Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring

baneproctoring.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 324 posts

Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring

#21

Post by ShroudedNight »

hrnnnnnn wrote: post #8

I took a course recently and the final exam had this kind of eproctoring setup where I would have to install proprietary software, show the examiner around my room, under my desk and so on. I did not take the exam.

> I did not take the exam.

I assume at significant cost?

I feel similarly strongly about my dominion over my own computing devices and the boundaries placed on their intrusion into my environment.

I wonder, at what point should this reasonably be considered equivalent to a religious belief and provided the same sort of protection.

Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring

#22

Post by dspillett »

deadfish wrote: post #14
LysPJ wrote: post #9

For anyone unfamiliar with the term (like me!), Wikipedia says Eproctoring is: [...] a form of exam proctoring which involves monitoring student behaviour during exams administered electronically [...]

Massive failure to not have "What is Eproctoring" as the first section of the page.

I assume the target audience would all know the term, and others could work it with a little deduction or Googling.

Though it is a bit US centric I think. Here in the UK what I think is referred to as a proctor would instead be called an invigilator. Though again, unless the target audience is international, that probably does not matter.

Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring

#24

Post by bruce343434 »

spoonjim wrote: post #19

I agree that these e-proctoring measures seem draconian, but the flip side of this is absolutely RAMPANT cheating at universities. I don’t know what kind of fair system lies between these two issues. Also, the domain is poorly chosen, “Bane Proctoring” sounds like a particularly terrifying proctoring service.

> but the flip side of this is absolutely RAMPANT

I REALLY doubt this. There's plenty of alternative or hardened testing methods.

Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring

#25

Post by tchalla »

undfg wrote: post #10
maweki wrote: post #2

We employed the method of mixing the order of questions, not giving question titles, and having a pool of subtly different questions (a negation or a different constant slipped in) in order to vastly increase the amount of necessary communication to collaborate. We had the students turn on their webcams just to discourage them sitting in the same room, which basically would negate our former efforts. Neither did we f…

>We employed the method of mixing the order of questions, not giving question titles, and having a pool of subtly different questions (a negation or a different constant slipped in) What an awful burden to put on the shoulders of the already overworked and underpaid professors.

It could also be a good argument to increase funding for professors and education.

Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring

#26

Post by dna_polymerase »

fcatalan wrote: post #18
dna_polymerase wrote: post #13

> A federally-funded study found that even the best facial recognition algorithms fail to work on Black and brown people, trans and non-binary people, as well as children and women in general. I assume it is black and brown trans and non-binary people. I don't see an algorithm fail because someone identifies as anything. However, why even mention it here, in this context? It makes the people behind this sound ridicul…

In our initial trials involving about 5 people the software systematically failed to recognise one woman just because her (pretty standard) hairstyle. It also failed to detect my kids coming up on camera a few times.

Sounds like these solutions are just outright garbage. I wonder if ML/CV will ever work outside of GAFAM.

Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring

#27

Post by p49k »

undfg wrote: post #16
maweki wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We did this through the exam software (Browser-Based). Everything not checked automatically (multiple choice) was sorted by question in the backend. We (the examiners) had all the information. It was just hidden from the students.

Glad that you had an automatic system going, but most universities don't have one and can't fund its development, and wanting to shift this burden to professors is unreasonable.

Your stance is that it’s unaffordable for a university to spend a small amount of money on randomized browser tests, therefore they should spend a large amount of money on intrusive spying software?

Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring

#28

Post by jarcane »

dna_polymerase wrote: post #13

> A federally-funded study found that even the best facial recognition algorithms fail to work on Black and brown people, trans and non-binary people, as well as children and women in general. I assume it is black and brown trans and non-binary people. I don't see an algorithm fail because someone identifies as anything. However, why even mention it here, in this context? It makes the people behind this sound ridicul…

Recognition algorithms often make assumptions about the way people "should" be shaped according to their recorded gender or the way the machine attempts to "guess" said gender, and a clash in expectations gets flagged and generates false negatives because things aren't in the "right" places it thinks they should be.

For a really simple example if this problem, the TSA body scanner machines flag on trans people constantly. It detects as an "unknown mass" if gendered body parts (ie. breasts/genitals) don't match its binary expectations for what gender is marked on their passport. Often they get it coming and going: a trans femme still marked M will get flagged for having breasts, but if they've changed it to F, they get flagged for their genitals instead.

Now you get a full grope patdown from a suspicious TSA officer, because a machine was coded to make binary assumptions about bodies.

Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring

#29

Post by undfg »

p49k wrote: post #27
undfg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad that you had an automatic system going, but most universities don't have one and can't fund its development, and wanting to shift this burden to professors is unreasonable.

Your stance is that it’s unaffordable for a university to spend a small amount of money on randomized browser tests, therefore they should spend a large amount of money on intrusive spying software?

I don't believe a public institution would be able to come up with a system like this that works reasonably and have it developed in a reasonable amount of time within a reasonable budget.

Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring

#30

Post by pfortuny »

maweki wrote: post #2

We employed the method of mixing the order of questions, not giving question titles, and having a pool of subtly different questions (a negation or a different constant slipped in) in order to vastly increase the amount of necessary communication to collaborate. We had the students turn on their webcams just to discourage them sitting in the same room, which basically would negate our former efforts. Neither did we f…

I (undegrad. prof. of mathematics, Spain) did "nothing" (see below) except prepare (not so) different exams.

Same results as always. Exactly the same.

Someone will have cheated. Well, as always: I am sure people cheat at my exams as they do at any other.

I do not repent and I do not think I would do otherwise.

*However*: I DID spend a lot of time preparing materials, attending tutorials, replying to emails, correcting my lecture notes, recording videos...

I honestly think my students acted in accordance to my attitude: if you are honest, we are going to be as well.

Post reply on HN