Big News: Facebook Agrees to Remove Essay Mill Ads

Plus, EdSource looks at exam proctoring. Plus, a (misinformed) opinion about assessments and proctoring.

Issue 74

---

A few changes at “The Cheat Sheet”

As you can see below, we now have audio. I have audio. Of me. I’m reading.

So, if you’re pressed for time or would just rather listen than read, click the link below. It should play and be free. If not, message me and I’ll try to figure it out.

I’m also moving up the part where I ask you to share the newsletter and subscribe. I’m also nixing the "In the next” section I had at the bottom. I don’t think it’s too useful and I can’t always do those specific things “next.” News happens. I’ll save the bottom for important notes and, perish the thought, corrections.

So, thank you for sharing “The Cheat Sheet” and for subscribing. Links:

---

Facebook to Remove Essay Mill Ads in Ireland and It’s a Big Deal

According to this news in Ireland, Facebook has agreed to take down ads for contract cheating essay sellers. That’s a very big deal.

The news first.

Ireland made essay mill services and ads illegal in 2019 but some ads were showing up in Ireland, on Facebook. A legislative leader asked Facebook to remove the ads, saying,

Facebook must take greater responsibility for the legality of the ads they show and ensure that their practices in Ireland do not contravene Irish law or threaten the integrity of our education system.

And, according to the article:

A spokesperson for the social media company [said] that the social media firm would remove [the ads].

This is very, very big news because Ireland is not the only country to have banned contract cheating profiteers. Australia has and the U.K. is expected to quite soon (see Issue 61). With Facebook having opened the door to blocking cheating ads, it’s easy to imagine political leaders in the U.K. and Australia and in other states following suit.

It’s also big news because, with Facebook agreeing to ban cheating ads, it’s hard to see how the other large social media players resist similar action. In other words, if someone in Ireland or Australia also asked Twitter or Instagram or Google to ban cheating ads, citing the action by Facebook, it seems they just may.

And finally, this is big news because the line between contract cheating companies that sell full essays and those that sell homework or test answers is a fine one. Cheating services are cheating services. In fact, the pending U.K. ban seems to implicate Chegg and other answer-sellers directly, saying:

offering answers to a student for payment will become a criminal offense.

And here’s the thing - to get ads blocked, they don’t have to necessarily be illegal. Facebook’s ad policy also prohibits ads for:

products which promote what the company calls ”cheating and deceitful practices.”

I left the link in should anyone want it handy.

Should, for example, academic or political leaders in these countries also ask for an ad ban for Chegg or Course Hero and the others, it’s entirely possible that Facebook and other providers would agree.

Is Facebook really going to disagree with a letter from college Presidents about what is or is not cheating?

And I know we’re building on a couple consecutive ifs, but - should any major social media platform begin to block ads for cheating services, these companies are done. They cannot survive without their illicit marketing pipelines. Chegg, for example, has told its shareholders exactly that (see Issue 63).

Before leaving this topic, it’s also worth considering that some 17 U.S. states have cheating bans. Though never enforced, should academic or political leaders in those jurisdictions call on Facebook and Google and others to block ads for what is illegal there, it’s difficult to predict what the company would do.

Social media ads are the Achilles Heel of cheating sellers. This is really worth keeping an eye on - especially if a few letters are publicly dispatched or politicians find microphones. You know, should anyone want to do that.

EdSurge Looks at Exam Proctoring Business

A recent story by EdSurge examined the future of the remote proctoring business.

The report says, probably correctly, that despite complaints and opposition, colleges are still using and will likely continue to use remote proctoring services. It cites the decision by the University of Wisconsin Madison to renew its proctoring contract (see Issue 63).

This isn’t too surprising - or at least it should not be - as the only alternative to proctoring remote exams is not proctoring remote exams. And that, as has been shown repeatedly, invites cheating (see Issue 66). Good for EdSurge for acknowledging the connection between misconduct and proctoring.

But what stood out from the article at first, is really just funny now. That’s a quote from Trace Urdan, a managing director at Tyton Partners, which is described as “an investment banking and strategy consulting firm.” At first, Urdan said,

There is a lot of concern in higher ed about Chegg and Course Hero

And that’s true. But the funny part is that Urdan apparently asked the publication to clarify his remarks, prompting EdSurge to make the following “Correction and clarification”:

An earlier version misstated a quote by Trace Urdan. He was referencing concerns about Chegg and Course Hero stated by others. He clarifies that while he acknowledging the concern, he believes the services "fill a market need for student support created by a corresponding inattention from institutions."

Ah. It’s not that Chegg and Course Hero are cheating companies, it’s that others have concerns. The investment banker thinks they “fill a market need for student support” brought on by schools and teachers being inattentive. Sure. And, by the way, “fill a market need for student support” is hands down the best political euphemism for cheating I’ve heard in some time. Profit is a powerful blinder.

An Opinion on Assessment and Academic Integrity

Dr. Jessica Rowland Williams, Director of Every Learner Everywhere, recently took to the pages of Diverse Issues in Education to share her views on assessment and proctoring.

For some reason, the links in her piece are disabled for me - it says I need to verify my identity but keeps returning an error. And that means I can’t see what she’s citing as evidence but, at face value, the author makes several significant errors.

I won’t go point by point. There are too many. But in one example, she wrote about online exam proctoring:

Alarming stories quickly emerged on social media of honest students failing exams after surveillance tools erroneously identified them as cheaters because their eyes wandered too frequently across the computer screen.

I guess she’s not saying that those things actually happened, just that “stories emerged,” so fine. The distinction is important because that never happened. No one failed an exam because their eyes wandered too frequently. That’s fantasy. Repeating it under the guise of “stories emerged” is a shame.

She goes on to say we rely too much on old assessment models and that our understanding of academic integrity “is woefully behind the curve.” It’s not. But fine.

She also writes:

The future of student learning will not be found down the path of increased surveillance. Research shows the proctoring tools used by many institutions do very little to curb cheating. They do, however, increase students’ anxiety and, ironically, can lead to lower test scores.

Again, I can’t see her notes but, no. And again, she said was careful with her wording, saying only that proctoring did “very little.” So, fine. Though that does concede that the proctoring tools do curb cheating. And the research I have seen supports this - that proctoring, both in person and remote, reduces cheating.

She is right though that proctored exams do correlate with lower test scores. But that’s because, most people believe, cheating is less common when testing is monitored. Less cheating, lower scores.

Changing the way we give assessments is good. But it cannot be done for every class, nor should it be. And it won’t stop cheating. If the pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that changes in teaching and assessment change how people cheat, not whether they cheat.

Study Notes: This Thursday is the American holiday of Thanksgiving, so there won’t be an Issue of “The Cheat Sheet.” The next one will be next Tuesday. But in the spirit, I do thank you for caring about academic integrity and I am thankful to have you as a reader.