General Chat

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

srsly cant wait for inception.

[leviramsey]

On the cheating question, what if a newspaper published the answers for the exam on the day of the exam in order to make clear how easy it was for cheaters to buy the answers on the black market

On June 20, an estimated 80,000 New York high school students were denied the chance to take their chemistry achievement tests because the New York Post had reprinted the test’s answers on its front page that morning.

"Easy as Pi," read the headline, while a story inside the tabloid quoted several unidentified students, in a few parts of New York City, as saying how easy it was to obtain copies of various tests and answer sheets.

It may not be the Pentagon Papers, but reaction to the Post’s actions came quickly and adamantly from observers both inside journalism and without. They did not, however, provide a consensus.

"Publishing the answers was the exclamation mark on a declarative sentence," said James S. Toedtman, managing editor of New York Newsday, another of the city’s three daily tabloids."The fact of the availability of these things was known to everybody."

But on the editorial page, New York Newsday opined: "We can’t think of one sound journalistic reason" for doing what the Post did.

But the staid New York Times, which might be considered the journalistic antithesis of the screaming, gaudy Post – and which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1972 for publishing what became known as the Pentagon Papers – defended the Post.

In an editorial, the Times first lambasted the state’s education commissioner for blaming the Post for what was obviously a major problem within his department, then said that "what really happened . . . is a mischievous newspaper did its job; it exposed a cheating scandal."

Arthur Miller, the Harvard Law School professor and moderator of a public television series called "Ethics and Society," voiced a response similar to one of many New Yorkers. "When I first heard about it, my immediate reaction was, there goes the Post again," Miller said. "But then I started to think of the possibility that it might take something really quite dramatic, almost a form of journalistic shock therapy to get the attention of the people who could do something about this."

The tests, called Regents exams, are offered in June, January and August. They can account for 25 percent of a student’s grade in a course. The tests were in their final day of a four-day cycle when the Post published part of the chemistry exam’s answer key, giving 56 answers to the 116-question test. As a result of canceling the chemistry tests, most of the state’s private and public high schools will rely on a student’s grades throughout the school year for a final average.

The day before, the state’s attorney general and state education officials said tests had been stolen and that the attorney general was investigating. Rumors about the problem had been floating for days. Still, education officials said they would continue administering the tests.

The state education department felt the problem of stolen and copied tests was a local one that could be, one spokesman said, "contained."

Jerry Nachman, named editor of the Post only three weeks earlier, disagreed. "If you read between (the attorney general’s) lines, he was saying there was something big out there," Nachman said. "We reacted to that ephemera."

Among New York City’s four major daily newspapers, only the Post tried to obtain copies of the tests after the attorney general’s press conference. A Post reporter was able to obtain copies of some tests and the chemistry answer sheet within 15 minutes, and without paying for them, Nachman said.

The attorney general’s office has said the Post broke no laws by publishing the copied answer sheet. Education officials, however, are studying whether the Post profited illegally from students who paid 40 cents a copy for the Post to specifically get the reprinted answer sheet.

Also, questions were raised about whether the stark reproduction of the answer sheet on the front page supported claims made by the Post that the testing system already had been "contaminated" statewide.

Everette Dennis, director of the Gannett Center for Media Studies at Columbia University, said he was "astounded by the Post’s extraordinary need for specificity when it came to the answers, to publish them like that," while at the same time "be very vague on the extent of the problem" and provide "only veiled accusations" and "hearsay evidence" about the source of the documents.

Nacham rebutted: "The only serious people who believed this was confined (to the city) were the Regents and New York City newspapers who are gagging at the notion that the New York Post may have finally done something right."

[leviramsey]

In my opinion, cheats always get exposed somewhere down the line. I made the point the other day. You cheat on your A Levels and get into a good uni. Your uni course is too difficult for you, so you cheat to pass. You struggle to find a job and so lie on your CV to get a job. You get a job, and you're completely incapable of doing it because you're simply not suitable to the role, because you're not capable of the level of the work...

