Related: Bengaluru (India), Student alleges invigilator addressed her as ‘baby’, sparks row. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/bangalore/bengaluru...
Not related, really.
Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring
31–40 of 324 posts
Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring
#32> 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…
Reminds me of that AI model for sex classification that would - quite accurately - recognize trans people as their birth sex rather than their 'gender identity'.
People were complaining that it was transphobic or whatever, but it was just saying what it saw. Like what most of us see, even if we politely acquiesce to the fantasy.
Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring
#33Earlier 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.
> ...and wanting to shift this burden to professors is unreasonable.
Why is it unreasonable? What level of duty do you perceive course instructors having to achieving positive outcomes for their students? Who is responsible for pushing improvements beyond the trough of the status quo?
Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring
#34> 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 consta…
It just means that the body scanner is programmed to recognize biological realities (that transwomen are men presenting as women, and transmen are women presenting as men), rather than questionable self-beliefs.
Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring
#35For 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 had no idea what it was, but reading the first few paragraphs makes it quite obvious.
Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring
#36Algo for teachers affected by cheating:
1) make questions brutal and unique (compared to previous year or current groups) if possible
2) make everything open-book
3) set a tough time limit
4) curve the results to a desired grade distribution (that is often imposed from above anyway)
5) use software that can the catch most obvious frauds (i.e. 360 degree room scanning, ban use of phones/second computers etc.)
6) if the exam requires algos, use software analyzing AST of the code produced to catch possible "cooperation", then decide on those cases individually (i.e. if an algo is common, then there is a high chance of very similar AST for non-cooperating people, but if it's unique, the chance is low)
Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring
#37[deleted]
Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring
#38Snowflakes...
"Youth were never more sawcie, yea never more savagely saucie . . . the ancient are scorned, the honourable are contemned, the magistrate is not dreaded."
Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring
#39I 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.
> I feel similarly strongly about my dominion over my own computing devices
Same here. If I ever need to take remote exams like described I'll get a cheap laptop, or something like a Pi attached to a TV/monitor, and take the exam on that. They can have me install anything they like, it will be on a guest wireless network that can't cross to the rest of the local network, will be freshly installed with an account that is not one of my primaries, and will be wiped down when the exams are done. In fact I have an old slow laptop that would do, assuming it still works.
Of course, not everyone has the luxury of being financially and technically able to do that.
I'm the same with work. If work wants specific control on the devices I use, then they need to provide devices instead of taking control of my personal ones. I did install the comms software on an old phone in 2020 but if the ability to remote-wipe this granted is ever used (accidentally or purposefully) I'll lose nothing but my "get up for work" alarm as that is the only other thing on the device. If I work from home it is via RDC over VPN to my machine at the office - if there becomes a requirement for more control of the machine I'm VPN+RDCing from then either they provide a machine they control or I stop being able to work out of hours (not a problem for me!) or work from home should that be convenient/required (which isn't often, other than during lockdowns over the last 18 months).
I don't have an adversarial relationship with work (which might be implied by the above paragraph), at least not as far as I can tell, but I find it better for my mental health (and my work, I think, though that is the secondary concern from my PoV) to silo my work and personal life somewhat. I can see a day when extra requirements will turn up, as we work with clients in strongly regulated industries and many of them are actively tightening their internal controls and making increasing demands on their suppliers (including us) to do the same.
> and the boundaries placed on their intrusion into my environment.
That you can do less about in many cases, though again I'd have options. I only have a two-bedroom flat, but the little bedroom is used as a training room, so I could setup a chair and something as a desk in there. All they'll see in the tour of the room is the treadmill, weights, mats, and related bits & bobs.
Again, many do not have the luxury of this option.
Re: Protect student privacy: ban eproctoring
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> I don't believe a public institution would be able to come up with a system like this that works reasonably
I don't believe “e-proctoring” companies are capable of it, either. I got disqualified from an exam for five `onblur` events (while my screen was being recorded), and it kept counting while the “DO NOT CHEAT” lockout message was displayed; if that's “works reasonably” then I don't know what isn't.