Chegg, Chegg, Chegg
Chegg is sued again? Chegg and SxSW. Chegg and Inside Higher Ed. And some press coverage of Chegg. Plus, ICAI calls for Board Members.
Issue 167
To join the 2,595 smart people who subscribe to “The Cheat Sheet,” enter your e-mail address below:
If you enjoy “The Cheat Sheet,” please consider joining the nine amazing people who are chipping in a few bucks a month via Patreon. And thank you to those who are.
SxSW Edu Lets Chegg on Stage
In Issue 144, I’d shared that a few cheating providers had put in event and panel submissions for the education conference SxSW Edu next March. And, because SxSW has an open voting system, I’d also asked readers to vote up a few pro-integrity options and vote down a few of those that normalized or promoted cheating.
Apparently, we did not do that last part well enough because SxSW has added one of the Chegg-affiliated panels to its roster - giving a stage and microphone, and their credibility, to cheating as a business.
The now approved panel is titled “Meet Outstanding Students Impacting the World” and is seemingly a panel with students who are doing some cool stuff. But the students are on this panel because they “won” a “prize” from Chegg. Here’s the first sentence of the panel description:
In 2021, Chegg.org and the Varkey Foundation launched the Global Student Prize (GSP), a $100,000 award presented to an exceptional student, making a real impact on learning, the lives of their peers and on society beyond.
In other words, Chegg’s marketing people team up with a previously reputable foundation to give away money (see Issue 24) and - poof! - credibility happens. It’s as cynical as it is shocking.
Sadly, the desperation for educational legitimacy is a part of the industrial cheating business model. The depressing part is that it seems to keep working because people keep saying yes.
ASU Press on Chegg Policy Change
The State Press, the student paper at Arizona State University, ran a story recently about Chegg’s change of heart regarding helping schools uncover cheating (see Issue 152). The company decided they’d prefer to shield cheaters rather than help schools.
It’s a student paper so I won’t be overly critical but just point out a few things of note. One, the piece starts by describing Chegg as:
a textbook rental and tutoring website
It’s not.
As noted often, Chegg now collects only about 3% of its revenue from textbook rentals and it closed down its tutoring services (see Issue 162). At the same time, the article gets credit for saying Chegg is:
similar to Course Hero and Bartleby, has gained notoriety for providing answers to worksheets, tests and quizzes
And at the end, though, the students know what Chegg is, saying:
it is common for students to use the website to search for their textbooks and find the answers to their exams or assignments.
Yeah, pretty common. And that doesn’t even count Chegg’s answer-on-demand service.
The ASU piece is also worth reading because it offers some insight from professors and regarding policies. This, for example, is the reported policy of ASU’s Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering:
If students are found guilty of cheating in Fulton, they are at minimum required to take a two-hour class about academic integrity, [an administrator] said. Sanctions can vary from receiving a zero on an assignment, failing a class and getting an XE grade on your transcript, a suspension or even expulsion.
A two-hour class. If they’re “found guilty.” Engineering. My goodness.
And further, I don’t know what to think about the view of a professor, quoted in the piece, who says essentially that Chegg’s refusal to ID cheating students won’t make much difference because Chegg is just one of the ways students cheat.
Yet Another Chegg Legal Challenge?
Chegg is already being sued by investors (see Issue 163) who claim that Chegg’s corporate bosses mislead them by not disclosing that the company’s revenue surge during pandemic-related online classes was due to cheating.
Now it appears another group of investors is making the same claim in a different law suit.
At least I think it’s different. That’s the reason for the question mark in the headline. The legal firm is different. But I cannot tell.
Either way, the press release on this case says:
Chegg's subscriber and revenue growth were largely due to the facilitation of remote education cheating an unstable business proposition rather than the strength of its business model or the acumen of its senior executives
I think “largely due to” is generous.
Inside Higher Ed Still Loves Cheating Providers
It ought to be well documented at this point that Inside Higher Ed has a compromised relationship with academic integrity generally and with cheating profiteers specifically - having advertised their events, grossly mischaracterized academic research and downplayed the seriousness and consequences of cheating for years now.
If this is news to you, see Issue 102 or Issue 78 or Issue 40 or Issue 50 or Issue 49 or Issue 53 or Issue 159. I could keep going.
Most of the time, IHE’s support has been with and for Course Hero. Though it will surprise no one to learn that Inside Higher Ed is now promoting Chegg - sending an e-mail this week about Chegg’s PR podcast (see Issue 164).
IHE says:
We thought you might be interested in this message from Chegg.
To be clear, there is zero chance that IHE editors don’t know what Chegg is and what they do. But they took the money. In doing so, IHE has decided to sell more credibility and visibility to the people who make money helping students cheat colleges, professors, future employers and their fellow students. In my book, people who knowingly sell credibility to cheaters are part of the problem. And in the case of IHE, we’ve seen too much too often to believe it’s anything but an affirmative decision.
I don’t know who can have the conversation with whomever is running IHE about the damage they’re doing by supporting cheating companies. I know it’s not me. But someone needs to.
ICAI Calls for Board Members
The International Center for Academic Integrity has issued a final call for Board Members. The nomination or application deadline is December 2.
They say:
ICAI is currently looking for individuals to join our Board of Directors. We are seeking hard working individuals dedicated to the Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity and the mission of ICAI to cultivate integrity in academic communities around the world.
The contact information and application details are in the link above.