Just ask George O'Leary

In 2001, O'Leary left Georgia Tech to take over as the head coach for the University of Notre Dame. A few days after he was hired, he was discovered to have had inaccuracies on his resume. On the resume, O'Leary claimed that he had earned a master's degree from "NYU-Stony Brook University," a non-existent institution and actually two separate institutions over 50 miles apart. In fact, he had taken only two courses at NYU, and never graduated. He also claimed that he had earned three letters in football at the University of New Hampshire, when the school claimed he had not even played in one game.

Notre Dame initially supported O'Leary when the discrepancies concerning his athletic career at New Hampshire came to light, as O'Leary assured the school that there was nothing else they needed to know. When further background checks found that O'Leary had falsified his academic credentials as well, the school asked for his resignation on December 13, 2001.

O'Leary said in a statement released that day, "Due to a selfish and thoughtless act many years ago, I have personally embarrassed Notre Dame, its alumni and fans."

O'Leary blamed the inaccuracies on "resume padding" that had followed him through his career, admitting: "In seeking employment I prepared a resume that contained inaccuracies regarding my completion of course work for a master's degree and also my level of participation in football at my alma mater. These misstatements were never stricken from my resume or biographical sketch in later years."

[mjmooney]

The football thing says a lot about US academia compared to British.

Nobody would give a flying shit what sport you did over here. OK, an Oxbridge "blue" carries some cachet, but not compared to academic qualifications.

In fact it might even be better to conceal any interest in sport!

[cheltenham_villa]

In an ideal world

No, in a reasonable world.

just dont think its the world we live in. Dont know anyone who's lived the perfect life. Would you claim Snowy to have never broken any of the 7 sins?

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

I was confirmed a permanent position at work today, including a bit (not much) of a pay rise, a bit more responsibility and much better experience for the future. I'm a happy bunny today.

In regards to the current debate, I would be absolutely gutted and angry to the extreme if I had been pipped to the post by someone who had lied about their qualifications and experience.

In my opinion, cheats always get exposed somewhere down the line. I made the point the other day. You cheat on your A Levels and get into a good uni. Your uni course is too difficult for you, so you cheat to pass. You struggle to find a job and so lie on your CV to get a job. You get a job, and you're completely incapable of doing it because you're simply not suitable to the role, because you're not capable of the level of the work...

You get the idea. It ends in tears.

In an ideal world, in this one nice guys finish last. Look at the questions, focus your studies, get on the course you want to go on and have the career you want. If you go through life worrying about upsetting people you'll get no where.

But my point is, usually the people who succeed don't need to look at the paper early.

People cheating may have the knowledge, that is the difference. The step-up from A-Level to Uni from what people is say is minimal to say GCSE to A-Level.

The point I started to make, won't get into it after this unless question is asked is that people will cheat and continue to cheat because of worry more than anything else. My attitude to general cheating like poker or in sports, I don't like it personally and don't agree with it. However, again, alot of people who would have a look at a paper, will also get the grades without looking at the paper. It's just, people would look at the paper so they felt more confident going into exam, they know what's coming up then and that you have revised strongly for it, even if the chance was too look an hour before giving you no time for revision, people would still look to feel prepared and confident.

A Uni place is a big thing for so many people for obvious reasons. At any subject, people have strong points and weak points. For example, in law, I was strong on Murder, Assaults, Attempts but weak on Strict Liability and Manslaughter, while others could be exactly the opposite, yet if Strict Liability and Burglary came up, then someone who has similar knowledge to say myself over Law as a course will get a much better grade than me simply because they understand more what's on the test. That's a reason I don't like exams because alot of exams are luck. Of course, you can feel prepared and confident but there is always topics you never fully understand and that could come up. You could be confident with 9 topics out of 12, while someone is confident with 6 out of 12...therefore you know more but then on the day of the test, 3 of the things, you don't really like much come up then the other guy could get a better mark than you.

If you HAVE too look at a paper too succeed, then of course you will probably struggle and it'll all catch up with you but I really don't think that is what happens, again probably 80%+ would look at the paper, all these people don't have to look too succeed but it would help them both with revision and mentally feeling more confident.

This is geniune as I've been throughout the whole debate, (I'm not going to Uni by the way_ but if I was and I believed I had no chance of getting in without cheating, I wouldn't cheat and I'd just accept I'd fail the course because as you say, I wouldn't want to cheat myself throughout the whole of life and I doubt you could anyway. Looking at some of the courses my mates are going on, I'd probably need CDD, CCD, something like that to get onto a course, I feel I'm good enough for CCC and think/hope it's what I've got but that wouldn't stop me looking at a paper just so I would be able to extend those chances and make sure as I think is what the thought process is with alot of people who would look.

