A Bizarre and Brilliant Book Excerpt
Plus, rumors of Chegg acquisition and why I'm not buying them. Plus, China can now revoke degrees for cheating.
Issue 293
Subscribe below to join 3,857 other smart people who get “The Cheat Sheet.” New Issues every Tuesday and Thursday.
If you enjoy “The Cheat Sheet,” please consider joining the 18 amazing people who are chipping in a few bucks via Patreon. Or joining the 38 outstanding citizens who are now paid subscribers. Paid subscriptions start at $8 a month. Thank you!
Book Excerpt from Times Higher Ed — Brilliant, but Bizarre
Times Higher Ed (THE), which has been a leader in covering academic integrity, continued this trend by publishing an excerpt from a new book on teaching with AI. The portion shared by THE is on cheating.
I have not read the book, though it seems I will have to. THE says the published portion was:
Extracted from Teaching with AI: A Practical Guide to a New Era of Human Learning by José Antonio Bowen and C. Edward Watson.
I left the link in, should you want to check it out.
In the published selection, what Bowen and Watson write is good — the rare piece of material that is, in my view, both accurate and in context. More on this in a bit; there is a reason I feel that way.
But to start, straight from the world of the absolutely bizarre, the THE excerpt carries the headline:
Is it time to turn off Turnitin?
It’s bizarre because absolutely nothing in the published material says, implies, or makes the case that Turnitin should be turned off. It never even poses that question. Read it yourself. The headline has as much to do with what the information below it as Germany has to do with sea urchins. My guess is that someone at THE slapped the headline on there without reading the excerption. If that’s correct, it’s embarrassing and telling.
When Times Higher Ed, which has been outstanding in coverage of academic integrity, acquired Inside Higher Ed, which has been awful in that regard, I’d hoped that the influence would run in that direction — from THE to IHE. This headline makes me worry it’s the other way around.
Nonetheless, if you can get past the headline — and you should — there’s plenty to like about what the authors actually wrote.
I think there’s plenty to like about what they wrote because I feel like I wrote it. Not word for word — I am not accusing anyone of plagiarism. I mean that nearly every point the authors make in the published section of their book was reported in The Cheat Sheet. As such, I’m flattered and highly supportive of their efforts to raise some actual awareness on key issues, based in reality.
The excerpt begins strongly:
There has always been cheating. Faculty have often not wanted to know about it. Few of us want to focus on policing
True.
The first paragraph continues
Most college students have long admitted to cheating in some form, and the top reason for cheating is “there was an opportunity to do so”.
The link goes to research we covered in Issue 230, highlighting the leading role of opportunity.
In Issue 240, I shared that academic integrity citations at the University of Pennsylvania had gone up seven-fold. Bowen and Watson begin their second paragraph with:
The University of Pennsylvania’s annual disciplinary report found a seven-fold (!) increase in cases of “unfair advantage over fellow students”, which included “using ChatGPT or Chegg”.
They link to the same article(s) I did. They continue by citing cheating provider Quizlet — which I did not do and no one ever should. But they then also note that Grammarly is in the generative AI cheating business now, as I’ve pointed out several times, included linking to Grammarly’s TV ads, which I did in Issue 279.
We’re only two paragraphs in. But go ahead and nod if you see this pattern.
In the third paragraph, they mention and link to a study we covered in Issue 260. Overall, I’d say about 80% of the references, citations, or links in their work were shared here, including a few things that I’d wager were not published much of anywhere else.
And I am fine with that. Sharing this stuff is why I write “The Cheat Sheet.” Although, since it appears that most of what was in this section of their book could have been gleaned from reading a few recent Issues of this newsletter, it would have been nice to get some credit for doing so much research legwork. Maybe that’s in the book, as this is only an excerpt.
Moving on.
Rather than keep hammering that nail, I want to share a few other points from Bowen and Watson with which I strongly agree.
In covering AI detectors, they write that much of the subject is “hard to untangle,” and that:
Detectors vary considerably in their accuracy and rate of false positives. One study looked at 14 different detectors and found that five of the 14 were only 50 per cent accurate or worse, but four of them (CheckforAI, Winston AI, GPT-2 Output and Turnitin) missed only one of the 18 AI-written samples. Detectors are not all equal, but the best are better than faculty at identifying AI writing.
Yes, we covered this study, and underscored these findings, in Issue 250. But I’d rather highlight the truth of these findings — that good AI detectors work. And they work well. Big Kudos to Bowen and Watson for saying so.
And if I had a yellow highlighter and was willing to subject you to 96-point font, I’d use both on this:
If you or your institution still want to proceed with AI detection tools, remember that they do not accuse students – faculty do. Detectors only provide a probability score. Faculty will need training and everyone will need to consider what to do with the results.
