04-29-2023, 09:41 PM
Outside Topic Stanford exams will now be proctored
04-29-2023, 11:54 PM
The data speaks for itself. 6x the per capita Honor Code violation charges of Princeton. Fewer than 0.3% of Honor Code violations reported by students.
And the problem is not limited to students. Whether or not MTL is guilty, there certainly is dishonesty in scientific research beyond the undergrad level.
I don’t know that the Honor Code really helps at all. My internal compass told me not to cheat. I didn’t refrain from cheating because of the Honor Code. If anything, I thought it was hokey. If the students want to keep it, and maintain such a large measure of self-governance, then take more responsibility for self-policing.
And the problem is not limited to students. Whether or not MTL is guilty, there certainly is dishonesty in scientific research beyond the undergrad level.
I don’t know that the Honor Code really helps at all. My internal compass told me not to cheat. I didn’t refrain from cheating because of the Honor Code. If anything, I thought it was hokey. If the students want to keep it, and maintain such a large measure of self-governance, then take more responsibility for self-policing.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
The data speaks for itself. 6x the per capita Honor Code violation charges of Princeton. Fewer than 0.3% of Honor Code violations reported by students.
And the problem is not limited to students. Whether or not MTL is guilty, there certainly is dishonesty in scientific research beyond the undergrad level.
I don’t know that the Honor Code really helps at all. My internal compass told me not to cheat. I didn’t refrain from cheating because of the Honor Code. If anything, I thought it was hokey. If the students want to keep it, and maintain such a large measure of self-governance, then take more responsibility for self-policing.
And the problem is not limited to students. Whether or not MTL is guilty, there certainly is dishonesty in scientific research beyond the undergrad level.
I don’t know that the Honor Code really helps at all. My internal compass told me not to cheat. I didn’t refrain from cheating because of the Honor Code. If anything, I thought it was hokey. If the students want to keep it, and maintain such a large measure of self-governance, then take more responsibility for self-policing.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
04-30-2023, 04:46 AM
Kind of tells you all you need to know about a university when there is any discussion at all about how to avoid cheating.
It's not high school, where you are forced to be there. You choose to attend college. You choose to educate yourself. If people want to cheat, they are cheating nobody but themselves. Because if people are able to advance their lives even after cheating on tests in college, how necessary is it to get good grades in college anyway?
I mean if you can perform tasks well and create value for people, who cares what your college GPA was? If you want to pursue post-graduate education, these questions become even more pointed. Who the hell cheats in graduate school? If yer concerned about research, the whole system is setup to allow other people to agree with or disagree with your results and conclusions. Incorrect conclusions or "cheating" will be exposed, as MTL knows.
Sure, there may be incentives created around certain academic accomplishments that can be faked, but our entire society deals with lying, cheating and stealing all the time. It's not somehow reserved to college campuses. And we have a justice system that punishes people who lie, cheat, and steal to the point they become problems for society.
This fits right in with Stanford's culture of "we better not put too much priority on the conspicuous sports because it will make us look like we aren't superior to everyone else intellectually." It's ALMOST like Stanford being superior to everyone else is a long con.
It's not high school, where you are forced to be there. You choose to attend college. You choose to educate yourself. If people want to cheat, they are cheating nobody but themselves. Because if people are able to advance their lives even after cheating on tests in college, how necessary is it to get good grades in college anyway?
I mean if you can perform tasks well and create value for people, who cares what your college GPA was? If you want to pursue post-graduate education, these questions become even more pointed. Who the hell cheats in graduate school? If yer concerned about research, the whole system is setup to allow other people to agree with or disagree with your results and conclusions. Incorrect conclusions or "cheating" will be exposed, as MTL knows.
Sure, there may be incentives created around certain academic accomplishments that can be faked, but our entire society deals with lying, cheating and stealing all the time. It's not somehow reserved to college campuses. And we have a justice system that punishes people who lie, cheat, and steal to the point they become problems for society.
This fits right in with Stanford's culture of "we better not put too much priority on the conspicuous sports because it will make us look like we aren't superior to everyone else intellectually." It's ALMOST like Stanford being superior to everyone else is a long con.
Kind of tells you all you need to know about a university when there is any discussion at all about how to avoid cheating.
It's not high school, where you are forced to be there. You choose to attend college. You choose to educate yourself. If people want to cheat, they are cheating nobody but themselves. Because if people are able to advance their lives even after cheating on tests in college, how necessary is it to get good grades in college anyway?
I mean if you can perform tasks well and create value for people, who cares what your college GPA was? If you want to pursue post-graduate education, these questions become even more pointed. Who the hell cheats in graduate school? If yer concerned about research, the whole system is setup to allow other people to agree with or disagree with your results and conclusions. Incorrect conclusions or "cheating" will be exposed, as MTL knows.
Sure, there may be incentives created around certain academic accomplishments that can be faked, but our entire society deals with lying, cheating and stealing all the time. It's not somehow reserved to college campuses. And we have a justice system that punishes people who lie, cheat, and steal to the point they become problems for society.
This fits right in with Stanford's culture of "we better not put too much priority on the conspicuous sports because it will make us look like we aren't superior to everyone else intellectually." It's ALMOST like Stanford being superior to everyone else is a long con.
It's not high school, where you are forced to be there. You choose to attend college. You choose to educate yourself. If people want to cheat, they are cheating nobody but themselves. Because if people are able to advance their lives even after cheating on tests in college, how necessary is it to get good grades in college anyway?
I mean if you can perform tasks well and create value for people, who cares what your college GPA was? If you want to pursue post-graduate education, these questions become even more pointed. Who the hell cheats in graduate school? If yer concerned about research, the whole system is setup to allow other people to agree with or disagree with your results and conclusions. Incorrect conclusions or "cheating" will be exposed, as MTL knows.
Sure, there may be incentives created around certain academic accomplishments that can be faked, but our entire society deals with lying, cheating and stealing all the time. It's not somehow reserved to college campuses. And we have a justice system that punishes people who lie, cheat, and steal to the point they become problems for society.
This fits right in with Stanford's culture of "we better not put too much priority on the conspicuous sports because it will make us look like we aren't superior to everyone else intellectually." It's ALMOST like Stanford being superior to everyone else is a long con.
04-30-2023, 09:00 AM
(04-30-2023, 04:46 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Kind of tells you all you need to know about a university when there is any discussion at all about how to avoid cheating.
It's not high school, where you are forced to be there. You choose to attend college. You choose to educate yourself. If people want to cheat, they are cheating nobody but themselves. Because if people are able to advance their lives even after cheating on tests in college, how necessary is it to get good grades in college anyway?
I mean if you can perform tasks well and create value for people, who cares what your college GPA was? If you want to pursue post-graduate education, these questions become even more pointed. Who the hell cheats in graduate school? If yer concerned about research, the whole system is setup to allow other people to agree with or disagree with your results and conclusions. Incorrect conclusions or "cheating" will be exposed, as MTL knows.
Sure, there may be incentives created around certain academic accomplishments that can be faked, but our entire society deals with lying, cheating and stealing all the time. It's not somehow reserved to college campuses. And we have a justice system that punishes people who lie, cheat, and steal to the point they become problems for society.
This fits right in with Stanford's culture of "we better not put too much priority on the conspicuous sports because it will make us look like we aren't superior to everyone else intellectually." It's ALMOST like Stanford being superior to everyone else is a long con.
It feels to me as if they are taking everything that was special about Stanford and throwing it away. The no proctoring thing was all about trust and respect between the students and the faculty. If they try to catch you cheating then anything you can get away with is fair game. If they just trust you and leave it to your honor then it is really up to you to do the right thing.
Just strikes me as yet another step backward.
(04-30-2023, 04:46 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Kind of tells you all you need to know about a university when there is any discussion at all about how to avoid cheating.
It's not high school, where you are forced to be there. You choose to attend college. You choose to educate yourself. If people want to cheat, they are cheating nobody but themselves. Because if people are able to advance their lives even after cheating on tests in college, how necessary is it to get good grades in college anyway?
I mean if you can perform tasks well and create value for people, who cares what your college GPA was? If you want to pursue post-graduate education, these questions become even more pointed. Who the hell cheats in graduate school? If yer concerned about research, the whole system is setup to allow other people to agree with or disagree with your results and conclusions. Incorrect conclusions or "cheating" will be exposed, as MTL knows.
Sure, there may be incentives created around certain academic accomplishments that can be faked, but our entire society deals with lying, cheating and stealing all the time. It's not somehow reserved to college campuses. And we have a justice system that punishes people who lie, cheat, and steal to the point they become problems for society.
This fits right in with Stanford's culture of "we better not put too much priority on the conspicuous sports because it will make us look like we aren't superior to everyone else intellectually." It's ALMOST like Stanford being superior to everyone else is a long con.
It feels to me as if they are taking everything that was special about Stanford and throwing it away. The no proctoring thing was all about trust and respect between the students and the faculty. If they try to catch you cheating then anything you can get away with is fair game. If they just trust you and leave it to your honor then it is really up to you to do the right thing.
Just strikes me as yet another step backward.
04-30-2023, 09:01 AM
(04-30-2023, 04:46 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Who the hell cheats in graduate school?Answer, based on my experience at Stanford, is many more people than cheated as undergraduates. There are some "major" things that are more difficult to "cheat" on, like your thesis project, although if there are some "inconvenient" results along the way, nobody need know about them :-). However, as far as classwork goes, a lot of graduate students really just want to get the grade and will do whatever is easiest to accomplish that. After all, these are the last classes they probably will ever take (or so they believe) and some of them are in areas in which they have absolutely no interest.
In the masters programs there are many people who already have jobs and families. All they are trying to do is get the "credential", and are not at all worried about learning anything. They are truly "one and done". I cannot count the number of "identical" problem sets I graded when I was a TA, with exactly the same mistakes in each one. Week upon week. This was in a class where you were supposed to do your own work. I pointed this out, but nothing at all happened, not even a "talking to".
