Live data from Hacker News

Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

dailyprincetonian.com

571–580 of 662 posts

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#571
I wonder if a solution for higher education is to enforce access to technology both inside and outside of the classroom? I've been teaching math at various institutions for the past 8 years after getting my PhD, and the conversation among my friends and peers has become increasingly bleak over the years. At first LLMs were not great at math, but at this point they can reliably solve the majority of problems one might see in an undergraduate math course. Recently I interviewed for a position at a university and spoke to the Dean of Arts and Sciences who admitted to me candidly that the university didn't really know how to handle AI.

Teachers increasingly must assume that students will not learn on their own outside of the time spent in class. This is difficult because we only see students for a handful of contact hours every week, and there is not enough time to both lecture AND ensure that a student has attained thorough understanding of the material. Teachers have adapted to this in various ways, but another stressor is that students are coming into college much less prepared. When I teach precalc I essentially have to assume that I will need to teach students how fractions work. The current system is not built to support this kind of learning. In order to make sure students are really learning, I now have to cut out major portions of the curriculum to make sure I have time to do active learning during class. It's obvious through students' performance that their understanding of things we work on in class is much more internalized and sophisticated than things I lecture about but assume they will learn on homework problems.

A novel I really love is Anathem by Neal Stephenson. While Anathem is an admittedly goofy work of fiction, I do think Stephenson's vision of the future is compelling: the purity of mathematics education and research must be protected from the hyper-technological outside world. In reality I'm not anti-technology of course, I feel like access to a non-internet-connected computer is fine. But, I wonder if such a model would work for an educational institution?

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#572
post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you know what racist means. Either way, international students make up a huge percentage of the student population, as evidenced by your documentation. And in fact, it's too funny to me that you specify undergrad - keeps you from mentioning that there were 533 Chinese grad students, nearly 5x more than the the country with the 2nd most grad students, India.

What does racist mean? I don’t know why specifying undergraduate is “too funny to you”…I specified undergrad because TFA was about undergrads. At no point did TFA mention any graduate student body - but it took care to explicitly reference decisions and feedback from multiple specific undergraduate bodies: - (Undergraduate) Honor Committee [0] - Senior Survey - Undergraduate Student Government - Dean of Undergraduate…

Huh? I was referring to the 2nd page of the link you submitted earlier. You acted like there are only a few Chinese students at Princeton when they are the overwhelming majority of the graduate international student body. Did you not look at your own evidence?

And brother, I don't give a shit what Princeton students have to say about the invigilation situation. That's an inmates running the asylum kind of thing. It's obvious that such a system is unworkable in the modern world when Ivy League schools in particular (and most schools in the top 50 globally) export many of the students they educate. A university education these days is, for most students, a means to an end, which is employment. And employers care about grades, meaning there is an unrelenting and rational incentive to cheat.

The world where only wealthy gentlemen go to university and are highly incentivised to learn instead of cheat no longer exists.

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a very different world from the exams I had in Denmark, both uni and high school: * all exams were proctored * the proctoring were done by external people hired to do this. * you could not leave exam for the toilet without asking first and then being followed out by a watcher, which then would follow you back and check the toilet afterwards for notes. * you were never handed back the papers you handed in. * resp…

>you could not leave exam for the toilet without asking first and then being followed out by a watcher, which then would follow you back and check the toilet afterwards for notes. That's not how you do it. The notes are in your pocket. You go to the toilet, read the notes, put the notes back into your pocket and go back to do the exam.

Notes in the toilet were mostly for passing to other students.

In many exams we were allowed to bring our own notes. Those are unusable if you haven't learnt the material, as you then don't know what to look for.

But a small note with a math solution could help another student a lot.

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im surprised to hear that. I went to Caltech for my postgrad and never collaborated on an test, and it would have never ocurre me to do so (and no, the professor didn’t have to explicitly say they collaboration was not allowed. It was just the standard honor code). We all suspected of people that didn’t adhere to the honor code and it was frowned upon, and they could have faced repercussions if anyone had reported th…

He or she is telling on himself. Cheaters always project. I looked at materials hidden in my desk for one question during a quiz in fifth grade and it still gnaws at me. Cheaters suck.

Bit depressing to see the mode of this board swing towards “people couldn’t possibly have honor,” huh?

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#575
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s just the propaganda they sell during college visits I'm speaking generally, not just about colleges. If you've never been in a high-trust commuity, I strongly recommend travelling to find one. It's about as mind blowing as transiting from one such community to a low-trust, high-cynicism one.

This is an unbelievably pretentious take that sounds like it's coming from someone who is either lying or was oblivious to the cheating that was going on around them.

I went to a big public school. But at the upper levels of my aerospace and finance programs, where classes were basically invitational and unofficially predicated on involvement in extracurricular activities, whether that be our amateur rocketry group and working on our professors’ NASA side gigs, or, in finance, advising the endowment and running a pocket of it, the core group was like twenty bpeople in each.

