(358) Nearly 100 US Air Force Academy Cadets Implicated in Academic Integrity Violations
Plus, what is going on at Study.com? Plus, a Yale student cannot sue the school over cheating consequences and remain anonymous.
Issue 358
Subscribe below to join 4,632 (+7) other smart people who get “The Cheat Sheet.” New Issues every Tuesday and Thursday.
The Cheat Sheet is free. Although, patronage through paid subscriptions is what makes this newsletter possible. Individual subscriptions start at $8 a month ($80 annual), and institutional or corporate subscriptions are $250 a year. You can also support The Cheat Sheet by giving through Patreon.
Nearly 100 Air Force Cadets Under Inquiry for Violating Honor Code
According to reporting, nearly 100 cadets at the United States Air Force Academy are under scrutiny for violating the school’s Honor Code regarding academic integrity.
We’ve been here before. In 2022, the Academy sanctioned more than 200 cadets for cheating, expelling nearly two dozen (see Issue 110). In 2021, nearly 250 cadets were sanctioned in a “widespread” cheating incident (see Issue 4). And the Air Force is not nearly alone, as cheating incidents have been reported at West Point (Army) and Annapolis (Navy) academies as well (see Issue 20 or Issue 49). And the Coast Guard Academy too (see Issue 290), for good measure.
All these rigorous, very competitive institutions rely on Honor Codes as the foundation for their integrity policies, rather than strong assessment or supervision regimes. They trust and rely on honor, in other words.
For the most part, these Honor Codes not only prohibit misconduct, they require reporting of misconduct by others. Like the cheating itself, failure to report is a violation. Other non-military schools have similar required reporting policies, and they remain controversial and problematic.
But required reporting aside, it’s clear that Honor Codes alone do not stop cheating.
To this latest incident, the alleged violations include both cheating and not reporting cheating by classmates. From the coverage:
Dozens of cadets "have admitted to either cheating or tolerating cheating" on the test and were punished, a news release from the school said. Those who admitted to the honor code violations "have received punitive sanctions and rehabilitation actions."
It’s described as “widespread cheating.” Again.
Further, a spokesperson:
told Military.com that the knowledge tests are for freshmen and are given online each week to test the cadets on general information about the Air Force.
There are about 1,100 freshmen at the Academy. And, I am sorry Air Force, you simply cannot give an unsupervised online assessment today. I do not care how honorable your students are, how serious you are, how strong your code is. If we needed proof, this is it.
Further:
Air Force Academy officials said they're still investigating whether other cadets cheated or assisted in cheating.
"We will use the information discovered during the investigation to make changes that strengthen enforcement and commitment to the honor code," academy said in the news release.
So, it may be 100, or more.
And I just don’t think you can strengthen enforcement and commitment to the honor code without some kind of oversight and security. As long as the entire thing relies on honor, it’s going to be dishonored. Again, QED. Like, nine times over already.
What is Going on Over at Study.com?
So, I saw this. I have no idea what I will do with it yet.
But, with the recent news about the Air Force Academy and unsupervised, online tests perhaps fresh in your mind, here’s what I have.
Study.com is a credit recovery provider, which means they target adults who have some college credit but no degree, getting them to take generic, boilerplate online courses that can be accepted by hundreds of different colleges and universities, nearly all of which are online schools. Or at least predominately online. The theory is, get adults back in school, on the road to degree completion. Take our courses and transfer them to any of the schools in this big catalogue is the pitch. Here, by the way, are the schools that take Study.com credit.
As a path to degree completion, it’s a laudable goal. As a business, it’s highly profitable. Study.com is a for-profit company and, based on one estimate I saw, has annual revenue of around $500 million.
About two weeks ago, Study.com put out a press release and pitched the media. The headline is:
Study.com Reimagines the College Experience with New Product Enhancements
A few paragraphs down, the release says:
To help reduce the anxiety many learners feel, especially around testing, Study.com has removed proctored exams from its courses, allowing students to take open note and open book tests.
And with that, the credibility of any course credit from Study.com goes to zero.
I am still stunned.
Study.com put out a press release advertising college credit, online, entirely unsupervised because test anxiety is bad.
Since I could not believe what I was reading, I asked to interview someone at Study.com about the decision to stop all test proctoring. In very short order, I got an interview with Dana Bryson, a Senior VP at Study.com. Bryson confirmed that Study.com had “eliminated proctored exams on all college courses.”
She went on to say that based on their own user research and feedback, test anxiety was one of the reasons adults were hesitant about returning to the college track. And that, by proctoring their exams, they concluded:
that we were creating an extra hurdle [to enrollment]
In other words, their customers said they wanted things to be easier. So, they made them easier.
Bryson also pointed out that “we don’t confer degrees,” by which I assumed she meant to imply that the responsibility for degree quality was not on them, but on the schools that accept their credit. I guess that’s fair. Sucker beware, and all that. In scanning the schools in the Study.com portfolio linked above, I don’t think I’m going too far as to also assume that most of those schools don’t care about rigor anyway. I know some of them don’t. But that’s a separate issue about predatory, subprime schools.
Bryson also said:
In talking to our 1,500 university partners, they say you don’t need a final exam that’s proctored for course credit.
Interesting.
As it happens, I know a few people at a few of these schools. I asked. So far, none of them have said this. At least not to me, not on the record. One even told me that they’re going to review their relationship with Study.com. I sure hope so.
When I asked whether Bryson was concerned that cheating would spike in online, unsecured exams, Bryson said they’d taken steps to address that — namely reducing the relative value of the exams and increasing the value of course-long assignments. This, of course, does absolutely nothing to stop cheating, which I pointed out. The non-exam assignments are, I confirmed, also unsupervised.
Bryson also said that, to deter cheating, at Study.com:
We use a third party – some kind of typing DNA – to say is this the same person who started is the same person still on it. And systems to check if you haven’t done well, now you’re doing well on everything. But – no, we looked at – folks can just take it and there is not a proctor around it.
I was able to confirm that the typing DNA thing is a company called TypingDNA, and I guess that’s something. But, of course, this is also silly. If an imposter is taking the whole course for a student, this will only confirm that the same cheater took all the tests. And it won’t stop anyone from taking an online test with ChatGPT, or with Course Hero open, or on a group chat with 10 other students.
I forgot to ask about the other thing. But whatever that is, if you’re cheating the whole time, it’s useless.
Bryson also tried to deflect this decision further by saying that removing test proctoring in online exams was some kind of national trend:
We’re seeing that a lot in other in other community colleges – exams are more open book and open note – where we’re trying to help, focused on the 40 million with some college credit and no degree
I have no doubt that this company knows who their customers are and what they want, which is stress-free college credit. May as well just print the course credit on the credit card receipt, in my opinion. But again, I drift.
At the end of our conversation, I asked Bryson about an analogy I’ve used before — that proctoring exams is like having security cameras in banks. Cameras raise risk and are a deterrent. Here, Study.com not only unplugged their security cameras, they told the world they turned their cameras off. Bryson said:
I need to think about that analogy – I don’t see the direct comparison – the economy is not in great shape [here, I stopped typing, something about jobs]
I don’t know what to add. That line about how you can’t make people see something when their job depends on not seeing it, comes to mind.
And I guess I’ll just point out that I’m sure the profit margins at Study.com look a little better when you don’t have to pay for the darn test security. And when you can tell customers not to worry about the tests because no one cares, no one is watching anyway.
More to come on this, I imagine.
Judge Says a Yale Student Accused of Using AI to Cheat Cannot Sue the School Anonymously
This story is from Law.com. I am sure I used to have a subscription. But it’s expired or my trial ended, or I used the wrong password, or something. And I don’t have the patience to re-verify my credentials, create a new password, maybe pay again. So, I cannot see the whole article.
I think the headline is the meat anyway, which is nice:
Yale Student Accused Of AI Cheating Can't Sue Anonymously
Here’s what I can see of the story:
A Yale University student who was suspended for allegedly using artificial intelligence to cheat on a final exam can no longer shield his identity while he sues the school and officials for damages and a reversal of his discipline, a Connecticut federal judge has ruled.
I kind of see both sides of that. In some cases, the accusation of cheating carries the sting of penalty. If you did not cheat, I can see the value in being anonymous. At the same time, if you’re sure you’re right, you may want your name cleared.
But my big takeaway is — dude, if Yale had enough evidence to suspend you, you may want to reconsider your legal strategy. Also, good for Yale. Standing behind what you say, especially when it’s costly, is integrity.