Defense Lawyer: Cheating is So Common, Who Will Trust Grades Earned Online?

Plus, is Chegg a $12 billion headache for integrity? Plus, CNBC adds to the national press coverage of cheating.

Issue 16

Academic Defense Lawyer: “the viability of carrying out fair exams online is doubtful”

Daniel Sokol, who represents students in academic misconduct cases in the U.K., tells Times Higher Ed (THE), about the threat he sees in group messaging applications such as Snapchat (March 27).

Sokol says that, “universities are reporting an explosion in cheating during the past year.” His company’s website shows it has received 2,500 inquires related to defending student misconduct allegations this past year. And, Sokol writes, that collusion cheating - students sharing information on group message applications such as Snapchat -

appears to pose a grave threat to the integrity of online exams.

Sokol continues:

cheating by Snapchat is free, instantaneous, leaves few traces and is done between friends. The chances of detection are low.

He quotes a student he advised:

“The truth, Daniel,” she told me, close to tears, “is that everybody colludes in exams. The ones who live in the same house just sit the exam together. The ones who live separately use Snapchat to share answers.”

He’s right. Whatever problems essay mills and paid answer services present, they are downright insignificant compared the scale of misconduct by collusion using instant message and text services.

Sokol also says that schools can educate students better on issues of misconduct but calls it “naïve” to think “U.S.-style” honor codes will fix the problem. He suggests shortening the length of tests and randomizing questions. (Note: we looked a tool to do this in this past issue of “The Cheat Sheet.”) He also says “Proctoring software that monitors the students’ environment” can cut down on collusion cheating too.

Even so, everyone in higher education needs to read this passage from Sokol:

But unless the apparently pervasive and normalised phenomenon of smartphone collusion can be rooted out, the viability of carrying out fair exams online is doubtful. Who will trust grades obtained via this route?

And there it is. Cheating by collusion is so common that the very “viability” of online exams is in doubt, according to a lawyer who represents those accused of misconduct.

Quick note: THE is doing outstanding work covering academic misconduct. It’s no coincidence that it’s based in the U.K., where academia acknowledges and addresses cheating as the threat it is. Those in U.S. have no such inclinations.

More National Media Coverage on Cheating: CNBC

A day or two before the Today Show put college cheating on national TV (which you should absolutely watch - link here), CNBC published a long parallel article (March 21) on the rise in cheating.

It cites the usual problems, sites such as Chegg and Course Hero. It also, like the Today Show, quotes a University of Missouri student who openly discussed cheating in his online classes saying he thinks most professors are clueless about it.

CNBC also quoted another student on cheating:

Occasionally professors take action or acknowledge the cheating. In one of Simeon Charles’ courses, a professor openly acknowledged that many students used similar wording on a short answer question. Given the sheer number of students involved, he was reluctant to take action. Many students like Charles readily use Chegg to source answers. On the off chance the website is wrong, they notify the class through group chats and messaging apps.

“So, I do feel morally conflicted,” Charles, a Canada-based student told [a NBC show] “However, I am at the point where I’m like, if I’m paying you thousands of dollars for an education and you’re not doing your job, then I don’t have to do mine either.” 

This section is a very typical cheating loop - professors cannot deal with the volume of cheating, or simply don’t want to, while students adopt a consumer mentality and blame professors in order to rationalize their misconduct.

Like the Today Show, the biggest part of the CNBC article is the national platform. Academic misconduct is a pervasive national problem, impacting every class and program in every single college and university.

The article also has one of the best cheating-related quotes of the year:

″In my honest opinion, I do not think cheating is bad,” Charles said. “I think if you’re provided the opportunity to cheat, go for it. The only, the only time it is wrong is if you get caught.”

Times Higher Ed Asks if Chegg is “$12 billion headache for academic integrity?”

Citing that “students’ use of the website to cheat has exploded during the pandemic,” the leading industry publication asks a great question - is the $12 billion company a danger to honest and productive academic conduct?

In a word, no.

Chegg is worth $13 billion, not twelve.

Chegg is a cheating company. It sells answers to homework and test questions. Yes, it’s a threat to academic integrity. Times Higher Ed (THE), says:

Academics from around the world say students have been repeatedly using the service to cheat during online exams since the start of the pandemic.

In truth, students have been using Chegg to cheat for years, long before the pandemic. It’s just more common now. And a few people are starting to paying attention.

But what THE highlights in their piece (March 23) is that some universities have flirted with the illicit company:

Its use is even validated by universities; in the US, low-income students on certain grants are given a limited free subscription to Chegg (worth $15 a month), while Arizona State University recently partnered with the company to offer educational courses for non-degree-seeking students.

In the UK, it was revealed in 2020 that the University of Edinburgh had invested about £865,000 in the company.

The free subscriptions reference is probably Sallie Mae. (I wrote about its partnership with Chegg in this previous issue of “The Cheat Sheet.”)

But those aren’t the only examples. Purdue University hired Chegg to run its writing center. The President of Southern New Hampshire University is a Board Member of Chegg, where it appears he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock options - more than $320,000 in 2019.

I confess that I do not understand how a school, or other education actors, can invest in Chegg, pay Chegg, be paid by Chegg and claim to respect academic integrity. One researcher told THE that

[Chegg] falls squarely into what we have referred to in our research as a ‘place where students outsource their learning’.

Yes, it does.

In the next, “The Cheat Sheet” - yet another national news outlet spotlights cheating. Plus, new research on cheating. Share, sign up below.