At Ohio State, 92% of Students Charged with Cheating Found "In Violation"
University of Toronto student newspaper and "student privacy." Plus, cheaters advertise to take entire online classes for students.
Issue 41
Ohio State Misconduct Cases Still Increasing; More than 92% of Cases are Found “In Violation”
In Issue 19, I shared that citations of cheating at Ohio State University had more than doubled - growing from 721 cases in all of 2019 to 1,454 in just the last seven months of 2020. The Chair of the school’s academic misconduct committee cited Chegg and Course Hero as contributors to the spike.
Now, there’s some good follow up reporting by The Lantern, the student paper at OSU, on that caseload surge and some dispositions:
Of the 1,112 cases resolved, 92.7 percent found the student in violation of academic misconduct
The report continues that all the 2020 cases are not concluded yet and that the total number of cases from 2020 reached at least 1,500. Of those concluded, the totals thus far compared to 2019 represent:
almost 400 more cases found in violation of course rules or assignment guidelines, and over 300 more students were found in violation of knowingly providing or in possession of [prohibited] information during exams in 2020.
The article also says that a further 544 cases were initiated during the Spring, 2021 session meaning the school is on pace to once again significantly exceed the 2019 numbers, though it may not match 2020.
University of Toronto Paper Gets It All Wrong
The Varsity, the student paper at the University of Toronto, has a piece on “student privacy” which includes bits about academic integrity and the proctoring of remote exams. The article is mostly about a student-written report on data and privacy.
Interviewing the student, the paper says:
When asked about how the idea for the project came to her, [the student] told The Varsity that it came about after she learned how academic integrity cases at U of T used metadata as evidence during their trial. Ingle was told that things such as a student’s last login, what time they saw an email, and whether or not they opened an email could be used against them if they were ever on trial for plagiarism or other academic offences.
“To me, that pointed to there really being an issue of consent,” she said. [She] added that she does not think students should be penalized because of metadata evidence if they are not aware that this data is being collected or that it can be used in a trial against them.
First, that’s bonkers - on par with a criminal objecting to the use of fingerprint evidence because they were “not aware” that it was being collected “or that it can be used in a trial against them.”
But the following unchallenged assertions from the student are something else entirely. She says:
Exam proctoring software is riddled with software issues that result in incredibly racist and classist outcomes.
Not true.
For example, a Black or brown student can be flagged for potentially cheating because the algorithm or software cannot recognize their face
Also not true.
That is simply not how remote test proctoring works.
The University says that this past year, more than 750 of its students were cited for academic misconduct.
Cheating Firms Offer to Take Entire Online Classes
Times Higher Ed (THE) has the story of cheating companies selling services to take entire online classes for Chinese students in foreign colleges. From their reporting:
One company offers services that cover the entire journey of an online course, including discussions, assignments and exams. Another agency has different packages for students to choose from, with options including one-stop coaching and assistance throughout an online or blended module.
Asked about the cost of taking Zoom classes for a student, a customer service representative of one company told Times Higher Education: “If there is just moderate amount of homework, the cost should be from $100 (£72) to $150 per week – it depends on the quotation of the writer and the course syllabus.” Another agency said it charged between $600 and $1,500 for a whole module.
Scandalous as this is, it’s not new or limited to China. Way back in 2015 I wrote about these services - offered to American students - in The Atlantic:
I reached out to one of these companies—the aptly named No Need to Study —asking, for the sake of journalism, if it could take an online English Literature class at Columbia University for me. I got an email response from someone on its customer-relations staff who told me that, not only could the company get a ringer to take my online class, it could also guarantee I’d earn a B or better. I was told the fee for such an arrangement was $1,225.15.
Online classes means online cheating.
The THE story quotes Phillip Dawson, associate director of the Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning at Deakin University and known commentator on academic misconduct as saying,
If teaching stays on Zoom, cheating will be there as well.
Yup.
In the next “The Cheat Sheet” - Speaking of cheating in online classes, a survey of students in Germany shows cheating is twice as common online as it is in person. Plus, a series of great articles on assessment. Plus, that Course Hero “summit” is coming up. Plus, cheating in Georgia. The Country. Plus, I have a great story I just need to write.
As always, share and subscribe. Buttons below.