333: Burglars Say They Skip Houses With Door Locks, Alarms, Security Cameras
Plus, Chegg rebrands, launches TV ads. Plus, court in South Korea upholds criminal sentences for test cheating.
Issue 333
Subscribe below to join 4,272 other smart people who get “The Cheat Sheet.” New Issues every Tuesday and Thursday.
If you enjoy “The Cheat Sheet,” please consider joining the 16 amazing people who are chipping in a few bucks via Patreon. Or joining the 45 (+1) outstanding citizens who are now paid subscribers. Paid subscriptions start at $8 a month or $80 a year, and corporate or institutional subscriptions are $240 for a year. Thank you!
Criminals Say They Don’t Steal from Houses With Locked Doors and Security Cameras
So, fine. I love this story.
It was sent in by a friend of The Cheat Sheet who pointed out how I make the analogy that we should still lock our doors even though door locks are pretty easy to defeat. It’s an analogy I use when someone says AI detection software does not work because it’s possible to bypass or trick.
It’s always been an absurd argument.
This story is even more telling. Here is the headline:
Security cameras and alarms effective at deterring burglars, say burglars
I mean — yeah. If you make it known that you’re actually protecting something, those who want to steal it will think twice. If you make it known that the possibility of being caught is more than zero, doubt happens.
From the story:
If you’ve ever wondered whether security cameras and alarms are effective at deterring burglars, the answer is yes – and that comes from a very reliable source: burglars.
KGW-TV asked 86 inmates convicted of burglary what would make them more likely to rob a home, and which things would deter them …
Lock your doors and windows
Imagine that.
The story continues:
Asked if they would be less likely to break into a home with visible security cameras, most burglars surveyed said yes. However, if you’re relying on a smart doorbell camera, you might want to add signage which warns that cameras are fitted, as not all criminals will recognize these.
Audible alarms are also effective, with felons saying that they would leave the property immediately when an alarm sounds.
Yet, in education, people actually say out loud that they do not want to lock doors or activate alarms because neither one will stop a highly motivated thief. They also say they are worried that, should someone innocently try to open the door to your home and find it locked, or set off an alarm, that they’d be accused of being a burglar.
So, they unlock the doors and turn the alarms off.
Some education leaders go even further than leaving their doors open and unplugging the cameras. They tell people about it. Like putting a sign in your yard that says, “no locks, no alarms.”
Smart.
And yet burglars say that locking the doors and having alarms will deter theft. Imagine that.
It’s not as if this has no relationship to academic integrity. Issue 108 showed that professors cut down on cheating when they said they had ways of detecting it, even though they did not. From that research:
when a warning of surveillance was issued beginning with Exam 5, we found that the prevalence of cheating declined dramatically. If cheating were responsible for the elevated test performance seen in Exams 1 to 4, then the cessation of cheating should coincide with a decline in test performance. Indeed, we did find that average test scores declined along with the prevalence of cheating.
It’s not the only example in education where raising the deterrent reduces the misconduct. There a plenty of examples in which students say that not protecting an assessment encourages or sanctions cheating. One example of this research (see Issue 64) says directly:
unless cheating is being prevented and discussed, the institution is essentially tacitly encouraging it.
Exactly. Like a burglar saying, “Dude, if you don’t lock your doors, you’re begging me to steal from you.”
For the life of me, I don’t understand why this is complicated. If you care whether someone may steal from you, lock it up. Don’t make it easy. Don’t turn off the alarms. Only in academia — where people are supposed to be the smart ones — is this even a conversation.
Chegg Makes New Ad Push, Unveils New Mascot
AdWeek is not a usual source for The Cheat Sheet. But it has the story of cheating (shrinking) giant Chegg and their efforts to “rebound” with a new ad campaign and mascot.
You can see the company’s new TV ad, “Get a Grip,” in the story, as well as Ace, the company’s orange octopus mascot. From the coverage:
With “Get a Grip” and Ace, Chegg seeks to build an emotional connection with students and potential subscribers, said chief marketing officer Deena Bahri
Uh huh.
Bahri goes on to tell AdWeek:
“Students are feeling alone, overwhelmed, and unprepared for the job of being a college student”
That’s really good messaging for a company that sells answers to tests and other academic work. So much so that nearly every cheating company uses some form of it — college is hard, you’re overwhelmed, not your fault, just get the answers.
There is also this:
“We are focused on helping students succeed on their learning journeys–not just getting them a quick answer but rather helping them to truly master the material,” said Bahri.
Not — just — getting them a quick answer. That’s not all Chegg does.
If you’re not on to the game, if you were to ask Chegg a question, you’d get the answer. You’d also be able to get information about how or why that is the answer. But you can ignore that part. I’m sure most do. In other words, you can use Chegg to master material — but you don’t have to. They don’t care. Chegg is paid either way.
Whatever. My takeaway is that despite losing hundreds of millions of dollars and firing hundreds of its employees, Chegg has money for ads and fuzzy mascots. Cool.
South Korea Court Upholds Suspended Prison Terms for Test Cheats
An appeals court in South Korea has upheld a suspended prison term of one year for high school students who received answers to test questions in advance.
According to the news coverage, the students received the answers from their teacher father, who also received a prison sentence.
In the United States we anguish over whether we should even look for misconduct. In much of the rest of the world, cheating is actually a crime — one that occasionally ends in consequences.