(04-30-2023, 04:46 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Who the hell cheats in graduate school?Answer, based on my experience at Stanford, is many more people than cheated as undergraduates. There are some "major" things that are more difficult to "cheat" on, like your thesis project, although if there are some "inconvenient" results along the way, nobody need know about them :-). However, as far as classwork goes, a lot of graduate students really just want to get the grade and will do whatever is easiest to accomplish that. After all, these are the last classes they probably will ever take (or so they believe) and some of them are in areas in which they have absolutely no interest.
In the masters programs there are many people who already have jobs and families. All they are trying to do is get the "credential", and are not at all worried about learning anything. They are truly "one and done". I cannot count the number of "identical" problem sets I graded when I was a TA, with exactly the same mistakes in each one. Week upon week. This was in a class where you were supposed to do your own work. I pointed this out, but nothing at all happened, not even a "talking to".
Softball Fan
Unregistered
Unregistered
04-30-2023, 10:11 AM
Quote: "They are truly "one and done". I cannot count the number of "identical" problem sets I graded when I was a TA, with exactly the same mistakes in each one. Week upon week. This was in a class where you were supposed to do your own work. I pointed this out, but nothing at all happened, not even a "talking to"."
My son was a TA for some basic computer programming classes back in the 2010 time frame. His experience was entirely different. The professor and the TAs stressed it was important for students to hand in original work on the problem sets.
Many of the students in these classes were freshmen who planned majors in other areas but thought some coding experience might be helpful All too often they would procrastinate, not be able to get their code to work, and then panic. They resorted to talking another student into letting them copy or try to find the problem with solution on the internet.
The CS department had software to detect copied code lines and many freshmen got caught. My son felt they weren't really cheaters on a wholesale level but panicked at the last minute. Usually the student was given a zero on the homework the first time. The second time was reported as an honor code violation. At that time the single biggest category of honor violations was a student caught cheating on a CS homework assignment.
My son was a TA for some basic computer programming classes back in the 2010 time frame. His experience was entirely different. The professor and the TAs stressed it was important for students to hand in original work on the problem sets.
Many of the students in these classes were freshmen who planned majors in other areas but thought some coding experience might be helpful All too often they would procrastinate, not be able to get their code to work, and then panic. They resorted to talking another student into letting them copy or try to find the problem with solution on the internet.
The CS department had software to detect copied code lines and many freshmen got caught. My son felt they weren't really cheaters on a wholesale level but panicked at the last minute. Usually the student was given a zero on the homework the first time. The second time was reported as an honor code violation. At that time the single biggest category of honor violations was a student caught cheating on a CS homework assignment.
Quote: "They are truly "one and done". I cannot count the number of "identical" problem sets I graded when I was a TA, with exactly the same mistakes in each one. Week upon week. This was in a class where you were supposed to do your own work. I pointed this out, but nothing at all happened, not even a "talking to"."
My son was a TA for some basic computer programming classes back in the 2010 time frame. His experience was entirely different. The professor and the TAs stressed it was important for students to hand in original work on the problem sets.
Many of the students in these classes were freshmen who planned majors in other areas but thought some coding experience might be helpful All too often they would procrastinate, not be able to get their code to work, and then panic. They resorted to talking another student into letting them copy or try to find the problem with solution on the internet.
The CS department had software to detect copied code lines and many freshmen got caught. My son felt they weren't really cheaters on a wholesale level but panicked at the last minute. Usually the student was given a zero on the homework the first time. The second time was reported as an honor code violation. At that time the single biggest category of honor violations was a student caught cheating on a CS homework assignment.
My son was a TA for some basic computer programming classes back in the 2010 time frame. His experience was entirely different. The professor and the TAs stressed it was important for students to hand in original work on the problem sets.
Many of the students in these classes were freshmen who planned majors in other areas but thought some coding experience might be helpful All too often they would procrastinate, not be able to get their code to work, and then panic. They resorted to talking another student into letting them copy or try to find the problem with solution on the internet.
The CS department had software to detect copied code lines and many freshmen got caught. My son felt they weren't really cheaters on a wholesale level but panicked at the last minute. Usually the student was given a zero on the homework the first time. The second time was reported as an honor code violation. At that time the single biggest category of honor violations was a student caught cheating on a CS homework assignment.
(04-30-2023, 10:11 AM)Softball Fan Wrote: Quote: "They are truly "one and done". I cannot count the number of "identical" problem sets I graded when I was a TA, with exactly the same mistakes in each one. Week upon week. This was in a class where you were supposed to do your own work. I pointed this out, but nothing at all happened, not even a "talking to"."I suspect the CS faculty did this in response to the fact cheating was well known, endemic and widespread among the freshmen, over whom they still had some "moral authority". The instructors were probably also "junior" faculty who still held some idealism about academic integrity :-). The more "senior" faculty I was dealing with in the EE department had other fish to fry and dealing with cheating on the homework wasn't on their radar. I think they figured that by the time these people were graduate students, they were what they were. The non-PhD candidates would be gone at the end of the year anyway. Still, I really didn't think it was a "good" policy.
My son was a TA for some basic computer programming classes back in the 2010 time frame. His experience was entirely different. The professor and the TAs stressed it was important for students to hand in original work on the problem sets.
Many of the students in these classes were freshmen who planned majors in other areas but thought some coding experience might be helpful All too often they would procrastinate, not be able to get their code to work, and then panic. They resorted to talking another student into letting them copy or try to find the problem with solution on the internet.
The CS department had software to detect copied code lines and many freshmen got caught. My son felt they weren't really cheaters on a wholesale level but panicked at the last minute. Usually the student was given a zero on the homework the first time. The second time was reported as an honor code violation. At that time the single biggest category of honor violations was a student caught cheating on a CS homework assignment.
As far as panic setting in, I had an experience my junior year that kept me worrying a bit for quite a while. We had a take-home final in EE 111. I had finished mine when a classmate showed up at my door. He was clearly in a panic and asked for help on the final. There was one problem he had no idea how to solve. I was really taken aback. Obviously, I wasn't going to help him, but he had now put me in a position where I theoretically should turn him in, and if I don't, I am at risk. I knew exactly the problem he couldn't do, and it actually was a "simple" one. He was overthinking it and panicked. I told him to calm down, go back to his room and finish the test. I did tell him don't overthink the problems. I never heard anything about this ever again (thank goodness). He never mentioned it and I never mentioned it, but I was a bit exercised about the position he put me in.
(04-30-2023, 10:11 AM)Softball Fan Wrote: Quote: "They are truly "one and done". I cannot count the number of "identical" problem sets I graded when I was a TA, with exactly the same mistakes in each one. Week upon week. This was in a class where you were supposed to do your own work. I pointed this out, but nothing at all happened, not even a "talking to"."I suspect the CS faculty did this in response to the fact cheating was well known, endemic and widespread among the freshmen, over whom they still had some "moral authority". The instructors were probably also "junior" faculty who still held some idealism about academic integrity :-). The more "senior" faculty I was dealing with in the EE department had other fish to fry and dealing with cheating on the homework wasn't on their radar. I think they figured that by the time these people were graduate students, they were what they were. The non-PhD candidates would be gone at the end of the year anyway. Still, I really didn't think it was a "good" policy.
My son was a TA for some basic computer programming classes back in the 2010 time frame. His experience was entirely different. The professor and the TAs stressed it was important for students to hand in original work on the problem sets.
Many of the students in these classes were freshmen who planned majors in other areas but thought some coding experience might be helpful All too often they would procrastinate, not be able to get their code to work, and then panic. They resorted to talking another student into letting them copy or try to find the problem with solution on the internet.
The CS department had software to detect copied code lines and many freshmen got caught. My son felt they weren't really cheaters on a wholesale level but panicked at the last minute. Usually the student was given a zero on the homework the first time. The second time was reported as an honor code violation. At that time the single biggest category of honor violations was a student caught cheating on a CS homework assignment.
As far as panic setting in, I had an experience my junior year that kept me worrying a bit for quite a while. We had a take-home final in EE 111. I had finished mine when a classmate showed up at my door. He was clearly in a panic and asked for help on the final. There was one problem he had no idea how to solve. I was really taken aback. Obviously, I wasn't going to help him, but he had now put me in a position where I theoretically should turn him in, and if I don't, I am at risk. I knew exactly the problem he couldn't do, and it actually was a "simple" one. He was overthinking it and panicked. I told him to calm down, go back to his room and finish the test. I did tell him don't overthink the problems. I never heard anything about this ever again (thank goodness). He never mentioned it and I never mentioned it, but I was a bit exercised about the position he put me in.
04-30-2023, 04:34 PM
(04-30-2023, 10:11 AM)Softball Fan Wrote: My son was a TA for some basic computer programming classes back in the 2010 time frame. His experience was entirely different. The professor and the TAs stressed it was important for students to hand in original work on the problem sets.
Many of the students in these classes were freshmen who planned majors in other areas but thought some coding experience might be helpful All too often they would procrastinate, not be able to get their code to work, and then panic. They resorted to talking another student into letting them copy or try to find the problem with solution on the internet.
The CS department had software to detect copied code lines and many freshmen got caught. My son felt they weren't really cheaters on a wholesale level but panicked at the last minute. Usually the student was given a zero on the homework the first time. The second time was reported as an honor code violation. At that time the single biggest category of honor violations was a student caught cheating on a CS homework assignment.
Yep, as an undergrad who was way over my head with CS106X, I blatantly copied my roommate's code (that he gave me) in one section that boggled my mind. It didn't really strike me as an honor code violation at the time, but rather, shoddy work so that I could turn it in. But yeah, that was an honor code violation, and I was lucky to get out of that class with a mercy B.
(04-30-2023, 10:11 AM)Softball Fan Wrote: My son was a TA for some basic computer programming classes back in the 2010 time frame. His experience was entirely different. The professor and the TAs stressed it was important for students to hand in original work on the problem sets.
Many of the students in these classes were freshmen who planned majors in other areas but thought some coding experience might be helpful All too often they would procrastinate, not be able to get their code to work, and then panic. They resorted to talking another student into letting them copy or try to find the problem with solution on the internet.
The CS department had software to detect copied code lines and many freshmen got caught. My son felt they weren't really cheaters on a wholesale level but panicked at the last minute. Usually the student was given a zero on the homework the first time. The second time was reported as an honor code violation. At that time the single biggest category of honor violations was a student caught cheating on a CS homework assignment.
Yep, as an undergrad who was way over my head with CS106X, I blatantly copied my roommate's code (that he gave me) in one section that boggled my mind. It didn't really strike me as an honor code violation at the time, but rather, shoddy work so that I could turn it in. But yeah, that was an honor code violation, and I was lucky to get out of that class with a mercy B.
04-30-2023, 07:05 PM
I would have never cheated on an exam, but didn’t really think twice about cheating on problem sets. If ppl were cheating on exams, that would have been very surprising to me at the time (late90s-early00s).
04-30-2023, 10:22 PM
I'm glad there is a change to this policy. Relying on students to turn in others is a big ask. One of my biggest regrets as an undergrad was not reporting two acquaintances cheating on a midterm exam. They would sit one seat apart from each other as required, one would place their written exam book on the seat table in the middle, and the other one would take it and look at it. They would pass info back and forth this way. I was a couple rows behind them and saw this. Still irks me to this day.
I'm glad there is a change to this policy. Relying on students to turn in others is a big ask. One of my biggest regrets as an undergrad was not reporting two acquaintances cheating on a midterm exam. They would sit one seat apart from each other as required, one would place their written exam book on the seat table in the middle, and the other one would take it and look at it. They would pass info back and forth this way. I was a couple rows behind them and saw this. Still irks me to this day.
04-30-2023, 11:08 PM
(04-30-2023, 10:22 PM)Jamesy Wrote: I'm glad there is a change to this policy. Relying on students to turn in others is a big ask. One of my biggest regrets as an undergrad was not reporting two acquaintances cheating on a midterm exam. They would sit one seat apart from each other as required, one would place their written exam book on the seat table in the middle, and the other one would take it and look at it. They would pass info back and forth this way. I was a couple rows behind them and saw this. Still irks me to this day.
For me at least, the Honor Code was never about students ratting each other out. It was about "we trust you not to cheat. Be honorable and don't." I guess that's gone out the door along with a lot of other things that made Stanford a once-great university.
Make me even more sad about the state of my alma mater, but also convinces me that I made the right decisions about no longer financially supporting it.
(04-30-2023, 10:22 PM)Jamesy Wrote: I'm glad there is a change to this policy. Relying on students to turn in others is a big ask. One of my biggest regrets as an undergrad was not reporting two acquaintances cheating on a midterm exam. They would sit one seat apart from each other as required, one would place their written exam book on the seat table in the middle, and the other one would take it and look at it. They would pass info back and forth this way. I was a couple rows behind them and saw this. Still irks me to this day.
For me at least, the Honor Code was never about students ratting each other out. It was about "we trust you not to cheat. Be honorable and don't." I guess that's gone out the door along with a lot of other things that made Stanford a once-great university.
Make me even more sad about the state of my alma mater, but also convinces me that I made the right decisions about no longer financially supporting it.
05-01-2023, 07:57 AM
(04-30-2023, 11:08 PM)winflop Wrote:(04-30-2023, 10:22 PM)Jamesy Wrote: I'm glad there is a change to this policy. Relying on students to turn in others is a big ask. One of my biggest regrets as an undergrad was not reporting two acquaintances cheating on a midterm exam. They would sit one seat apart from each other as required, one would place their written exam book on the seat table in the middle, and the other one would take it and look at it. They would pass info back and forth this way. I was a couple rows behind them and saw this. Still irks me to this day.
For me at least, the Honor Code was never about students ratting each other out. It was about "we trust you not to cheat. Be honorable and don't." I guess that's gone out the door along with a lot of other things that made Stanford a once-great university.
Make me even more sad about the state of my alma mater, but also convinces me that I made the right decisions about no longer financially supporting it.
If you find any evidence that todays students cheat more than in your time, let me know.
(04-30-2023, 11:08 PM)winflop Wrote:(04-30-2023, 10:22 PM)Jamesy Wrote: I'm glad there is a change to this policy. Relying on students to turn in others is a big ask. One of my biggest regrets as an undergrad was not reporting two acquaintances cheating on a midterm exam. They would sit one seat apart from each other as required, one would place their written exam book on the seat table in the middle, and the other one would take it and look at it. They would pass info back and forth this way. I was a couple rows behind them and saw this. Still irks me to this day.
For me at least, the Honor Code was never about students ratting each other out. It was about "we trust you not to cheat. Be honorable and don't." I guess that's gone out the door along with a lot of other things that made Stanford a once-great university.
Make me even more sad about the state of my alma mater, but also convinces me that I made the right decisions about no longer financially supporting it.
If you find any evidence that todays students cheat more than in your time, let me know.
05-01-2023, 08:24 AM
(05-01-2023, 07:57 AM)lex24 Wrote:I can't provide any "evidence" that students cheat more, but I can say that what Winflop describes wouldn't have happened when I was at Stanford. Many people in any given class WOULD have turned them in. That would have been blatant disregard of social norms and would not have been tolerated. I am not claiming we were "better" morally as a group, but there were things you just didn't do. If you were going to cheat, you couldn't flaunt it like that. There had to be at least plausible deniability. Social restraint existed. It still does, but the norms are different.(04-30-2023, 11:08 PM)winflop Wrote:(04-30-2023, 10:22 PM)Jamesy Wrote: I'm glad there is a change to this policy. Relying on students to turn in others is a big ask. One of my biggest regrets as an undergrad was not reporting two acquaintances cheating on a midterm exam. They would sit one seat apart from each other as required, one would place their written exam book on the seat table in the middle, and the other one would take it and look at it. They would pass info back and forth this way. I was a couple rows behind them and saw this. Still irks me to this day.
For me at least, the Honor Code was never about students ratting each other out. It was about "we trust you not to cheat. Be honorable and don't." I guess that's gone out the door along with a lot of other things that made Stanford a once-great university.
Make me even more sad about the state of my alma mater, but also convinces me that I made the right decisions about no longer financially supporting it.
If you find any evidence that todays students cheat more than in your time, let me know.
(05-01-2023, 07:57 AM)lex24 Wrote:I can't provide any "evidence" that students cheat more, but I can say that what Winflop describes wouldn't have happened when I was at Stanford. Many people in any given class WOULD have turned them in. That would have been blatant disregard of social norms and would not have been tolerated. I am not claiming we were "better" morally as a group, but there were things you just didn't do. If you were going to cheat, you couldn't flaunt it like that. There had to be at least plausible deniability. Social restraint existed. It still does, but the norms are different.(04-30-2023, 11:08 PM)winflop Wrote:(04-30-2023, 10:22 PM)Jamesy Wrote: I'm glad there is a change to this policy. Relying on students to turn in others is a big ask. One of my biggest regrets as an undergrad was not reporting two acquaintances cheating on a midterm exam. They would sit one seat apart from each other as required, one would place their written exam book on the seat table in the middle, and the other one would take it and look at it. They would pass info back and forth this way. I was a couple rows behind them and saw this. Still irks me to this day.
For me at least, the Honor Code was never about students ratting each other out. It was about "we trust you not to cheat. Be honorable and don't." I guess that's gone out the door along with a lot of other things that made Stanford a once-great university.
Make me even more sad about the state of my alma mater, but also convinces me that I made the right decisions about no longer financially supporting it.
If you find any evidence that todays students cheat more than in your time, let me know.
05-01-2023, 08:51 AM
(05-01-2023, 07:57 AM)lex24 Wrote:'(04-30-2023, 11:08 PM)winflop Wrote:(04-30-2023, 10:22 PM)Jamesy Wrote: I'm glad there is a change to this policy. Relying on students to turn in others is a big ask. One of my biggest regrets as an undergrad was not reporting two acquaintances cheating on a midterm exam. They would sit one seat apart from each other as required, one would place their written exam book on the seat table in the middle, and the other one would take it and look at it. They would pass info back and forth this way. I was a couple rows behind them and saw this. Still irks me to this day.
For me at least, the Honor Code was never about students ratting each other out. It was about "we trust you not to cheat. Be honorable and don't." I guess that's gone out the door along with a lot of other things that made Stanford a once-great university.
Make me even more sad about the state of my alma mater, but also convinces me that I made the right decisions about no longer financially supporting it.
If you find any evidence that todays students cheat more than in your time, let me know.
That's not the issue for me lex. If there's no more cheating now than in the past, then why is there a need to proctor exams now and more than in the past?
(05-01-2023, 07:57 AM)lex24 Wrote:'(04-30-2023, 11:08 PM)winflop Wrote:(04-30-2023, 10:22 PM)Jamesy Wrote: I'm glad there is a change to this policy. Relying on students to turn in others is a big ask. One of my biggest regrets as an undergrad was not reporting two acquaintances cheating on a midterm exam. They would sit one seat apart from each other as required, one would place their written exam book on the seat table in the middle, and the other one would take it and look at it. They would pass info back and forth this way. I was a couple rows behind them and saw this. Still irks me to this day.
For me at least, the Honor Code was never about students ratting each other out. It was about "we trust you not to cheat. Be honorable and don't." I guess that's gone out the door along with a lot of other things that made Stanford a once-great university.
Make me even more sad about the state of my alma mater, but also convinces me that I made the right decisions about no longer financially supporting it.
If you find any evidence that todays students cheat more than in your time, let me know.
That's not the issue for me lex. If there's no more cheating now than in the past, then why is there a need to proctor exams now and more than in the past?
05-04-2023, 08:40 AM
just an anecdote that neither supports nor opposes this change in policy
I was in a midterm which was closed-book but IIRC we could bring in a page of notes or something. As we finished, I noticed a guy a few rows in front of me clearly using his book. I did not know his name nor do I now. I did report this to a TA. AFter the following class the TA and professor pulled me aside and let me know that they investigated, and believed it to be an honest mistake--which I totally believe to this day.
I was in a midterm which was closed-book but IIRC we could bring in a page of notes or something. As we finished, I noticed a guy a few rows in front of me clearly using his book. I did not know his name nor do I now. I did report this to a TA. AFter the following class the TA and professor pulled me aside and let me know that they investigated, and believed it to be an honest mistake--which I totally believe to this day.
DIE LUFT DER FREIHEIT WEHT
just an anecdote that neither supports nor opposes this change in policy
I was in a midterm which was closed-book but IIRC we could bring in a page of notes or something. As we finished, I noticed a guy a few rows in front of me clearly using his book. I did not know his name nor do I now. I did report this to a TA. AFter the following class the TA and professor pulled me aside and let me know that they investigated, and believed it to be an honest mistake--which I totally believe to this day.
I was in a midterm which was closed-book but IIRC we could bring in a page of notes or something. As we finished, I noticed a guy a few rows in front of me clearly using his book. I did not know his name nor do I now. I did report this to a TA. AFter the following class the TA and professor pulled me aside and let me know that they investigated, and believed it to be an honest mistake--which I totally believe to this day.
DIE LUFT DER FREIHEIT WEHT
05-04-2023, 10:52 AM
(05-01-2023, 08:51 AM)winflop Wrote:(05-01-2023, 07:57 AM)lex24 Wrote:'(04-30-2023, 11:08 PM)winflop Wrote:(04-30-2023, 10:22 PM)Jamesy Wrote: I'm glad there is a change to this policy. Relying on students to turn in others is a big ask. One of my biggest regrets as an undergrad was not reporting two acquaintances cheating on a midterm exam. They would sit one seat apart from each other as required, one would place their written exam book on the seat table in the middle, and the other one would take it and look at it. They would pass info back and forth this way. I was a couple rows behind them and saw this. Still irks me to this day.
For me at least, the Honor Code was never about students ratting each other out. It was about "we trust you not to cheat. Be honorable and don't." I guess that's gone out the door along with a lot of other things that made Stanford a once-great university.
Make me even more sad about the state of my alma mater, but also convinces me that I made the right decisions about no longer financially supporting it.
If you find any evidence that todays students cheat more than in your time, let me know.
That's not the issue for me lex. If there's no more cheating now than in the past, then why is there a need to proctor exams now and more than in the past?
Students may or may not be more inclined to cheat today compared with prior generations. But we do know that the Stanford administration has changed. The current one, more so than when you and I were undergrads, is rather heavy handed in restricting activities, taking over student run organizations and adding administrative bureaucracy which all demonstrates that they don't trust the students that they admitted. Allowing professors to proctor exams in defiance of the Honor Code is another illustration of that.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(05-01-2023, 08:51 AM)winflop Wrote:(05-01-2023, 07:57 AM)lex24 Wrote:'(04-30-2023, 11:08 PM)winflop Wrote:(04-30-2023, 10:22 PM)Jamesy Wrote: I'm glad there is a change to this policy. Relying on students to turn in others is a big ask. One of my biggest regrets as an undergrad was not reporting two acquaintances cheating on a midterm exam. They would sit one seat apart from each other as required, one would place their written exam book on the seat table in the middle, and the other one would take it and look at it. They would pass info back and forth this way. I was a couple rows behind them and saw this. Still irks me to this day.
For me at least, the Honor Code was never about students ratting each other out. It was about "we trust you not to cheat. Be honorable and don't." I guess that's gone out the door along with a lot of other things that made Stanford a once-great university.
Make me even more sad about the state of my alma mater, but also convinces me that I made the right decisions about no longer financially supporting it.
If you find any evidence that todays students cheat more than in your time, let me know.
That's not the issue for me lex. If there's no more cheating now than in the past, then why is there a need to proctor exams now and more than in the past?
Students may or may not be more inclined to cheat today compared with prior generations. But we do know that the Stanford administration has changed. The current one, more so than when you and I were undergrads, is rather heavy handed in restricting activities, taking over student run organizations and adding administrative bureaucracy which all demonstrates that they don't trust the students that they admitted. Allowing professors to proctor exams in defiance of the Honor Code is another illustration of that.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
05-04-2023, 01:11 PM
(05-04-2023, 10:52 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Students may or may not be more inclined to cheat today compared with prior generations. But we do know that the Stanford administration has changed. The current one, more so than when you and I were undergrads, is rather heavy handed in restricting activities, taking over student run organizations and adding administrative bureaucracy which all demonstrates that they don't trust the students that they admitted. Allowing professors to proctor exams in defiance of the Honor Code is another illustration of that.Totally agree.
(05-04-2023, 10:52 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Students may or may not be more inclined to cheat today compared with prior generations. But we do know that the Stanford administration has changed. The current one, more so than when you and I were undergrads, is rather heavy handed in restricting activities, taking over student run organizations and adding administrative bureaucracy which all demonstrates that they don't trust the students that they admitted. Allowing professors to proctor exams in defiance of the Honor Code is another illustration of that.Totally agree.
05-05-2023, 07:49 AM
The premise that exam proctoring was not needed in the past is the problem. Those in favoring of proctoring don’t need to prove that there’s more cheating today than there was back in the day. The only burden is to prove that it’s justified today. It was probably justified back in the day as well.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
The premise that exam proctoring was not needed in the past is the problem. Those in favoring of proctoring don’t need to prove that there’s more cheating today than there was back in the day. The only burden is to prove that it’s justified today. It was probably justified back in the day as well.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
05-05-2023, 09:26 AM
(05-05-2023, 07:49 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: The premise that exam proctoring was not needed in the past is the problem. Those in favoring of proctoring don’t need to prove that there’s more cheating today than there was back in the day. The only burden is to prove that it’s justified today. It was probably justified back in the day as well.This strikes me as correct. When I was a freshman at Stanford in the 80s I was surprised that there were no teachers in the room for exams. During Christmas break, I asked a family friend who taught econ at College of San Mateo if that was the way it worked in all colleges. He laughed and said that he teaches in the real world and was in the room during exams.
I do remember the honor code and lack of proctors in the room having a surprisingly large impact on me. Nobody in my family had ever gone to college so I didn't have any other experience to fall back on. In my small high school college track classes we had a rule that we would sometimes help each other out on a question or two on a test but probably would have done more if there were no teachers in the room! The Honor Code sent a message to me that I was now in a very special place where "we" not only would not cheat but we did not need to cheat on exams. Stanford was unique and we were all supposed to be part of it. I think students still cheated like in other places but we weren't supposed to. (I was in Zimbardo's 500+ student Psych 1 class that had a cheating scandal around 1983, (I wasn't part of it) so I'm sure some didn't take the Honor Code as seriously as I.) I'm sure we were never quite as special as we were led to believe.
Still, I absolutely agree that Stanford has made a terrible mistake in recent decades by removing almost all student self-governance and therefore, also student self-responsibility. I try to resist blaming "bureaucracy" for ruining everything because I don't find it helpful in finding actual solutions to problems. However, Stanford seems to be trying to reach the goal of fairness by enacting and enforcing uniformity. Uniformity is the laziest path toward fairness. It also feels like the fear of litigation is the primary driver of many of the uniformity policies. The ultimate goal then, seems to be avoiding liability rather than fairness and providing opportunities for student growth.
I don't have the answer and I don't think that removing proctors again would fix it. I just wish the Stanford administration was more focused on the actual student experience and less on policies to enforce the expected student experience. They should start by talking to and actually listening to the students themselves.
Cheers,
Pete F.
(05-05-2023, 07:49 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: The premise that exam proctoring was not needed in the past is the problem. Those in favoring of proctoring don’t need to prove that there’s more cheating today than there was back in the day. The only burden is to prove that it’s justified today. It was probably justified back in the day as well.This strikes me as correct. When I was a freshman at Stanford in the 80s I was surprised that there were no teachers in the room for exams. During Christmas break, I asked a family friend who taught econ at College of San Mateo if that was the way it worked in all colleges. He laughed and said that he teaches in the real world and was in the room during exams.
I do remember the honor code and lack of proctors in the room having a surprisingly large impact on me. Nobody in my family had ever gone to college so I didn't have any other experience to fall back on. In my small high school college track classes we had a rule that we would sometimes help each other out on a question or two on a test but probably would have done more if there were no teachers in the room! The Honor Code sent a message to me that I was now in a very special place where "we" not only would not cheat but we did not need to cheat on exams. Stanford was unique and we were all supposed to be part of it. I think students still cheated like in other places but we weren't supposed to. (I was in Zimbardo's 500+ student Psych 1 class that had a cheating scandal around 1983, (I wasn't part of it) so I'm sure some didn't take the Honor Code as seriously as I.) I'm sure we were never quite as special as we were led to believe.
Still, I absolutely agree that Stanford has made a terrible mistake in recent decades by removing almost all student self-governance and therefore, also student self-responsibility. I try to resist blaming "bureaucracy" for ruining everything because I don't find it helpful in finding actual solutions to problems. However, Stanford seems to be trying to reach the goal of fairness by enacting and enforcing uniformity. Uniformity is the laziest path toward fairness. It also feels like the fear of litigation is the primary driver of many of the uniformity policies. The ultimate goal then, seems to be avoiding liability rather than fairness and providing opportunities for student growth.
I don't have the answer and I don't think that removing proctors again would fix it. I just wish the Stanford administration was more focused on the actual student experience and less on policies to enforce the expected student experience. They should start by talking to and actually listening to the students themselves.
Cheers,
Pete F.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »