Misconduct Cases Continue to Grow at Central Michigan University
Plus, CMU floats a "seminar" to address increasing cases of misconduct. Plus, how corporate cheating spreads. Plus, more trouble for Chegg stock.
Issue 272
To join the 3,749 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 33 outstanding citizens who are now paid subscribers. Thank you!
Central Michigan University: Misconduct Cases Increase, Considering Seminar for Violations
According to some quality reporting from the student paper at Central Michigan University, cases of academic misconduct are increasing, while school leaders are considering an:
academic integrity seminar for students who have been reported for violating said [integrity] policies.
First, I am once again thankful for student reporting and student papers. Without their work, our collective awareness of what is happening at schools on this topic would be near zero. I am also thankful to CMU for sharing their numbers and discussing the challenges openly.
Here are the number of cases of suspected academic integrity violations at CMU, according to the reporting:
The total is increasing year-to-year, and for the 2023-24 academic year, [an administrator] said the university is on pace for 234 violations.
In the 2022-23 school year: 191 reports
In the 2021-22 academic year: 68 reports
My goodness. Over two years, that’s more than a 3x increase. But most of the jump was in the 2022-23 school year, from 68 to 191. If only something happened last school year that we could point to as a probable cause. It’s a genuine mystery.
The increase in cases is further evidence that the surge in misconduct we weathered during the pandemic has not relented. In fact, most data show it still increasing (see Issue 249). The genie, it seems, will not go back in the lamp.
Keep in mind that, by far, most acts of academic misconduct are not caught and, even when they are suspected, they are never formally reported. Said another way, 234 is only the cases that made it to formal process, overcoming layers of significant detection and reporting disincentives.
But you absolutely must read this bit — that, according to school leaders, most of the violations are coming from graduate students:
But most of the students caught cheating aren't undergraduates. Out of the 117 reports from the recent fall semester, 94 of the violations were from graduate students.
OK, something is way off here. According to the infallible source which is Wikipedia, CMU has about 10,400 undergrads and about 4,100 grad students. But it says that 80% of its integrity cases are coming from 28% of its students. Something ain’t right.
And while I don’t want to guess, I will anyway. Ninety-four cases from a population of 4,100 is about 2.2%, which does not feel unreasonable. The remaining 23 cases in a population of 10,400 — that’s .2%. That feels quite unreasonable.
If I am right, the numbers coming from CMU are way, way undercounted, at least among a majority of their student population. Nonetheless, leaders at CMU feel the problem among grad students is so bad that one said:
“One in four theses or dissertations are having to be sent back to the student because of plagiarism or copyright violations,” he said. “It is a relatively significant problem."
One in four? Good gravy. And maybe I’m reading that wrong, but dissertations with plagiarism and copyright violations are sent back to the student? That’s all? If that is all, it does not feel like a significant deterrent.
Speaking of insignificant deterrents, the CMU idea of imposing a seminar for integrity violations is. In fact, it’s so insignificant that it will actually likely increase violations instead.
Here is what, according to the reporting, the proposed CMU seminar would be:
The seminar will cost $105 to use and Watson said that it’s the cost from the vendor and their side did not choose the price but will simply provide the link.
And:
If implemented, students who violate the academic integrity policy would either be required or recommended to take a seminar that would take five to fifteen hours to complete.
And that the:
goal is to decrease all of the violations, but mainly the second and third times.
I’m sorry — what now? What kind of policy and process do you have when your targeted intervention is aimed at second and third-time violators? And when that intervention is an online, 10-hour course?
For reference, CMU also reported that in the Fall 2023 semester, it had:
103 first time violations
twelve second time violations
only two third time violations.
If my math is right, the recidivism rate is nearly 12%. Again, that is only those who are caught and clear the bars for formal inquiries. If that’s the case, I humbly suggest that whatever you’re doing with first-time violations, it’s not working. And an online course aimed at repeat offenders is unlikely to do much of anything for anyone.
For example, UNLV imposes an online course for violations of academic integrity, though theirs is $15, not $105. At UNLV, students discuss “only” having to pay a fee and take a course if they’re caught (see Issue 99).
The point is that, if you know the chance of being caught is about 1%, and even if you are caught, the odds of the violation becoming formalized are slim. Even if that happens, and even if it’s your second or third offense, the penalty is $105 and an online seminar — well, cheating becomes a highly rational choice.
Anyway, after all that, we have more evidence that misconduct is still increasing, and probably even much more than the numbers show. What schools are doing about it continues to be, in my view, staggeringly unimpressive.
Watching Corporate Cheating Spread
I don’t know if this report is true, but it’s one of a few that say that upGrad is:
in advanced stages of acquiring US online education firm Udacity
Whatever you think of mass-market credential farms such as Udacity, the speculated deal with upGrad is noteworthy from an academic integrity perspective.
For one, Udacity has some high-profile and name-brand “content co-creators” on its platform including Microsoft, Amazon, BMW, accenture, and nvidia. They tout “mentors” from places such as Google, facebook, Amazon and Adobe. All that is fine, I imagine.
Meanwhile, upGrad hawks schools they call “Our Top Universities,” including the University of Pennsylvania, Wharton (online), the University of Maryland, Deakin University, Michigan State University, and Duke University (corporate education).
And while I do wish reputable schools would police their names with more diligence, that’s not an issue of academic misconduct. At least not directly. The issue is that upGrad is deeply entwined with cheating.
For one, Chegg’s CEO Dan Rosenweig is a Board Member at upGrad (see Issue 194). Flags don’t come any more red than that.
Two, upGrad uses CopyLeaks, the company that sells plagiarism and AI detection to cheating companies Chegg and Course Hero, probably allowing customers to pre-check work for suspicious content before passing it off as their own (see Issue 208).
That is exactly what CopyLeaks does for upGrad. In Issue 208, I quoted from the CopyLeaks website:
UpGrad needed a plagiarism detection solution to integrate with their custom-made online learning platform. So they added Copyleaks to their environment, allowing students to receive a similarity report with every assignment they submitted. Now, they are alerted if the similarity percentage is too high and can update their assignment accordingly.
Yes — upGrad built a “plagiarism detection solution” into their learning platform, run by CopyLeaks, that gives students “a similarity report with every assignment.” So, in their words:
[students] are alerted if the similarity percentage is too high and can update their assignment accordingly.
Why students would “update their assignment” if they get a high plagiarism score seems obvious. But to CopyLeaks and upGrad, that’s apparently not a problem, it’s a feature. They seem happy about it.
It’s a question as to why schools such as Duke, and UPenn, and Michigan State would want to be associated with that kind of educational approach. If you can even call it educational.
But the bigger question is — if upGrad does buy Udacity, will names like Google, and Microsoft, and Amazon stick around if they know their content and credentials may be subject to the ‘fix it until it won’t get discovered as cheating’ treatment? Will they stay if they know the man in charge of Chegg is helping oversee the quality and integrity of their credentials?
Maybe they don’t care as long as people are buying their courses and “earning” certifications with their names up top. Always possible.
But if the deal does go through and upGrad snags Udacity, the thing I’ll be watching is the slow seep of cheating into more and more education and training. By design and by default. The deal hands Udacity and its well-known corporate nameplates to leaders at Chegg and CopyLeaks, giving them more students — read as: customers — and more degrees and credentials to sell.
Maybe I am the only one, but I see that as a problem.
Goldman Sachs Downgrades Chegg Stock to “Sell”
Meanwhile, the market value of cheating giant Chegg continues to tumble — this time on a downgrade warning from an analyst at Goldman Sachs.
According to coverage, the downgrade moved the stock to “sell” status and set a price target of just $8 a share. At one point during the pandemic, when nearly all of education was online and unsupervised, Chegg stock was trading at more than $113 a share. If it reaches $8, that’s a collapse of 93%. I hope you were short.
I am not sad at all and it’s still hard to believe that a company that gets more than 90% of its revenue from cheating services is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. But it is. For now.
Chegg will announce its earnings for Q4 of 2023 on Monday, February 5.