Higher Education Publisher Promoting Cheating Company. Again.
Plus, TV reports on AI and misconduct. Plus, TV in Canada follows up on cheating in nursing exams.
Issue 271
To join the 3,746 smart people who subscribe to “The Cheat Sheet,” enter your e-mail address below. New Issues every Tuesday and Thursday. It’s free:
If you enjoy “The Cheat Sheet,” please consider joining the 17 amazing people who are chipping in a few bucks via Patreon. Or joining the 32 outstanding citizens who are now paid subscribers. Thank you!
The Chronicle of Higher Education Promotes Cheating Company. Again.
It is well-known and well-established that Course Hero is a major cheating provider. It is not credible to argue otherwise.
In Issue 266, I gave a very brief rundown of just some of the evidence that without cheating and copyright abuse, Course Hero would not be a business and its investors would not have their dishonest cash cow. In 266, I wrote, in part, that Course Hero is and will:
just give test-takers answers during a test. Even when you tell them you’re taking a test, they sell the answer (see Issue 97). The company that refuses to cooperate with teachers on academic integrity inquiries, going so far as to tell one professor to sue them. Which one did (see Issue 102). The company that was recently sued by a university for reselling its copyrighted property without authorization (see Issue 252). And by “copyrighted property,” I mean exams, test answers, sample essays — the cheating stuff. The company that was flagged by Cisco as an academic fraud provider (see Issue 42).
There is so much more. I mean, it’s a joke.
There is zero chance — zero — that education writers and editors at dedicated education publications do not know this.
When pressed, these publications very occasionally write about “concerns” or “criticisms” of Course Hero and Chegg and others, never accepting the reality that these companies are multi-million dollar cheating engines. Or at least never allowing themselves to say so aloud. The collective resistance to engage the truth of these companies, I have long believed, is related to the fact that cheating companies such as Course Hero keep paying them. Both of the major higher education publications, Inside Higher Ed and Chronicle of Higher Ed, have their hands dirty on this (see Issue 40 or Issue 53).
Now, sent in from a reader, The Chronicle of Higher Ed is at it again — in bed with Course Hero, promoting them, endorsing their credibility. This time, The Chronicle sent an e-mail promoting an “AI Academy for Teachers” from Course Hero, because, if you’re a teacher, you absolutely want to learn from an academic fraud provider.
That such a thing exists is proof that Course Hero and its investors are not familiar with the concept of shame. Or self-awareness.
Worse — yes, worse — the “academy” features a segment on “Navigating AI and Academic Integrity.” From Course Hero. Navigating it, from the business that profits by circumventing it. This is Purdue Pharma offering a course to doctors on how to navigate prescription drug dependency.
And here, for the record, is the fine print:
It says:
This is Corporate Sponsor Content presented by The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inc. All content is provided by Course Hero, Inc..
I can excuse some educators being confused or conned by Course Hero — the company presents well enough and clearly invests in washing itself in all the credibility it can buy. But education publishers who provide that credibility cannot be excused. They know. They just do not care enough to put integrity, professional and academic, above profit.
There isn’t more I can say.
TV News Talks AI Use, AI Detection, and Integrity
Though it’s on a news station in Houston, a recent TV report on student use of AI and AI detection looks like a national story.
For the most part, the story jumps off from a student survey commissioned in part by Turnitin, probably the one we covered in Issue 260. The news segment focuses, for example, on the data, from Issue 260:
In June, 58% of surveyed students said they would keep on using AI despite it being disallowed. In the November survey, it’s 68%. That’s not good. Among students who use AI, 75% say they will keep doing so even if it’s not allowed.
The story continues with an example from Biola University (CA, USA) where a spokesperson begins by saying:
a student could get through an entire class without doing any original work
But then goes on to say that the school has decided not to use AI detection because:
We can’t really police our way out of this and it’s not going to give us the best outcomes in terms of what we hope to accomplish in our educational goals. It might seem counterintuitive but some of the best ways to promote academic integrity are really the old school methods of small class sizes, faculty student relationships
While the decision to affirmatively know less about what’s going on in your school is puzzling, the spokesperson is absolutely right about the benefits of smaller classes and high student and faculty engagement. That won’t stop misconduct, not at all. But they do help.
The story also focuses on Pepperdine University, which the story says is using AI detection software and, quoting a professor there:
Pepperdine has, wisely I think, stepped up to acknowledge the different uses across the subjects and are allowing faculty, within reason of course, to use discretion and to use our professional judgement about the ways in which we’re going to incorporate AI, how we’re going to detect AI
I agree. I think giving teachers information and trusting their judgment is wise.
More TV News on Cheating. This Time, in Canada
In Issue 270, we touched on investigations into exam misconduct by nursing students at the University of Regina (CAN). Now, CTV has followed up, with this report.
It’s a bit muddled because the title of the story is “students accused of cheating” and it starts with a student who said he did not cheat and was, the report says, later cleared of misconduct. But it’s muddled because the story shows the e-mail the student received from the program Dean, which does not accuse the student of anything. It says exams from his exam section are under review and no grade has been assigned while that review takes place. That’s it.
A no-grade did impact the student’s ability to register for subsequent classes in the program. But there was no cheating alleged and no cheating found, in his case. Though, it’s necessary to report, that the review did turn up cheating. The reporter says:
Most cases found grounds for academic misconduct
Most.
In the name of balance, I am sure, the story quotes someone from the University of Windsor about proctoring remote exams. The source says:
There are other paths available that don’t involve surveilling students
Sure. On a remote exam, all those paths are not surveilling students and essentially letting them cheat, letting them become nurses. Remember, “most cases found grounds for academic misconduct.” And that was with the “surveillance.” Probably a good thing we caught that, I’d say.
The story wraps up by saying:
It’s part of a larger trend that Canadian universities are seeing, brought on by the pandemic and a rise in artificial intelligence.
It is.
Before closing this out, I want to highlight a quote from the Dean who decided to hold grades while exams were reviewed. She says:
It was really about finding a balance between patient safety and our students’ ability to move forward
Thank you. While I am sympathetic to one concern, the other is patient safety. I think it’s worth getting right and being sure. Thank you.