Law this year, If I'd of had the chance to look at my paper before hand, I'd of accepted and then once seeing the paper, I'd of simply gone "Oh, that's alright then" because everything on the paper was what I knew. Now yes, I've "cheated" but I knew the information anyway, all the things on the law Exam which came up this year was my favourite things so I really doubt my mark would of mattered had I cheated or not. (I didn't obviously)....

I think what I said in the first place got completly blown out of proportion to lengths that it shouldn't of. I wouldn't call myself a cheat, I also wouldn't call 80%+ of students cheats just because they'd look at papers.

[snowychap]

In an ideal world

No, in a reasonable world.

just dont think its the world we live in.

It's hardly going to get any better if people hide behind the 'it's the way the world is' excuse.

I'm sorry but I see that kind of thinking as a big cop out for, on the whole, people who, either, don't want to try and make the world a better place or who don't actually want it to be any better.

In my view what people are actually saying is 'it's the world I want to live in'.

Dont know anyone who's lived the perfect life.

Nor do I. I doubt anyone has as I'd say that is impossible.

Would you claim Snowy to have never broken any of the 7 sins?

What 'seven sins'? That's getting a bit too religious for my liking.

If you are asking have I ever not lived up the moral expectations I set of myself (and others)? Most definitely, I haven't. I've done plenty of things wrong.

I haven't, however, either tried to justify my wrongdoings by pointing at everyone else and saying 'look at them, they do it, too' or claimed that what I have done may not be wrong.

I also hope that, at any time when I haven't, I have learned from that mistake and sought to make myself better.

There is a big difference between someone erring and someone intending to err.

[~Stringy~]

because they understand more what's on the test

I'm afraid that is the point of examinations, in a nutshell. I'd say the vast majority of people approach exams knowing they are stronger in certain areas of a subject than others, but the exam is designed to test your knowledge of a subject as a whole. Those that are hoping certain questions don't appear in order for them to pass clearly do not have a sufficient understanding of the subject and you can't blame 'bad luck' or otherwise.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

because they understand more what's on the test

I'm afraid that is the point of examinations, in a nutshell. I'd say the vast majority of people approach exams knowing they are stronger in certain areas of a subject than others, but the exam is designed to test your knowledge of a subject as a whole. Those that are hoping certain questions don't appear in order for them to pass clearly do not have a sufficient understanding of the subject and you can't blame 'bad luck' or otherwise.

Yes, but some people with significantly less knowledge than you will do better though. Everyone hopes certain questions don't appear, especially if you are not as strong on that topic.

Again, I'm not making this up, he achieved on his P.E mocks we've done this year, mostly B's, yet on the proper exam, he thinks he's failed it. (might be just saying that tbh...but usually doesn't say it) because on the paper you get:

4, 6, 5, 20 marker.

The 20 marker is on anything, other exams, like Law, you can answer 1 question from 2/3 on the 50 markers so to be fair, if you can't answer any of them, then yes you deserve to fail....but on the P.E test, you are given those marks per question for 3 different sections.

On 2 of the sections, he said he failed the 20 marker, consider in P.E, there is around 10/11 different topics per section and 3 sections. He said, he knew and was confident going into test on pretty much all of them and then on 2 of the sections, simply a question he was poor on came up and he thinks he messed it up. How is that fair on him, so he could know 26 out of 30 topics superbly well in detail and get a C or D, then someone who knows just 15 thing in detail out of 30 could get a B because of the right questions. Those 20 markers are 20 out of 35 per section.

Again though, that is P.E, other exams like Law for a 50 marker have various scenarios and you can choose one so you really can't complain to be fair but P.E was harsh on my mate and I could get a better mark than him even though I'm not academically better than him just because the 20 markers, did fall quite nicely into what I liked.

[cheltenham_villa]

In an ideal world

No, in a reasonable world.

just dont think its the world we live in.

It's hardly going to get any better if people hide behind the 'it's the way the world is' excuse.

