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

Most universities, certainly in the top 50 globally, export a significant share of their student population because a significant share of their student population consists of international students. Those students return home once they obtain their degrees. Princeton’s overall share of international students is around 25%.

2nd, a huge proportion of students in general at universities, including Ivy League unis, are not from wealthy families. This can be contrasted to the the 19th century demographic, which basically consisted of only individuals from wealthy families.

Today, most students are there to get a degree from a prestigious institution so they can get a good job with upward mobility potential. Again, contrast with the 19th century, for which this policy was designed.

Having done an LLB at a top 40 law school globally, I can tell you that the pressure on international students is immense due to visa implications, parental pressures, and poor options compared to native students if they fail. International students cheat, as do native students, and it is rational from a purely economic standpoint for them to do so. In my experience, international students are more likely to cheat than natives, but once cheating is occurring it is rational for all students to cheat due to the resultant grade inflation.

My argument is mostly that because of how demographics at university have changed over the past 150 years, a university education is a means to an end, and it's really just getting a piece of paper (ideally from a prestigious institution) for most students. International students in particular drive the cheating and make it highly rational for all students to cheat, but even if universities did not enroll overseas students, cheating would still be pervasive simply because the demographics and purposes of university have changed since 1850. I hope you can understand the argument.

First of all, there's a difference between cheating on the big final exam that determines 40% of your course grade, and cheating on a quiz in week 3. A zero-tolerance policy has to make a decision: does the latter count as cheating? Is that really worth expelling a student over? A more nuanced policy can give that student a more nuanced punishment that may deter them from escalating their cheating—essentially, "scare them straight".

Second of all, there are absolutely degrees of cheating. For one, there's simple volume: did you cheat on one question, or all of them? For another, there's gray areas like "it was an open-book test, but I had also scribbled down some extra notes in the book" or "yes, I had my phone out in the test, but genuinely I was just responding to my parent/significant other/best friend who was having a meltdown". Or even "I had my phone in my bag, which I wasn't supposed to, but I never looked at it during the test; I just forgot to hand it in when I entered".

Your brand of "justice" would see many people who could absolutely be persuaded or shamed into good behavior, as well as actual innocents, lose the chance to ever get a decent education, and thus a decent job. (Particularly given the way the economics of it are going today—if you get expelled, those student loans don't go away, so how are you ever going to afford another university?)

There are around 2-3 million adult citizens here without any government issued photo ID, and around 30 more million have government issued photo ID that is expired or does not have their correct name or address.

As more things have started to require current government issued photo ID the requirements to get such ID have been tightened. You typically need a certified copy of your birth certificate, but getting a certified copy of a birth certificate typically requires having a current government issued photo ID.

There are alternate ways to prove identity that rely on other documents and/or getting people with ID to swear that they know you and know you were born here and are who you say you are which can be used to get the certified birth certificate.

Those other documents are often hard to track down, for example some states accept school records as supporting evidence but often those records are not centralized, so you have to go the school district for them. All in all it can take significant time and money to gather all the documents needed, which is a serious problem for many of those without ID.

In the specific case of voting there are around 20 million voting-age citizens without current government issued photo ID and who would have trouble getting such ID.

If we decide we need to switch to checking government issued photo ID at the polls, as opposed to the current system where checks are done when you first register and accept secondary means of proof, the right way to do it is to first make it so those millions of citizens who would have serious trouble getting such an ID are able to actually get ID without hardship.

Only after that is done, so the switch will not disenfranchise tens of millions, start requiring such ID at the polls. Voter fraud under the current system in the US is negligible, so there is no need to rush this.

The current push by one party to try to rush it is because a majority of the people who would be disenfranchised are people who tend to favor the other party. That's why it is controversial.