We did group projects together. We were graded on a common curve. We spent 90% of our time out of class hanging out and learning to adult together. I know every single one of those people today, I’ve been to their weddings and am godparent to their some of their kids. And I think we knew, decades prior, we’d still know each other now.

As such no, I don’t think I was oblivious because outside that group I can concede it was rampant. But within the group, if you blew off a course you blew off the test. It just wasn’t right or smart or lightly considered to cheat and screw over your friends. You also weren’t taking elective courses for the fun of it to cheat through them.

(I now live in a small town where I don’t lock my house, my bike or my car. Most farms nearby have a box you can buy stuff from in exchange for cash you’re expected to leave. It’s pretty great and yes, privileged, but it’s not a privilege money alone can buy.)

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Academic integrity committees at prestigious schools are horribly lax. They want these types of issues to go away quietly. I have a friend who in college had another student take his test from the "complete" pile, erase my friend's name, and put on his own instead. It was only through blind luck that my friend figured it out. He, the TA, and the professor reported it – with smoking gun proof – but nothing happened. T…

I went to a school that actually tried to enforce it, and unfortunately it ended up being enforced wildly disproportionately along racial lines. My school had a very simple rule: if you were caught cheating, you were expelled. No strikes, no exceptions. That is a massive burden to put on an educator. Getting expelled from your university is a very serious, mandated fork in the road for anyone it happens to. So what d…

Could it be that cheating was enforced dispropportionately along racial lines because cheating happened disproportionately along racial lines?

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's immoral to disobey any law or regulation passed by a democratically elected government if these is no other conflicting moral principle. I have to say, this is not the sort of attitude I expected to find on this site. Especially from someone defending cheating on exams. Anyway, I'm sure I won't convince you to change your mind on this, and you certainly won't convince me.

You misread me. I never said cheating is fine. I responded to someone who said that cheating is "obviously" bad, implying ratting out a friend is not. The only thing I've done is to say they're both bad, and that it's not obvious at all that the former is worse than the latter. And I find it somewhat bizarre that you seem to think there is no moral value in following the law? Especially when I added the caveat "if th…

I didn't say you said cheating is fine. But you are defending it by minimizing its consequences.

No, I don't see any moral value in following the law. Following the law can be and often is morally good by coincidence because the law encodes some piece of morality, e.g. the laws against theft or murder. But if the law says I'm only allowed to cross the street at designated locations, and I can safely cross at a different location, there is no moral issue with doing so, in my view. If speeding is immoral it is only because of the safety concerns, not because it's illegal. If I refrain from speeding on a road where I believe it's safe to go significantly faster than the limit, it's only because I want to avoid the potential consequences of breaking the law, not because I think it's somehow wrong.

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misread me. I never said cheating is fine. I responded to someone who said that cheating is "obviously" bad, implying ratting out a friend is not. The only thing I've done is to say they're both bad, and that it's not obvious at all that the former is worse than the latter. And I find it somewhat bizarre that you seem to think there is no moral value in following the law? Especially when I added the caveat "if th…

I didn't say you said cheating is fine. But you are defending it by minimizing its consequences. No, I don't see any moral value in following the law. Following the law can be and often is morally good by coincidence because the law encodes some piece of morality, e.g. the laws against theft or murder. But if the law says I'm only allowed to cross the street at designated locations, and I can safely cross at a differ…

> No, I don't see any moral value in following the law.

Just so you know, that's not a position most moral philosophers take, as long as the law is decided by sufficiently democratic procedures.

The fact that you belong to a group of people, and the people decide on rules, means that violating those rules is a moral violation against that community of people.

To say that has no moral weight at all is a pretty extreme position. Now obviously if there's a conflict with another principle, there are times that other moral principle should win. But to say that there is no moral value whatsoever in following the law is not something I think many people will agree with. And thank goodness.

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it ever a high trust country? Our founding stories are various rebellions and a lawless west.

I'm interested in discussion around "high trust societies" and I look for clues because I want to live in one. Here is just an example of one: Moving from Brooklyn to a small surbuban town: - very few lock their bikes at the local schools, or "town center". Bikes aren't stolen and kids don't worry about it. - "town center" has umbrellas out for public use, people use them and put them back. - People generally don't l…

It sounds like trust is important when people can be held accountable. And it's hard to be held accountable when you're just an anonymous person in a sea of hundreds of thousands or millions.

Re: Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent

#580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The morgue manager at Harvard Medical School spent five years selling donated body parts online. The Cornell president just backed his Cadillac into a student asking him a question in a parking lot. This isn't high-trust culture. It's people who stopped believing anyone was watching.

> It's people who stopped believing anyone was watching. Which, in the era of social media, video surveillance, smartphones and dashcams, is crazy. Once you leave your home, you have to assume everything you do is recorded and might end up online or in court.

And with IoT, assume everything in your house is also being recorded.
Post reply on HN