I'm sorry but I see that kind of thinking as a big cop out for, on the whole, people who, either, don't want to try and make the world a better place or who don't actually want it to be any better.

In my view what people are actually saying is 'it's the world I want to live in'.

I think that if your really interested in a better world then perhaps slightly more mature and possibly educated people such as yourself and Chindie take the time to explain your points of view and feelings before branding a younger person like AVFCPOB "Pathetic" and "Lower than a snakes belly". We all make mistakes as you've said, but they surely they have difference in the degree that they are committed. For instance ive told the odd lie but wouldnt brand myself as a liar. The OP admitted that he would look at the questions of an exam that he had worked hard towards in order to better his future. While everyone is happy to admit this is cheating is it really fair to treat him with the disdain you would reserve for someone who has memorised answers with no attempt to research the subject material.

[leviramsey]

The football thing says a lot about US academia compared to British.

Nobody would give a flying shit what sport you did over here. OK, an Oxbridge "blue" carries some cachet, but not compared to academic qualifications.

In fact it might even be better to conceal any interest in sport!

Well, he was applying for the job of coaching the football team... (which would make him the highest paid employee of the university... indeed in most states in the US, the highest paid state employee is a football or basketball coach at one of the state universities... then again, in many cases if said coach decided to run for governor, he'd get elected in a landslide so there's a measure of self-interest in the government paying the coach so much)

[PompeyVillan]

because they understand more what's on the test

I'm afraid that is the point of examinations, in a nutshell. I'd say the vast majority of people approach exams knowing they are stronger in certain areas of a subject than others, but the exam is designed to test your knowledge of a subject as a whole. Those that are hoping certain questions don't appear in order for them to pass clearly do not have a sufficient understanding of the subject and you can't blame 'bad luck' or otherwise.

Yes, but some people with significantly less knowledge than you will do better though. Everyone hopes certain questions don't appear, especially if you are not as strong on that topic.

Again, I'm not making this up, he achieved on his P.E mocks we've done this year, mostly B's, yet on the proper exam, he thinks he's failed it. (might be just saying that tbh...but usually doesn't say it) because on the paper you get:

4, 6, 5, 20 marker.

The 20 marker is on anything, other exams, like Law, you can answer 1 question from 2/3 on the 50 markers so to be fair, if you can't answer any of them, then yes you deserve to fail....but on the P.E test, you are given those marks per question for 3 different sections.

On 2 of the sections, he said he failed the 20 marker, consider in P.E, there is around 10/11 different topics per section and 3 sections. He said, he knew and was confident going into test on pretty much all of them and then on 2 of the sections, simply a question he was poor on came up and he thinks he messed it up. How is that fair on him, so he could know 26 out of 30 topics superbly well in detail and get a C or D, then someone who knows just 15 thing in detail out of 30 could get a B because of the right questions. Those 20 markers are 20 out of 35 per section.

Again though, that is P.E, other exams like Law for a 50 marker have various scenarios and you can choose one so you really can't complain to be fair but P.E was harsh on my mate and I could get a better mark than him even though I'm not academically better than him just because the 20 markers, did fall quite nicely into what I liked.

You're genuinely missing the whole point here. Exams are meant to test your knowledge, they are not meant to be easy. They are not meant to play to your strengths.

If you have gaps in your knowledge then that should be exposed in an exam, because that is the point of an exam.

Gaps in your knowledge can arise due to a range of factors (crap teacher, personal problems, time away from study etc), but the primary factor in that is your own attitude and ability.

Sometimes you get lucky with the questions, sometimes you don't. That's an external factor, something that you cannot control. That is what you have to work with. The only thing you can control is how you apply yourself.

A Levels were not exclusively assessed on exam results when I did 'em, we had a bit of coursework too.

[mjmooney]

The football thing says a lot about US academia compared to British.

Nobody would give a flying shit what sport you did over here. OK, an Oxbridge "blue" carries some cachet, but not compared to academic qualifications.

In fact it might even be better to conceal any interest in sport!

Well, he was applying for the job of coaching the football team...

