Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?
1–10 of 63 posts
Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?
#2The least able lost the most marks because they had gained the most from cheating. If you were able to get 90% without cheating the absolutely most you could lose is 10 percentage points, while if you are able to only get 10% then the most you could lose is 90 percentage points.
Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?
#3> one of the consequences is precisely the reverse of its aims
So... was the aim to reduce cheating, or was it just to disadvantage the richer kids?
Because if the aim was really to reduce cheating, then I can't see how any of the consequences were precisely the reverse of the aims.
Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?
#4> one of the consequences is precisely the reverse of its aims So... was the aim to reduce cheating, or was it just to disadvantage the richer kids? Because if the aim was really to reduce cheating, then I can't see how any of the consequences were precisely the reverse of the aims.
If it was the rich kids who were the cause of corruption, why should the poor kids suffer for that?
Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?
#5> one of the consequences is precisely the reverse of its aims So... was the aim to reduce cheating, or was it just to disadvantage the richer kids? Because if the aim was really to reduce cheating, then I can't see how any of the consequences were precisely the reverse of the aims.
If it was the rich kids who were the cause of corruption, why should the poor kids suffer for that?
The poor kids were clearly cheating, otherwise their pass rate wouldn't have fallen.
Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?
#6> one of the consequences is precisely the reverse of its aims So... was the aim to reduce cheating, or was it just to disadvantage the richer kids? Because if the aim was really to reduce cheating, then I can't see how any of the consequences were precisely the reverse of the aims.
The aim was to show that in the absence of academic cheating, a meritocracy would emerge. What the researcher realized was that the deck was stacked against poorer students and in favor of richer students...in essence, the cheating/rigging was happening before the kids walked into school...and the academic cheating was a response to level the playing field.
Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?
#7The conclusion is illogical on the face of it.
In any other sort of value proposition it would be rejected.
"Cheating it seemed had provided a kind of levelling effect"
e.g. (If you cheat, you get things people don't want to give you).
Try "Rape it seemed had provided a kind of levelling effect."
As in, if you rape somebody it lets you have sex as often as people who have more sex than you.
Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?
#8> one of the consequences is precisely the reverse of its aims So... was the aim to reduce cheating, or was it just to disadvantage the richer kids? Because if the aim was really to reduce cheating, then I can't see how any of the consequences were precisely the reverse of the aims.
If it was the rich kids who were the cause of corruption, why should the poor kids suffer for that?
The most likely culprit, it emerged, was that the "collective" and "petty" forms of corruption, as witnessed by Dr Borcan herself, had a curious effect: they might be paid for chiefly by well-off students bribing invigilators, but everyone benefited. It gave the poorer students "a free ride" to higher marks.
It's poorly worded but they seem to hypothesise that poorer students were sort of piggy backing off of those who paid for the cheats. So they were cheating too.
Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?
#9> one of the consequences is precisely the reverse of its aims So... was the aim to reduce cheating, or was it just to disadvantage the richer kids? Because if the aim was really to reduce cheating, then I can't see how any of the consequences were precisely the reverse of the aims.
Article seems not very well written. Even the initial "You might expect a less corrupt exam system to allow ability to shine through regardless of the economic status of the students" doesn't make sense on its face.
Why would I think exam cheating would influence structural problems, advantages and disadvantages, associated with SES levels? Getting rid of cheating doesn't get rid of private tutors, better equipped schools, less distracting home environments, etc.
Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?
#10Alternate/additional explanation for the findings: cheating continued after the campaign, but wealthier students were less afraid of the consequences than poor students.