|
|
|
|
|
by jventura
469 days ago
|
|
> What's the difficulty with just having assessments be done in a controlled invigilated exam room? Not all assessments are exams, eg: projects, and students cheat even in exams with professors present, eg: the OOP exam I mentioned before, where we had 2 teachers for 40 students. Maybe you’re suggesting 1 professor watching 1 student on a 2,5h exam? For 40 students we would need 40 professors.. We don’t have that number of professors in out departament.. |
|
Does your local school bus in hundreds of professors on exam day to act as personal security guards? Probably not. When I went to school at least, they used extra cheap labour of whatever minimum skill level was required to catch cheating, in exam halls with procedures designed to prevent cheating.
Professors keep acting like this is some unsolvable research problem when it's not. What's "hard" is stopping cheating for the near-zero price universities seem to expect to pay, and the solution is to get real and change the underlying practices to prevent cheating, regardless of what it takes. If that means no more coursework, fine, scrap the coursework or require it to be done under supervision as well.
CS departments especially have a wealth of options available to them via automation. Record screens on systems without network access, require students to be patted down at the door to stop them bringing in hidden phones, and watch them carefully as they work both in real time and do spot checks on the screen recordings afterwards. Or for that matter, use AI to do it.
The alternative is to just see universities be bulk defunded in future as a failed experiment: see what the Trump admin is doing right now as a preview of what happens when the credibility of public sector education and research falls too low. If degrees are worthless because universities won't do what it takes to stop cheating then what's the argument for preserving student loans next time there's a debt crisis?