Preach.
I feel as though I’ve written that like a hundred times. It’s great to see someone else saying it for a change.
The book’s authors continue by highlighting some low-effort integrity interventions that have shown promising results. Which, again, I am glad are getting more visibility. You can read more about those in Issue 216.
Watson and Bowen also get credit — at least based on this small section of their book — for not falling for the garbage research on academic integrity or generative AI. There’s a ton. And I’ve done some work to try to discredit those. So, it’s a joy to see them omitted from new work.
Anyway, I’ll order the book and let you know if there’s more to share.
Rumor Mill: Byju Eyeing Acquisition of Chegg
India-based education company Byju, once the darling of the entire planet with a valuation in excess of $22 billion, is rumored to be kicking the tires on acquiring American cheating platform Chegg.
I don’t buy it.
I could be wrong, of course. What do I know?
But, for one, Byju is deeply struggling, despite having thrown some epic money around to buy American education companies. This was from CNBC in February:
Byju’s, once India’s most valuable startup, has seen a sharp reversal in its fortunes after a series of setbacks, including alleged accounting irregularities and purported mismanagement.
Valued at $22 billion in 2022, the Indian edtech startup’s valuation has since plummeted 95% after investors cut their stakes in multiple rounds. It was most recently slashed to $1 billion, after BlackRock downsized its holdings in Byju’s last month
This outlet reported just yesterday that Byju was able to make April payroll as if it was news. That’s not good. The point is, Byju’s future is anything but stable. And amid reports of investors cutting their stakes, I’m not sure where Byju would get the cash to make an offer on a second-hand Honda, let alone on Chegg.
Although, I do see why Byju would be desperate for a lifeline with cash, customers, and a potentially viable business model, all of which Chegg has, despite losing money with no end in sight.
At the same time, with Byju losing 95% of its value, Chegg is a good match. It too has lost 95% of its value in less than two years (see Issue 291). Each may be so eager for any appearance of vitality that any deal at all is appealing. Like two drunk strangers alone in a bar at last call, too broken go home as they are, needy enough to muster optimism for the decisions they’re about to make — this deal may happen for lack of better options.
Nonetheless, something about this Byju/Chegg rumor also feels off because the news has only been reported in India, in an article that does not mention Byju’s obvious troubles. That’s odd.
Moreover, Chegg is a public company with shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange and held by well-known institutional investors. As such, there’s little need to discuss an acquisition with Chegg. Byju could just buy it. With the absolute lashing that Chegg stock has taken, I have to believe the likes of Vanguard and BlackRock would salivate over a cash offer to end their misery. Leaders at Chegg, in other words, may help a potential buyer understand the company better, but I’m not sure their acquiescence is required.
Anyway, something about this feels fishy. I do think Chegg will be sold and stripped, just not by Byju. Google, with its public AI programs and a big footprint in education, makes more sense.
But again, what do I know?
China Passes Law to Revoke Degrees for Academic Misconduct
According to news reports, political leaders in China have passed a law allowing for systematic revocation of awarded academic degrees when academic fraud is discovered.
Good.
A government official said:
The law stipulates conditions under which degrees are not conferred or revoked, reinforcing comprehensive management of behaviors including academic misconduct
While the article adds:
The conditions include academic misconduct such as ghostwriting and plagiarism, as well as misusing or impersonating someone else's identity and fraudulently obtaining qualifications for enrollment or graduation, the law said.
It continues:
In recent years, academic misconduct such as academic corruption, plagiarism and improper authorship have been frequently reported, involving prominent academic figures and renowned research institutions.
True. China does have a pretty big academic integrity problem. And it is unquestionably hampering the perceived value and quality of their degrees.
To be fair, that’s true everywhere. At least China has acknowledged it and taken a step in the direction of addressing it. Texas, you may recall, had to go to its state Supreme Court to win the right to revoke degrees for cheating — a power they won (see Issue Looks Like I Forgot to Number It).
Being able to decide that a student did not, in fact, meet the requirements of a degree and therefore has not earned it, feels like a baseline standard of care for any academic institution. I mean, there is no precedent that I know of that allows someone to steal a thing and keep it. Usually, the first penalty is having to forfeit the stolen goods.
On top of this, I cannot imagine why any school would want anyone running around with a their degree — their blessing of attained competency — without being able to demonstrate that competency.
Being able to revoke a degree, and actually doing it, would be powerful acts of institutional self-preservation as well as further investment in cheating deterrence. Though, as far as I know, no national law or policy allows degree revocation in the United States. Or elsewhere. And I am pretty sure that most degree and credential providers have never even considered it, let alone done it. I bet most don’t know if they can.