American Accounting Firm Fined $100 Million for Cheating on Licensing Tests

Plus, some deliberate fiction on academic integrity. Plus, another lawyer says students need lawyers.

Issue 131

To subscribe to “The Cheat Sheet,” just enter your e-mail address below:

To share “The Cheat Sheet:”

If you enjoy or support my work, please consider chipping in a few bucks via Patreon:

US Accounting Firm Fined $100 Million for Cheating - On Ethics Exams

Sometimes people ask what cheating on a test really costs. Usually, it’s a rhetorical query.

But now we have an answer - that is if you happen to be the global accounting and auditing firm EY (Ernst & Young). For EY, cheating on tests cost $100 million.

That’s the fine imposed by the SEC - the Securities and Exchange Commission - because:

regulators discovered that the company knew some of its auditors were cheating on exams for several years and did nothing to stop it.

CNN reported further that, according to the SEC:

a "significant number" of the accounting firm's auditors cheated on the ethics portion of the Certified Public Accountant test and other courses needed to maintain the licenses.

Yup - on the ethics portion.

One of the firms responsible for auditing the country’s public companies essentially allowed its auditors to cheat - on ethics. Frankly, it’s stunning and, in my opinion alone, a sliver of what is a growing culture of cheating. It’s - in my opinion again - what happens when it becomes clear that the people who are supposed to care, don’t.

You may not agree that this is indicative of a wider cheating culture. But I remind you that this EY fine is only the most recent case of several recent cases of accounting and auditing firms allowing or not really stopping their employees from cheating on required licensing and other exams (see Issue 97 or Issue 57). When the auditors cheat, we may have a problem.

Another Lawyer Speaks Up for Hiring Lawyers in Academic Integrity Cases

An outlet called the Higher Education Policy Institute ran an article recently from Dr. Daniel Sokol, whom the website identifies as:

a barrister and founder of Alpha Academic Appeals, where he leads a team of 15 barristers who act for students accused of misconduct. 

Fifteen lawyers.

So, with that, Dr. Sokol thinks the academic misconduct process at universities and colleges is bad and “in need of urgent reform.” He says:

The presumption of innocence is not alive and well in UK universities; in many places, it’s been replaced by the presumption of guilt. In practice, this means two things: firstly, that the experience is more traumatic for students than it needs to be; and secondly, that innocent students are found guilty, with potentially serious consequences to their degree and their future.

Given what I know about academic integrity and misconduct, I find the “innocent students are found guilty” to be highly, highly unlikely.

Anyway, Dr. Sokol says he wants the process to be “kinder, more humane” and that people who run academic integrity hearings should ask questions more politely. He says that the letters and e-mails they send during the investigation and hearing process are distressing to students.

The bottom line is that Dr. Sokol is really just advertising for why students accused of academic misconduct should hire lawyers. There’s a lot of that these days (see Issue 130).

He says:

Too many students are going through this unfamiliar and stressful process on their own.

I am sure he thinks so.

The Deliberate “Academic Integrity Industry” Fiction

I don’t share every crank who goes off about academic integrity, but this one is pretty special.

It’s on Medium, where the author can be paid for clicks, so weigh out whether you want to click through the link. It’s probably unwise to literally reward this type of thing.

Medium, it’s also important to note, also has no editors or fact-checkers - and it shows.

The piece is by Cory Doctorow. The first line of his self-written bio says he is, “a science fiction author.” That shows too.

For example, he says:

What if you have a disability and need to stand up, go to the toilet, or throw up from anxiety? Or (I’m not making this up!) experience labor pains? Tough. Proctorio and its competitors have no way to accommodate you, and so they flag you and flunk you.

Except that he is making it up. That’s simply not true.

There’s this too:

High-stakes testing profiteers like Proctorio justify deceptive, bullying tactics by painting learners as “cheats” — a species of presumptive criminal who needs to be pre-emptively incarcerated in its digital prisons.

Pre-emptively incarcerated in digital prisons. Sure.

And the fantasy goes on and on.

I am sharing it because it’s important to remember that people are actively creating and sharing misinformation about academic integrity, probably intentionally.

Alberta Investigates Sharing of Test Material on Social Media

The province of Alberta, Canada is investigating whether some test questions and answers for its ninth-grade provincial achievement tests (PAT) were shared on social media during the test window.

According to the reporting, the PAT is given over two days which allows students to sit for the test on day one and share information with those who are taking the test on day two.

This is a quite common form of cheating, seen often in college settings when online assessments have broad, 24 or 48 hour test windows. Some students access the test early then share or sell test information with those taking the test later.