Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent • Hacker News Board

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

#611

Post by kerkeslager » Thu, May 14, 2026, 9:30 PM UTC

neilv wrote: post #226

kerkeslager wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it really depends on how you view our high education system. As a middle-aged man returning to school to switch careers, my entire reason for going to school is to learn, and I'd never cheat because that would undermine my own goals. To me the purpose of school isn't the degree--I made an entire career already without one--it's to learn. Students are at school for a lot of poorly-thought-out reasons: inertia,…

> if you view higher education as gatekeeping for further life options (i.e. a career) then proctored exams make sense. But if higher education is just for learning, it's stupid to put all this gatekeeping around it [...] Let the cheaters cheat--they're only hurting their own learning I wouldn't reduce student motivations to career vs. learning. College can also be about aspiring to a better society, with the univers…

> I wouldn't reduce student motivations to career vs. learning.

I'm not, that's why I said "Students are at school for a lot of [...] reasons".

> College can also be about aspiring to a better society, with the university as microcosm.

> For example, a society in which people are honest, and have integrity.

Sure, but that's irrelevant:

1. A cheater is capable of not cheating when they're taking a proctored exam, but it doesn't make them honest--they'll just cheat later in life when given the opportunity.

2. People don't suddenly become cheaters when they're given the opportunity to cheat--the people who would cheat when an exam isn't proctored were going to cheat in other areas anyway.

Integrity and honesty are values, and it's pretty difficult to change people's values. I don't think either policy changes anyone's values. That's particularly true of integrity and honesty as those are how people behave when nobody's watching--if you watch and people know you're watching, everyone behaves honestly.

If you want to change people's values, I'd argue universities are pretty poorly-situated to do that. Philosophers are better at finding ethical ideologies that justify unethical behaviors than they are at getting anyone to give a shit about what behaviors they find ethical or unethical. Changing people's values is best achieved by a society that rewards values we uphold and gives us leaders that embody those values. What we have for leadership is pedophiles and grifters, and a lot of those came from our most prestigious educational institutions.

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

#612

Post by Forgeties79 » Thu, May 14, 2026, 9:31 PM UTC

novok wrote: post #461

silver_silver wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that it’s not possible to learn if one offloads the work itself to an LLM

Just like how you significantly increased the difficulty of exams in "open book" exams in the past where the only way to pass the open book exam was to know the material well, you similarly need to increase the difficulty of other work where it won't matter if you have an LLM, because you won't pass without knowing your shit either!

Blue books.

Need to type? Computer labs (“test taking labs” idk) are back baby. Simple machines, no Internet.

Pretty sure that solves 90% of the testing problem. If somebody is overly reliant on LLM’s and refuses to learn, they’ll pay with their grades on the big assignments. Bummer for teachers who don’t love blue books, but I’m sure it’s a hell of a lot better than trying to sniff out LLMs and constantly mistrusting your students.

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

#613

Post by kerkeslager » Thu, May 14, 2026, 9:41 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #183

kerkeslager wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it really depends on how you view our high education system. As a middle-aged man returning to school to switch careers, my entire reason for going to school is to learn, and I'd never cheat because that would undermine my own goals. To me the purpose of school isn't the degree--I made an entire career already without one--it's to learn. Students are at school for a lot of poorly-thought-out reasons: inertia,…

> if you view higher education as gatekeeping for further life options From the institution's perspective--or at least an "elite" institution like Princeton--that is what it is. When they confer a degree, they're conferring something valuable, even if its main value is as a status marker and ticket to future options. They can't afford to take the attitude of "let the cheaters cheat, they'll only hurt themselves", no…

I don't think these complex institutions can be viewed as having a uniform ideology.

Yes, any university understands that many (most?) of their students are simply there for a diploma that opens up opportunities, and the parts of an institution that view it as a business are going to want to maintain the value of that product.

But the faculty of a university isn't typically in it for the money--in most fields you can make more money in industry than in education. A lot of teachers just want their students to learn, whether their students want to learn or not. Faculty senates aren't powerless in steering an institution, and sometimes knowingly make unprofitable decisions--something a lot of HN can't imagine or understand. ;P

And a lot of students are there for that--in fact some of the most profitable students are. Do you think a Saudi prince need a diploma to open up opportunities? No--they're there because they, or someone in their family, values something else about the institution, be it knowledge, networking, etc.

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

#614

Post by btrettel » Thu, May 14, 2026, 10:08 PM UTC

srean wrote: post #593

btrettel wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a similar experience when I was a TA at UT Austin that I wrote about on HN years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23163472

Such a bizarre story and a "lecturer". Can you say more now, like what subject was he/she was teaching.

My PhD was in mechanical engineering. I don't want to get more specific than that on the subject in case it identifies the lecturer. I guess I used the phrase "lecturer" to distinguish him from my PhD advisor.

