cheating challenge/task"? If not, what is fair game for verification, in the pursuit of finding students of integrity?
    - neilv 11mo ago
      Finding students with integrity is hard now, because the culture is already full of poo. But one starting point is to communicate that you expect and require integrity, explain what that means, and then expect it. Trying to make metrics or tests or whatever to detect, rate, rank, etc. it just turns it into a game, like the same load of poo. Though here is one thing you can do. Explain that you expect integrity, and then watch the students raise their hands and ask how they will be tested on this. You say it's expected. Back and forth a few times, until eventually some of them start crying, and then their heads explode, because they can't figure out how to game that. Those students sadly were too far gone. Then, after that first semester of integrity culture, some of the students who didn't explode will cheat, and they will be expelled with the fury of an angry god, and everyone on campus will know why. News stories will be written, word will spread, college guides will be updated. The next batch of applicants after that will have fewer cheaters than before, and will have disproportionately attracted students who aspire to integrity and who wouldn't have known to apply to this school before the news. A school with an honor code that students and faculty take seriously wasn't that newsworthy decades ago, but it's news now.
      - JoshTriplett 11mo ago
        > Explain that you expect integrity, and then watch the students raise their hands and ask how they will be tested on this. You say it's expected. Back and forth a few times, until eventually some of them start crying, and then their heads explode, because they can't figure out how to game that. This assumes that the students are untrustworthy and the faculty/institution are ultimately trusted. In a world in which that is not true (such as the world that produces the article we're commenting on), and students sometimes encounter problems due to unclear expectations or vague criteria that are not the student's fault, it is not unreasonable for people to ask questions whose goal is to find out the actual non-vague criteria to avoid unpleasant surprises. By way of one of many examples: many excellent classes encourage students to talk about assignments with each other, as long as the work they turn in is their own. Now consider what happens if a student accustomed to such a policy encounters a class taught with a different policy, where that policy has not been made clear in advance. Honor codes and integrity are excellent things to enforce. Transparency and crystal-clear criteria are also excellent things to enforce. Not to allow gaming the system, but to ensure the system doesn't game anyone.
Centigonal 11mo ago
It also doesn't help that our outrage-driven media overwhelmingly exposes us to cheaters. Everyone's heard of Theranos, Enron, Martin Shkreli, and Bernie Madoff. This week, my 70+ year old aunt asked me about Charlie Javice and Frank. Yet, there are thousands of very successful people quietly building their castles who live and die in relative obscurity because their stories just aren't that thrilling. If you spend a lot of time interacting with people in the latter category, or if you have them as your mentors, then you will be exposed to a model of what success through hard work and integrity looks like. If you don't, then it's very easy to think everyone successful is a cheater, and that cheating is the only way to break the ceiling into success.
torben-friis 11mo ago
It’s not about individual people - it’s just scale, paired with Goodhart's law. No number in a spreadsheet will tell you who’s the genuine student. The moment you’re ranking like that you lost. Long term human interaction in reduced groups is far better at creating genuine environments. But of course, that system doesn’t scale, and it’s a breeding ground for nepotism.
FloorEgg 11mo ago
I have an inside perspective on this via an academic integrity company. A couple weeks ago there was an exam in an R1 institution that double booked the facility so one section did the exam in person on campus and the other did it "from home". The score distribution of the in person exam was a typical bell curve, and the distribution of the online exam looking like a power-law curve with over half the students scoring 100%. Thankfully this outraged the professor, and through a variety of means (which I will not disclose publicly) over 25% of the students were caught red handed. Actions are being taken against them, though I'm not sure how far they will go. The evidence against them is overwhelmingly conclusive. In some cases the evidence led to more evidence of cheating in other courses. It seems clear that more that 25% cheated, but I guess catching some is better than none. As someone who is keenly aware of this crisis, I feel tiny bursts of relief when I see these small wins, though it does feel a bit like bailing an ocean with a teacup.
- sneak 11mo ago
  Catching cheaters is easy. The problem is that incentives are not aligned. Students are also customers, and you can’t simply fire a quarter of your customers and stay in business.
  - FloorEgg 11mo ago
    I agree with the latter 100% (the biggest problem is incentives), however I don't agree catching cheaters is easy. It's an arms race, and reminds me of catching cheaters in video games. Using every means available (multiple technologies and in-person proctored exams) cuts down cheating to probably ~2%... But online programs have serious integrity challenges.

by neilv 11mo ago

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

munchler 11mo ago

In this moral framework, would it be acceptable for the lecturer to take attendance orally, or is that also insulting?

neilv 11mo ago
The instructor clearly sets their expectations for attendance (whether it's mandatory, or otherwise), and then just expects everyone to follow that.
- nlawalker 11mo ago
  It is verification of attendance, specifically, that "endorses the culture of cheating... telling students they can't be trusted, and turning into yet another cheating challenge/task"? If not, what is fair game for verification, in the pursuit of finding students of integrity?
  - neilv 11mo ago
    Finding students with integrity is hard now, because the culture is already full of poo. But one starting point is to communicate that you expect and require integrity, explain what that means, and then expect it. Trying to make metrics or tests or whatever to detect, rate, rank, etc. it just turns it into a game, like the same load of poo. Though here is one thing you can do. Explain that you expect integrity, and then watch the students raise their hands and ask how they will be tested on this. You say it's expected. Back and forth a few times, until eventually some of them start crying, and then their heads explode, because they can't figure out how to game that. Those students sadly were too far gone. Then, after that first semester of integrity culture, some of the students who didn't explode will cheat, and they will be expelled with the fury of an angry god, and everyone on campus will know why. News stories will be written, word will spread, college guides will be updated. The next batch of applicants after that will have fewer cheaters than before, and will have disproportionately attracted students who aspire to integrity and who wouldn't have known to apply to this school before the news. A school with an honor code that students and faculty take seriously wasn't that newsworthy decades ago, but it's news now.
    - JoshTriplett 11mo ago
      > Explain that you expect integrity, and then watch the students raise their hands and ask how they will be tested on this. You say it's expected. Back and forth a few times, until eventually some of them start crying, and then their heads explode, because they can't figure out how to game that. This assumes that the students are untrustworthy and the faculty/institution are ultimately trusted. In a world in which that is not true (such as the world that produces the article we're commenting on), and students sometimes encounter problems due to unclear expectations or vague criteria that are not the student's fault, it is not unreasonable for people to ask questions whose goal is to find out the actual non-vague criteria to avoid unpleasant surprises. By way of one of many examples: many excellent classes encourage students to talk about assignments with each other, as long as the work they turn in is their own. Now consider what happens if a student accustomed to such a policy encounters a class taught with a different policy, where that policy has not been made clear in advance. Honor codes and integrity are excellent things to enforce. Transparency and crystal-clear criteria are also excellent things to enforce. Not to allow gaming the system, but to ensure the system doesn't game anyone.

Centigonal 11mo ago

It also doesn't help that our outrage-driven media overwhelmingly exposes us to cheaters. Everyone's heard of Theranos, Enron, Martin Shkreli, and Bernie Madoff. This week, my 70+ year old aunt asked me about Charlie Javice and Frank. Yet, there are thousands of very successful people quietly building their castles who live and die in relative obscurity because their stories just aren't that thrilling. If you spend a lot of time interacting with people in the latter category, or if you have them as your mentors, then you will be exposed to a model of what success through hard work and integrity looks like. If you don't, then it's very easy to think everyone successful is a cheater, and that cheating is the only way to break the ceiling into success.

torben-friis 11mo ago

It’s not about individual people - it’s just scale, paired with Goodhart's law. No number in a spreadsheet will tell you who’s the genuine student. The moment you’re ranking like that you lost. Long term human interaction in reduced groups is far better at creating genuine environments. But of course, that system doesn’t scale, and it’s a breeding ground for nepotism.

FloorEgg 11mo ago

I have an inside perspective on this via an academic integrity company. A couple weeks ago there was an exam in an R1 institution that double booked the facility so one section did the exam in person on campus and the other did it "from home". The score distribution of the in person exam was a typical bell curve, and the distribution of the online exam looking like a power-law curve with over half the students scoring 100%. Thankfully this outraged the professor, and through a variety of means (which I will not disclose publicly) over 25% of the students were caught red handed. Actions are being taken against them, though I'm not sure how far they will go. The evidence against them is overwhelmingly conclusive. In some cases the evidence led to more evidence of cheating in other courses. It seems clear that more that 25% cheated, but I guess catching some is better than none. As someone who is keenly aware of this crisis, I feel tiny bursts of relief when I see these small wins, though it does feel a bit like bailing an ocean with a teacup.

sneak 11mo ago
Catching cheaters is easy. The problem is that incentives are not aligned. Students are also customers, and you can’t simply fire a quarter of your customers and stay in business.
- FloorEgg 11mo ago
  I agree with the latter 100% (the biggest problem is incentives), however I don't agree catching cheaters is easy. It's an arms race, and reminds me of catching cheaters in video games. Using every means available (multiple technologies and in-person proctored exams) cuts down cheating to probably ~2%... But online programs have serious integrity challenges.