Ah OK, sorry, I missed that.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

because they understand more what's on the test

I'm afraid that is the point of examinations, in a nutshell. I'd say the vast majority of people approach exams knowing they are stronger in certain areas of a subject than others, but the exam is designed to test your knowledge of a subject as a whole. Those that are hoping certain questions don't appear in order for them to pass clearly do not have a sufficient understanding of the subject and you can't blame 'bad luck' or otherwise.

Yes, but some people with significantly less knowledge than you will do better though. Everyone hopes certain questions don't appear, especially if you are not as strong on that topic.

Again, I'm not making this up, he achieved on his P.E mocks we've done this year, mostly B's, yet on the proper exam, he thinks he's failed it. (might be just saying that tbh...but usually doesn't say it) because on the paper you get:

4, 6, 5, 20 marker.

The 20 marker is on anything, other exams, like Law, you can answer 1 question from 2/3 on the 50 markers so to be fair, if you can't answer any of them, then yes you deserve to fail....but on the P.E test, you are given those marks per question for 3 different sections.

On 2 of the sections, he said he failed the 20 marker, consider in P.E, there is around 10/11 different topics per section and 3 sections. He said, he knew and was confident going into test on pretty much all of them and then on 2 of the sections, simply a question he was poor on came up and he thinks he messed it up. How is that fair on him, so he could know 26 out of 30 topics superbly well in detail and get a C or D, then someone who knows just 15 thing in detail out of 30 could get a B because of the right questions. Those 20 markers are 20 out of 35 per section.

Again though, that is P.E, other exams like Law for a 50 marker have various scenarios and you can choose one so you really can't complain to be fair but P.E was harsh on my mate and I could get a better mark than him even though I'm not academically better than him just because the 20 markers, did fall quite nicely into what I liked.

You're genuinely missing the whole point here. Exams are meant to test your knowledge, they are not meant to be easy. They are not meant to play to your strengths.

If you have gaps in your knowledge then that should be exposed in an exam, because that is the point of an exam.

Gaps in your knowledge can arise due to a range of factors (crap teacher, personal problems, time away from study etc), but the primary factor in that is your own attitude and ability.

Sometimes you get lucky with the questions, sometimes you don't. That's an external factor, something that you cannot control. That is what you have to work with. The only thing you can control is how you apply yourself.

A Levels were not exclusively assessed on exam results when I did 'em, we had a bit of coursework too.

P.E is obviously practical - 30%...but Law and Business is all down to the exam.

I get the exam whole thing but not everyone is strong on every point. Also yes it should expose gaps in your knowledge but it doesn't expose everyone. Someone who could have more gaps in their knowledge than someone else could do better because of the right questions. Is that fair?

I'll leave it now, I know what people have been saying, I just disagree and there are times exams are kind to people who aren't as good at a subject than others because of a question, even if rarely. Anyway, if it was upto me, I'd have exams in January and July to test students on basically everything that is on the course or at least 5 out of 6 things learnt, that way, there are no gaps in your knowledge and if they are, they will be exposed and then the struggling students will be exposed rather than "get lucky" because good questions come up.

[Chindie]

Sturggling students will sell their grannys to cheat rather than get exposed it seems.

[wiggyrichard]

Ive got chaffing...it hurts sooooo much!!!!

Also i burnt my finger on the cooker yesterday...should i pop the blister?

[BOF]

Do it.

[wiggyrichard]

But then is it going to be too painful to play golf in the morning?

[Chindie]

Pop it, and then don't let the golf spoil a good walk.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Sturggling students will sell their grannys to cheat rather than get exposed it seems.

If I was struggling in P.E and doing a P.E course, then I wouldn't cheat because I know that at Uni, i'd fail.

If I was struggling in Law and doing a P.E degree of some sort then i'd cheat because you don't need Law to do P.E.....what if I'm doing a degree for mainly P.E students..and I'm a B grade student in P.E, but a D and E in other subjects. Yet somewhere who's better at other subjects than you but worse at the subject that actually matters gets through into UNI. does that make sense. :?

I also wouldn't cheat if I had to pay or had go somewhere to look. I'd just look if it was readily available on the net or someone bought into our 6th form.

Like I said, most people who would cheat will still pass anyway, they don't need to cheat at all.

Oh and just because I'd look at a paper before doesn't mean i'm some person who will cheat my way through life which I can tell you do.