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

#615

Post by meroes » Thu, May 14, 2026, 11:27 PM UTC

throwaway2037 wrote: post #490

meroes wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Egalitarian? Let me explain healthcare right now. To get into a radiation tech program, there are 260 applicants, almost all with all As, for 20 slots at my local community college. Maybe in the very first instant you’d think it’s merit based. But, EVERYONE is playing the game. Getting homework and tests from friends who already took the class, taking classes at several different schools to get the easier teachers, p…

Real question: If people are that good at grinding (it is a legit skill), why don't they go for something better, like a 4-year university degree in STEM or medicine? They can make much more money. Also, how do they decide which students to pick? And I would love to know the gender ratio.

One reason is rad tech and similar are all over Tik Tok.

Another reason is these people know how to grind, but can’t afford a 4 year program.

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

#616

Post by crazygringo » Thu, May 14, 2026, 11:47 PM UTC

wat10000 wrote: post #604

crazygringo wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is absolutely the mainstream position. See John Rawls "A Theory of Justice" which is the basis for a lot of applied ethics today. And "sufficiently democratic" basically means freedom of political speech, adult citizens can vote, representatives are chosen by majority rule, elections are fairly conducted and not rigged, and laws are passed by majority rule. Obviously you can always quibble over details such…

What can I say but: people continue to baffle me. Edit: actually I do have one other thing to say. It's quite a coincidence that the conditions you laid out happen to be those that were met in the US right about the time that book came out. Feels like it might have been working backwards from the conclusion.

That is absolutely a fair critique. In fact, more than fair, I would say.

I'm not even defending it. I'm just describing the mainstream ethical foundation used today.

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

#617

Post by rayiner » Thu, May 14, 2026, 11:49 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #588

rayiner wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t say it was “impossible.” I just asked you for your evidence. Do you have evidence similarly situated individuals were treated differently? Do you have evidence of events of cheating going unreported? I’m not saying you’re wrong about your ultimate conclusion. I’m asking about the type of evidence you believe is sufficient to support that conclusion. The fact that most teachers were uncomfortable reporting mi…

Replying to your dead comment: Why is multiple county and school district-wide segregation policies "personal racism" but as soon as it goes to a university it becomes "institutional"?

There were no “county and school district wide policies.” The segregated proms you’re talking about were planned by parents and held on private property. That’s a bad thing to do, but it’s not illegal. The schools had nothing to do with them—which would be illegal.

Your story, by contrast, is about a school enforcing honor codes in a discriminatory way. That’s something schools face tremendous Title VI liability over. It’s completely different.

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

#618

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 14, 2026, 11:59 PM UTC

Forgeties79 wrote: post #568

rayiner wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t say it was “impossible.” I just asked you for your evidence. Do you have evidence similarly situated individuals were treated differently? Do you have evidence of events of cheating going unreported? I’m not saying you’re wrong about your ultimate conclusion. I’m asking about the type of evidence you believe is sufficient to support that conclusion. The fact that most teachers were uncomfortable reporting mi…

I’m not going to doxx myself in a futile effort to convince you systemic racism is real. Again, the numbers spoke to the truth of the matter. White people were reported and expelled at a rate that was so much lower than their non-white and international peers that it defied credulity. Men were also accused and expelled at a rate far higher than women were - something tells me you won’t push back against that. The sch…

[deleted]

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

#619

Post by pdonis » Fri, May 15, 2026, 12:34 AM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #613

pdonis wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you view higher education as gatekeeping for further life options From the institution's perspective--or at least an "elite" institution like Princeton--that is what it is. When they confer a degree, they're conferring something valuable, even if its main value is as a status marker and ticket to future options. They can't afford to take the attitude of "let the cheaters cheat, they'll only hurt themselves", no…

I don't think these complex institutions can be viewed as having a uniform ideology. Yes, any university understands that many (most?) of their students are simply there for a diploma that opens up opportunities, and the parts of an institution that view it as a business are going to want to maintain the value of that product. But the faculty of a university isn't typically in it for the money--in most fields you can…

I agree that there are plenty of faculty and students that view the university as something other than conferring degrees as status markers and tickets to opportunities.

But when push comes to shove, that's still the ideology that drives the universities as institutions. That's not a new phenomenon. I was in college 40 years ago, and I saw faculty members who were outstanding teachers get second-rate treatment compared to those whose classes were horrible, but who had the right connections to bring in the grants and promote the brand.

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

#620

Post by pdonis » Fri, May 15, 2026, 12:36 AM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #613

pdonis wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you view higher education as gatekeeping for further life options From the institution's perspective--or at least an "elite" institution like Princeton--that is what it is. When they confer a degree, they're conferring something valuable, even if its main value is as a status marker and ticket to future options. They can't afford to take the attitude of "let the cheaters cheat, they'll only hurt themselves", no…

I don't think these complex institutions can be viewed as having a uniform ideology. Yes, any university understands that many (most?) of their students are simply there for a diploma that opens up opportunities, and the parts of an institution that view it as a business are going to want to maintain the value of that product. But the faculty of a university isn't typically in it for the money--in most fields you can…

> some of the most profitable students are. Do you think a Saudi prince need a diploma to open up opportunities?

Why would a Saudi prince be a more profitable student? The only difference between him and most of the other students as far as money is concerned is that his family can afford to pay the grossly inflated tuition out of pocket instead of having to get financial aid. But the money is the same in either case as far as the university is concerned.