21–30 of 147 posts
Maybe the real test here is for the students to realize that there is no "forensic analysis" in the world which could identify a cheater with 100% confidence except for the confession he is trying to bully out of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, if it was known in previous semesters that a test bank was used, why such a large statistical aberration this time around? It seems implausible that 1/3rd of the class just happened to memorise the answers accurately, and indeed, the distribution suggests that another factor was in play this time around.
"So, if it was known in previous semesters that a test bank was used, why such a large statistical aberration this time around?" What evidence do we have for the large aberration? Are there older reviews of the professor available online that say his tests are easy or that he reuses old test questions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
can you please explain that for future use?
Referencing past submissions about the same topic, whether they are exactly the same or merely similar is very useful, especially if those past submissions contain discussions. You should always link to those past submissions and remain otherwise neutral (or positive if you like). It is not and cannot be the submitters duty to closely track Hacker News for all stories that have been submitted in the past [0]. Duplica…
Whats the worst that can happen, people might go through it and learn all the solutions. Well, let them, that's the purpose of the course anyways. But the question bank cant so small that it does not explore the full diversity of problems. And no one is claiming that all questions will be from the question-bank, throw in a few off question-bank odd-balls each year.
But how could they analyze the submissions to figure out (even approximately) who cheated who did not ? Apart from trawling their email and phone calls and wire taps that is....:-) I suspect part of the "forensics" was a bluff.
I can only guess that there are a few problems in the set that historically have a low probability of being solved correctly. So whoever solved those can be marked suspicious. But a test will have only a few of those.
But it sure sucks to be in a course where the instructor is unaware of the problem that QB is available and you are unwilling to look up the QB. Particularly where the QB was particularly designed for the top percentile.
- Some students had an advance copy of the test
- The grade distribution indicates cheating
What the professor doesn't know:
- Who cheated
Unless the university has access to a students network traffic proving they had access to the test, there's no way to be sure who cheated. The fact that the professor trudges through threats and vagaries for a full 15 minutes only seems to underscore this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I second that. Using the same questions for a couple of years and blaming the students that they learned the answer to those questions? questionable.
I guess an important question is whether this test bank is supposed to be accessible only to instructors. Presumably a test bank would contain enough questions for several tests, so it isn't necessary that there were any repeats from previous semesters.
But was it really cheating? Some students have pointed out that the professor said repeatedly that he composed the tests himself. Given that, then plausibly, using example tests from other sources would be a legitimate preparation method. (For example, the SAT doesn't penalize people for reviewing lots of practice tests, because it's assumed the actual questions during a real test will be novel.) See: http://www.tech…
However, here the instructor has no way of knowing who cheated. He clearly made a mistake, knowing that using a test bank would make it easy to cheat. So, he should either let all the grades stand or he should point out the statistical anomaly and just make everyone take a new exam, which he did. I can't possibly see how students who didn't confess will be found out, especially if the exam was multiple choice!
You have to think that if the professor really could identify the culprits he'd be limiting the retakes to them. Maybe the real test here is for the students to realize that there is no "forensic analysis" in the world which could identify a cheater with 100% confidence except for the confession he is trying to bully out of them.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions...
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1919562
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1922049
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1922243 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1923931