Major Mess-Up at Massey
Plus, 800 insurance license exams were faked by professional cheating ring in Florida. Plus, an editorial about academic cheating -- from Nepal.
Issue 306
Subscribe below to join 3,896 other smart people who get “The Cheat Sheet.” New Issues every Tuesday and Thursday.
If you enjoy “The Cheat Sheet,” please consider joining the 18 amazing people who are chipping in a few bucks via Patreon. Or joining the 38 outstanding citizens who are now paid subscribers. Paid subscriptions start at $8 a month. Thank you!
Massey University (NZ) Has Major Exam Proctoring Error, Turn it Off
A few weeks ago, Massey University in New Zealand had a major problem with their remote test proctoring service. It was not working. Errors with the unspecified service provider resulted in long delays and serious data security issues.
I don’t know who the provider was. But the mistakes were a clear problem and an embarrassment for both the proctoring company and the school.
Worst yet, the news coverage says the outages and challenges should impact about 200 students. And that the proctoring system was overloaded, with someone saying:
"There was an overload of the system with too many students, even through this should have been considered because they knew exactly how many students would be logging on."
Exactly. I’m not sure if 200 was the total number or just those impacted by the outages and whatnot. Either way, for every single proctoring provider I know, even several hundred exam sessions would never overload anything, especially if the volume is expected. In fact, if test volume is known, no number of sessions should stress much of anything.
But worse, facing the proctoring challenges from their provider, Massey leaders decided to simply stop proctoring their exams. Yikes. Given their range of options, turning off exam security was the easiest and the worst.
I don’t know for sure but given that some exams were with proctors, even if access was delayed, it’s possible that some students took the same exam in unproctored settings. If that’s the case, you may as well throw the results in the dust bin for every student. And frankly, I’d dust bin every online exam issued without security. The results are sure to be farcical.
To be clear — telling students their remote exams will not be supervised is to sound a dinner bell of cheating, to start Shark Week bobbing up and down in a chum suit. Absolutely no good will come of it.
According to Massey provost Giselle Byrnes, as reported:
The university had now agreed that remote proctoring of online exams would be turned off for the remainder of the semester 1 examinations, she said.
"Examinations that were scheduled for today will be rescheduled to start tomorrow at 12pm and will be available for 48 hours. Students will be able to start these rescheduled exams at any time within the 48-hour period. Students whose exams were interrupted today will be able to continue their examination on the new date."
If I read that right, Massey gave an online, unproctored exam with a 48-hour exam window. I mean this in total sincerity — what is the point? Worthless does not even begin to cover what those results were.
I do feel for Massey, as the initial errors were probably not their fault. Although, they did pick their provider. Still, how hard would it have been to turn off the proctoring service for the delayed or disrupted exams but tell students and the public that a new, unspecified monitoring system would be used instead?
It’s rhetorical.
It is an analogy I use often because it fits. Imagine you’re a bank. And your security features and alarm systems were malfunctioning, delaying your opening times, frustrating your customers, and even mixing up some account data. On what planet is making a public announcement that you are turning off your security the right decision?
Again, rhetorical.
Any logical person who actually cared about protecting their customers and their reputation would find other ways to meet customer needs while also ensuring security. Or swapped one system for another — automated alarms, let’s say, for more security guards. Or simply close altogether and apologize. But saying, “Hey everyone, we’re open. And without security!” seems … bizarre. At best.
For the love of integrity, do not turn off your detection systems. And if you absolutely must, for the love of everything else, don’t announce it. Come on.
South Florida Trio Nabbed for Cheating 800+ Insurance License Exams
News coverage out of Florida — where else? — that three people have been arrested for running what authorities say was a “fraudulent insurance school” in which they literally took licensing exams for their students.
From the coverage:
According to arrest reports, the state became aware of the scheme after an external company’s audit revealed “multiple inconsistencies” suggesting “misconduct” in the examination system, which is operated by contractor Pearson VUE — abbreviated in the reports as PV.
Pearson VUE’s “internal investigation of this data revealed that approximately 820 exams were subverted via a small subset of computers,” six in total, “that were not from an authorized testing center and not consistent with an individual tester’s standard patterns, where they may use their personal computer once or twice on a personal exam,” the reports state.
And that:
“The independent witnesses’ statements all concurred that [one of the arrested] would take their pictures and instruct them to remove their watches and phones before directing them to sit in a soundproof room adjacent to where Salas would be sitting,” investigators wrote. “[He] would subsequently enter and place a MacBook laptop logged into the witness’s PV account on the desk. [He] would tell them that if a proctor asks them to show the room, they should lift the laptop computer, turn to show the room, place it back on the desk, place their hands on the sides, and not move, and he would be controlling the computer from next door.”
Yup. Incredibly, incredibly common.
The arrested charged students between $400 and $2,000 for their services.
Good for the state for acting, and good for Pearson VUE for doing an audit and spotting the problems. We all need much more of that.
Editorial in Nepal: Are We Educating to Cheat?
Showing that our collective cheating challenges are universal and troubling, there is a recent editorial about academic cheating out of Nepal.
The author, Father Augustine Thomas, writes:
The rise in academic dishonesty among students has become alarmingly apparent, with many flaunting their cheating feats on social media platforms.
Yup.
And, he states what ought to be accepted and obvious:
From traditional methods like sneaking notes into examination halls to utilizing sophisticated technological aids, students are employing various tactics to undermine assessment integrity. These incidents not only signify a lack of ethical integrity but also indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of education’s purpose. Instead of viewing exams as opportunities for genuine learning and knowledge assessment, they’re reduced to mere obstacles to overcome through deceit. This prevalence of cheating not only erodes trust in the education system but also jeopardizes the validity and reliability of academic credentials.
Jeopardizes the validity and reliability of academic credentials. Father Thomas gets it.
He continues:
From proxy candidates taking exams to some schools and teachers even facilitating malpractices, the problem is only getting worse. Rather than feeling guilt or remorse, there’s a troubling sense of pride associated with cheating, creating a culture where success through unfair means is glorified. This culture is getting worse year by year, fueled by the widespread sharing of such behavior on social media.
I don’t want to repeat the whole thing. It’s worth a read and the paper and author deserve a click-through. But I will share this part as my final snippet:
Teachers turning a blind eye to what happens in exam halls makes the problem worse. Cheating incidents frequently go unchecked or are quietly ignored, sending a message that it’s okay to cheat. By failing to uphold integrity standards and enforce disciplinary measures, educators inadvertently signal to students that cheating is acceptable.
Is it a sacrilege to say Amen here?
I don’t care. Amen.
Teachers and administrators who do nothing about cheating are fueling it. As far away as Nepal, people know this.
And yet every single day, way too many teachers and other education leaders do what they admonish their charges not to do — take the easy way. They close their eyes to avoid the actual work of looking for, following up on, and assessing actual penalties for cheating. Work is hard. Shortcuts are everywhere. If teachers want their students to do the work, they should demonstrate that they will too.