7 ms·

If you look at it another way, it's not so bizarre. The person is retrieving their information from another's head. They're using a social storage mechanism. Th

If you look at it another way, it's not so bizarre. The person is retrieving their information from another's head. They're using a social storage mechanism. This works fine in the classroom, it works OK in the workplace. It works well in most situations. The only place it breaks down is during testing. Because standard testing is only supposed to verify that you're storing the data locally. Standard testing is designed in a way that only helps "local storage" people, and alienates these users who get their information from their environment. Open-book, open-note, and open-internet testing removes this barrier and levels the playing field for these "network storage" learners. Or am I completely out of touch?

coliveira 11y ago
That would be OK if the rules were the same for all teams. In any situation, classroom or not, if you're breaking the rules you are cheating. This doesn't mean that "network learning" is wrong, just that doing this without common approval of all participants is not socially acceptable.
- stephengillie 11y ago
  Proctors rarely get a common agreement. They make the rules, then you're forced to either accept them or completely forego the examination - the equivalent of failure, it negates the time you've spent training. To me, it's a form of duress.
kenbellows 11y ago
You may be right, but huge problems arise with the open-everything-testing solution with regards to access to resources, especially with standardized testing. SATs (and standardized tests in general) are meant to be a blind test that objectively evaluates the abilities of any individual student anywhere the same way; if we allow external resources, this will undoubtedly be a huge disadvantage for students in lower income areas who don't have easy access to the Internet or a sufficient number of reference books and materials for all the students. Providing internet access at testing sites would help somewhat, but if you have grown up in an environment where the internet was not as ubiquitous as some of us are used to, you may not have the Google-fu or knowledge of Internet research methodology necessary to compete with those in wealthier areas. This is an issue that will hopefully be diminished over time, especially in developed nations, but it will be a very long time before Internet access is sufficiently widespread in what are now developing nations to prevent a huge barrier to entry for students in these places.
- visarga 11y ago
  Maybe students who are disadvantaged on their internet access could test on other subjects, such as math or physics. It seems unfair to penalize the other people who have access to information and can use it. As a child I was not allowed to use calculators in math - for the reason that "what if your computer breaks?" - well, it never broke. It was a stupid rule, especially after 4th grade. Computer access will always be available, so why ban it during testing?
  - morcheeba 11y ago
    "what if your computer breaks?" is a poor reason. The real reason is to get an estimate of results in your head so you can cross-check the computer for mistakes. How much ice cream to feed my city of 30,000? If the computer says 7.336E9 kg, that's a problem.
crimsonalucard 11y ago
Why is it even bizarre? Chinese people cheat for the same reasons anyone would cheat. Being chinese and born in America, I actually found it really surprising the first time I met software engineers who refuse to download even one copy of pirated software. Culturally we just feel significantly less guilty about it. Doesn't mean we aren't aware that it's wrong. Chinese people are fully aware of what's right and wrong and we choose to deliberately cheat. Whether that's a cultural tendency or genetic one is another story.
- dimino 11y ago
  > Chinese people are fully aware of what's right and wrong and we choose to deliberately cheat. Whether that's cultural tendency or genetic one is another story. What?! Genetic?! There is very little, if any evidence to support the idea that genetics has anything to do with the Chinese propensity to cheat...
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    There's no evidence at all. Even when attempting to do research on this, the political backlash could destroy any scientist's career. No official evidence will ever be collected because of this. I only speak from personal experience. I know many chinese people both born here and born abroad. I am also chinese and born in the united states. I am telling you, honestly, from a purely anecdotal standpoint: I think there's a chance it's genetic. Edit: Just to keep things from getting out of hand, and more balanced I want to state this fact: Statistically, it is far more likely for a serial killer to be a white caucasian male then it is for a serial killer to be of any other race. Do I think this is a cultural thing? No. I'm leaning towards genetics. But that's a purely anecdotal opinion as there's no evidence pointing in either direction.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - kmicklas 11y ago
      Why would those things be genetic? If there were a "serial killer gene" or a "cheater gene", those traits should manifest themselves in all kinds of obvious differences in behavior - which we do not see. It's hard to imagine a protein causing such complex differences in behavior while affecting nothing else.
coryrc 11y ago
Yes, the point of testing is to know whether the person being tested actually knows anything. Your example is of someone who does not.
- stephengillie 11y ago
  No - what's happening here is we're disagreeing on the meaning of the verb "to know".
avz 11y ago
> The person is retrieving their information from another's head. They're using a social storage mechanism. This works fine in the classroom, it works OK in the workplace. It works well in most situations. The only place it breaks down is during testing. Many tests verify a skill rather than knowledge. If you're cheating then you're masking your lack of skill by using another person's skill as a crutch. If you're later given the relevant qualifications and end up in a situation where other people expect to be able to rely on you having the said skill then you're likely to fail these people. Bad. In today's world, remembering specific pieces of information locally is less of a concern, I agree, but for basics it still applies: you may be able to learn it from colleagues or internet when you need it, but there is still a limit on your "input bandwidth".
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
buyx 11y ago
I was once in an exam hall and middle-aged female primary school teachers were in the next row writing a trivial (non-degree) exam on primary school mathematics education or something [^]. They were brazenly passing notes to each other even though the exam was open-book. Cheaters gonna cheat. [^] With teachers like that, it isn't surprising that South Africa is so poorly ranked at maths.
itgoon 11y ago
Testing allows people to have an objective means of determining others' worth as external storage in specific situations.

coliveira 11y ago

That would be OK if the rules were the same for all teams. In any situation, classroom or not, if you're breaking the rules you are cheating. This doesn't mean that "network learning" is wrong, just that doing this without common approval of all participants is not socially acceptable.

stephengillie 11y ago
Proctors rarely get a common agreement. They make the rules, then you're forced to either accept them or completely forego the examination - the equivalent of failure, it negates the time you've spent training. To me, it's a form of duress.

kenbellows 11y ago

You may be right, but huge problems arise with the open-everything-testing solution with regards to access to resources, especially with standardized testing. SATs (and standardized tests in general) are meant to be a blind test that objectively evaluates the abilities of any individual student anywhere the same way; if we allow external resources, this will undoubtedly be a huge disadvantage for students in lower income areas who don't have easy access to the Internet or a sufficient number of reference books and materials for all the students. Providing internet access at testing sites would help somewhat, but if you have grown up in an environment where the internet was not as ubiquitous as some of us are used to, you may not have the Google-fu or knowledge of Internet research methodology necessary to compete with those in wealthier areas. This is an issue that will hopefully be diminished over time, especially in developed nations, but it will be a very long time before Internet access is sufficiently widespread in what are now developing nations to prevent a huge barrier to entry for students in these places.

visarga 11y ago
Maybe students who are disadvantaged on their internet access could test on other subjects, such as math or physics. It seems unfair to penalize the other people who have access to information and can use it. As a child I was not allowed to use calculators in math - for the reason that "what if your computer breaks?" - well, it never broke. It was a stupid rule, especially after 4th grade. Computer access will always be available, so why ban it during testing?
- morcheeba 11y ago
  "what if your computer breaks?" is a poor reason. The real reason is to get an estimate of results in your head so you can cross-check the computer for mistakes. How much ice cream to feed my city of 30,000? If the computer says 7.336E9 kg, that's a problem.

crimsonalucard 11y ago

Why is it even bizarre? Chinese people cheat for the same reasons anyone would cheat. Being chinese and born in America, I actually found it really surprising the first time I met software engineers who refuse to download even one copy of pirated software. Culturally we just feel significantly less guilty about it. Doesn't mean we aren't aware that it's wrong. Chinese people are fully aware of what's right and wrong and we choose to deliberately cheat. Whether that's a cultural tendency or genetic one is another story.

dimino 11y ago
> Chinese people are fully aware of what's right and wrong and we choose to deliberately cheat. Whether that's cultural tendency or genetic one is another story. What?! Genetic?! There is very little, if any evidence to support the idea that genetics has anything to do with the Chinese propensity to cheat...
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  There's no evidence at all. Even when attempting to do research on this, the political backlash could destroy any scientist's career. No official evidence will ever be collected because of this. I only speak from personal experience. I know many chinese people both born here and born abroad. I am also chinese and born in the united states. I am telling you, honestly, from a purely anecdotal standpoint: I think there's a chance it's genetic. Edit: Just to keep things from getting out of hand, and more balanced I want to state this fact: Statistically, it is far more likely for a serial killer to be a white caucasian male then it is for a serial killer to be of any other race. Do I think this is a cultural thing? No. I'm leaning towards genetics. But that's a purely anecdotal opinion as there's no evidence pointing in either direction.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - kmicklas 11y ago
    Why would those things be genetic? If there were a "serial killer gene" or a "cheater gene", those traits should manifest themselves in all kinds of obvious differences in behavior - which we do not see. It's hard to imagine a protein causing such complex differences in behavior while affecting nothing else.

coryrc 11y ago

Yes, the point of testing is to know whether the person being tested actually knows anything. Your example is of someone who does not.

stephengillie 11y ago
No - what's happening here is we're disagreeing on the meaning of the verb "to know".

avz 11y ago

> The person is retrieving their information from another's head. They're using a social storage mechanism. This works fine in the classroom, it works OK in the workplace. It works well in most situations. The only place it breaks down is during testing. Many tests verify a skill rather than knowledge. If you're cheating then you're masking your lack of skill by using another person's skill as a crutch. If you're later given the relevant qualifications and end up in a situation where other people expect to be able to rely on you having the said skill then you're likely to fail these people. Bad. In today's world, remembering specific pieces of information locally is less of a concern, I agree, but for basics it still applies: you may be able to learn it from colleagues or internet when you need it, but there is still a limit on your "input bandwidth".

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

buyx 11y ago

I was once in an exam hall and middle-aged female primary school teachers were in the next row writing a trivial (non-degree) exam on primary school mathematics education or something [^]. They were brazenly passing notes to each other even though the exam was open-book. Cheaters gonna cheat. [^] With teachers like that, it isn't surprising that South Africa is so poorly ranked at maths.

itgoon 11y ago

Testing allows people to have an objective means of determining others' worth as external storage in specific situations.