Chegg's Six Million Dollar Man
Plus, two tricks from Course Hero. Plus, Teen Vogue and the Ohio Case.
Issue 159
To subscribe to “The Cheat Sheet,” just enter your e-mail address below:
If you enjoy The Cheat Sheet, please consider chipping in a few bucks via Patreon. And thank you to those who have:
Academic Integrity Policies - I’m starting a review of academic integrity policies, with a focus on remote testing and proctoring, and plagiarism. If you know of an academic integrity policy or practice guide that you think is good or innovative or outstanding in some way and would share it, please do. A reply e-mail reaches me. Thank you.
Thank you to those who’ve sent in policies.
Chegg’s Six Million Dollar Man
It’s not big news, probably. But because cheating enabler Chegg is a public company, trading shares on the New York Stock Exchange, it has to announce changes in corporate management. Accordingly, Chegg notified the public that Nathan Schultz would be the company’s new COO.
In the announcement, Chegg said Schultz would be paid a salary of $900,000 plus stock worth $6.6 million.
It’s a reminder of the scale of Chegg. They reward their executives with multi-million dollar stock packages. They have international banks as investors (see Issue 142). They take in more than $700 million a year. And they are just one company.
Two Scary Tricks from Course Hero
It’s Halloween almost.
Here are two frightening little nuggets about Course Hero.
You know by now that industrial cheaters are desperate to be seen as legitimate education providers. It’s why they seek education awards, hold public events with teachers, give out their own awards and try to partner with legitimate education organizations and publications (see Issue 25 and Issue 111 and Issue 143, though there are many more examples).
So, spooky nugget number one - Course Hero has scholarships. Maybe they always did. That’s bad enough. But the really frightening part is seeing the Course Hero scholarship listed, even promoted in Essence Magazine. It makes me ill, to be honest.
Scary item number two - Course Hero’s CEO, Andrew Grauer, was named to the “40 Under 40” list in Education by the Silicon Valley Business Journal. I didn’t read the profile, as it requires a subscription. But I imagine it’s all about the wonderful ‘learning platform’ that Course Hero is, absent a single syllable about cheating. Which is kind of like writing about Pompeii without mentioning Vesuvius - it’s literally the only reason anyone knows it.
Again, if you’re engaged in the fight for academic integrity and actual learning, cheating providers keep plugging away, handing out cash and winning awards. It’s terrifying.
We Are Famous Kinda
A few days ago, Higher Ed Dive covered the legal case in Texas in which two universities are trying to revoke degrees for academic misconduct (see Issue 156).
“The Cheat Sheet,” and my comments in Forbes, were cited in the coverage. Similar deal over at College Fix, though they did not mention this awesome newsletter.
So, that’s nice.
Teen Vogue and Test Proctoring, Again. But With Actual News This Time.
I don’t know what it is with Teen Vogue and exam security. They obviously hate it. They should talk to an actual expert on academic integrity and assessment security or, better yet, just stop.
Over the past two years and change, the outlet has run at least four articles on exam proctoring, referring to it intermittently as “surveillance” or “mass surveillance” and citing it as racist spyware, an invasion of privacy - all the rest. And, so, here we go again this week with another nonsensical article on test security from the website whose top stories this morning are about Phoebe Bridgers being angry, Megan Fox’s new red hair and how “Miranda Cosgrove is Unrecognizable in Kim K Cosplay.” And something about Taylor Swift.
Anyway, this new entry is supposedly about how remote proctoring companies are “facing legal, legislative challenges.” Except, naturally, that’s wrong. Most of the challenges they list are years old and going nowhere and one “challenge” in particular was actually supported and endorsed by proctoring companies. And, as before, the article gets plenty wrong and repeats some claims that have been discredited. It’s a train wreck of reporting.
But it does have some interesting original reporting - most notably on the federal case in Ohio, challenging a “room scan” done by Cleveland State University (see Special Edition 2). It seems the author got information that wasn’t in the court documents as well as an update.
The new information is that the “tax documents” that the plaintiff student said he was worried could be seen by the remote proctor even though he had two hours to hide them from view - those documents were face down on his desk. No, really:
important, confidential tax documents sat facedown in a pile on his desk. Ogletree said he was worried people would be able to see through the thin paper
He said his arm brushed the papers during the room scan. But still, he was worried that people could “see through the thin paper” on a zoom conference?
Man.
The other new information is that:
For now, it appears Cleveland State, which filed plans to appeal the court ruling, will continue to allow room scans for remotely proctored exams. In an email sent to students and filed with the court, CSU told students that they would not be permitted to take remotely proctored exams unless they were willing to conduct a room scan
Oh, that’s interesting.
Further:
In the same email, CSU informed students that room scans would only be visible to "CSU officials with a legitimate need to review the video"; students would no longer be able to see other students' room scans. Meanwhile, Ogletree's attorneys filed a motion requesting the court to instruct Cleveland State to stop the use of room scans, saying the suit was on behalf of all students.
Also very interesting.
If you read the Special Edition linked above you know that blocking other students from seeing the “room scans” - which should never have happened in the first place - and actually requiring scans in order to take a remote test may cure the entire problem, legally speaking. We will see.