|
|
|
|
|
by gruez
2069 days ago
|
|
>That isn't to say these remote proctoring solutions will necessarily prevent cheating either (and having now used one of these services, I think cheating would have been relatively easy), but it at least should make test takers think twice. Sounds like security theater. >I think we can all agree that an in-person exam would have been better, but the state of the world made that untenable. Why not? Just rent out a large open space (stadium, convention center, school gym), and space the students 20ft apart. The risk should be negligible. Let's be honest here, the real reason is that [cost of exam surveillance software] < [cost of conducting a physically distanced exam] |
|
I think a bit of security theater is exactly what's called for in this scenario.
This isn't like hacking into a computer network, or bringing an explosive onto an airplane, where one dedicated bad actor can defeat the system for everyone. It's much closer to something like shoplifting, where your goal is to make instances of bad behavior as low as possible, given other constraints. A security camera does not need to be 100% effective to be worth installing—and doesn't even necessarily need to be turned on.
A remotely-administered multiple-choice test is like a retail store without any staff, which asks customers to kindly leave money in a basket. You're much better off with even a single cashier, and even one who spends most of their day watching Netflix.