University of Virginia Law School Considers Reducing Cheating Penalties

Plus, University of Wisconsin-Madison renews remote proctoring contract. Plus, The American Consumer Institute asks for action on cheating.

Issue 65

University of Virginia Law School to Downgrade Cheating Penalty

According to reporting in its student paper, the University of Virginia Law School is set to revise its student-run Honor Code policies, removing the prospect of expulsion when found guilty of cheating. From the article, the proposal:

would reduce the sanction for students found guilty from expulsion to a two-semester leave of absence.

The proposed change would also expand the time in which an accused student may issue an “informed retraction,” accepting responsibility for the infraction and bypassing a hearing. The penalty is the same - a two semester leave - for issuing the “informed retraction” as it is for being found guilty.

The student author of the proposed changes told the paper,

We cannot simply excise from the community students who make mistakes, especially since students come to the university from a wide range of backgrounds. To foster integrity, and ultimately cultivate honest and compassionate citizens, the University must help students learn from their mistakes. Students deserve a second chance.

In Law School - a second chance on cheating. Sure. But with no expulsion option, won’t that mean unlimited chances?

The proposed changes will be put to a student vote in 2022.

Inside Higher Ed Still Shilling for Course Hero, Minimizing Cheating

Inside Higher Ed (IHE) has been on the promotional dole of cheating company Course Hero for some time now - legitimizing and sharing their illicit services (see Issue 53).

Their last effort was an e-mail sent October 7, this one featuring a supportive quote from Kristen Labazzo, an Assistant Professor at Rutgers University. And while Labazzo is not the only teacher to stand by and stand up for Course Hero (see Issue 44), these endorsements, shared by the likes of Inside Higher Ed, are corrosive.

What makes IHE’s partnership with cheating providers worse is their apparently consistent - and obviously unrelated - editorial policy to minimize and dismiss the frequency or severity of cheating (see Issue 49 or Issue 50).

On October 7, for example, the same day they sent that Course Hero promotion, IHE released an episode of The Key, one of their podcasts. A bit into the conversation, the topic of cheating comes up with the IHE editor and podcast host saying,

You talked about the increased understanding [between students and professors], and maybe that leading to better relationships and more respect. The one thing that might have mitigated against that was perception on the faculty side about there being increased cheating by students. I’m curious whether you think the sense the faculty members have that there was greater academic misconduct and dishonesty during the pandemic … will have lasting impacts, or will people sort of write that off as having been of the moment?

So it wasn’t that there was more cheating - there was, by the way - it’s the “perception on the faculty side” and the “sense” that cheating is up that could threaten the teacher/student bond. Because the danger is not the cheating, it’s that teachers think there’s cheating.

Credit to the interviewee, Natasha Jankowski, a consultant on student learning and a lecturer at New England College who corrected that idea, saying in part,

One, students even reported that they cheated more, and we saw cheating go up. That’s legit.

She is right. We did see cheating go up. It is legit.

Just maybe there’s a “perception on the faculty side about there being an increase in cheating” because there was an increase in cheating.

But then, unfortunately, both IHE and Jankowski default to largely discredited hyperbole about high stakes exams and remote exam security. About taking remote proctored exams, she says, for example,

And do it in front of a camera and don’t blink too much, don’t have a dog walk behind you, as though we can really find those places to do it, are we surprised the students responded in that way?

Obviously, there is no correlation between blinking too much and cheating. Saying such things only adds to student stress.

IHE and Jankowski also repeat the idea that changing assignments and making them “less high-stakes” as being “the answer to more cheating.” And how technology has changed what it means to cheat, and other nonsense.

Again, changing assessments is necessary and helpful but it is not “the answer” to cheating. Lowering the stakes of assessments may actually increase the likelihood of misconduct. And there are no new definitions of cheating. Should faculty be very clear about what’s expected and what’s prohibited? Yes. Will that solve cheating? No.

I do wish IHE and other outlets would speak to actual experts about cheating instead of getting things wrong so darn always. I also wish media outlets would stop promoting cheating companies. But now I am just talking crazy.

American Consumer Institute Asks for Action on Cheating

Last week, efforts to spur action on cheating added a new voice.

The American Consumer Institute, Center for Citizen Research - which describes its mission as to, “promote consumer welfare by improving the understanding and impact that public policies and regulations have on consumers in a free market” - wrote to the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ask for action to stop academic cheating. The letter refers to cheating as:

currently threatening the integrity and quality of U.S. education.

It continues:

we are calling on you to work with university administrations to investigate systemic cheating and institute policies and put a stop to online platforms that enable cheating on college campuses.

The letter mentions cheating company Chegg by name as well as EduBirdie and a company called Socratic where, the letter says:

a student can take a photo of their homework or test problem and get the answer and work needed to get there right away

Yup.

The Institute also set up an academic integrity webpage.

In an interview, Steve Pociask, the author of the letter, said,

This kind of cheating could be a drag on economic outcomes, harm our competitiveness on a global scale.

Again, yup. They get it.

University of Wisconsin-Madison to Renew Remote Proctor Contract

Local news reports that leaders at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have renewed a remote proctoring contract with Honorlock. That’s news because some students did not like the service.

The article repeats some of the tropes about proctoring but also notes the nearly doubling of cases of academic misconduct at the school in the past year (see Issue 42).

Like or dislike remote proctoring, it’s academic neglect to offer any courses or assessments online without it. The report says the renewed annual contract will run about $270,000.

In the next “The Cheat Sheet” - I will, I promise, get to the new research on cheating out of Australia. Plus, Jarret Dyer, former President of the National College Testing Association and academic integrity researcher, is interviewed on “The Score” podcast. Plus, students at Cornell University are struggling with a return to in-person tests.

To subscribe and share: