[pefloresjr]

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.

[pefloresjr]

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.