What India Is Doing To Stop Cheating At Board Exams(scroll.in)
scroll.in
What India Is Doing To Stop Cheating At Board Exams
http://scroll.in/article/why-preventing-cheating-in-indias-board-exams-is-a-national-security-crisis?id=658509
47 comments
It isn't the educators, it is the employers who pervert the meaning of a degree and a GPA.
I don't think the blame is mutually exclusive.
However, I've having gone through the public education system in the United States, I know which classes were the worst (the ones all about memorization) and it sounds like the public education system in India has a lot of those classes. Perhaps the educators are only acting on behalf of the system within they exist (as a preparatory organization for this exam), but I think if the buck is to stop anywhere, it's with the administrators of the education system, they need to be held accountable.
However, I've having gone through the public education system in the United States, I know which classes were the worst (the ones all about memorization) and it sounds like the public education system in India has a lot of those classes. Perhaps the educators are only acting on behalf of the system within they exist (as a preparatory organization for this exam), but I think if the buck is to stop anywhere, it's with the administrators of the education system, they need to be held accountable.
It's more of a reflection of the society than anything to do specifically with that particular system (education in this case), just like counterfeiting/copying in China and corruption/scams in third world countries.
That kind of stuff really pisses me off, but I also have a naive perspective. For example, in some parts of the world (particularly in low trust societies) corruption is looked at differently, it's just 'taking care' of the family to the best of your ability. The more power you have, the more 'ability' you have. Maybe the goal should be to increase trust instead of trying to 'fix' the symptom?
It's hard to accept that from an American perspective. In fact, maybe it's even wrong to call it 'corruption' as if our societal views represent some sort of moral standard. But maybe they do. Shrug
That kind of stuff really pisses me off, but I also have a naive perspective. For example, in some parts of the world (particularly in low trust societies) corruption is looked at differently, it's just 'taking care' of the family to the best of your ability. The more power you have, the more 'ability' you have. Maybe the goal should be to increase trust instead of trying to 'fix' the symptom?
It's hard to accept that from an American perspective. In fact, maybe it's even wrong to call it 'corruption' as if our societal views represent some sort of moral standard. But maybe they do. Shrug
People cheat because Gain(cheating) * P(not getting caught) > Cost(cheating) * (1 - P(not getting caught)). I would say this is true for everyone everywhere regardless of society, culture or race. India is trying to reduce P(not getting caught) because, from a policy perspective, the other terms in that equation are close to impossible to change.
The US doesn't have this problem because the gains due to obvious cheating aren't big enough. People do "cheat" in the sense of "acting unfairly to gain an advantage." For example using ADD prescriptions to get extra time on exams is a well-known trick, another is to have college application counsellors ghostwrite essays and then there are numerous other methods which may not technically count as cheating but achieve the desired effect. The difference is that people whose kids do this are also those who control the media narrative, so you've all been brainwashed into thinking that this is somehow more acceptable.
The US doesn't have this problem because the gains due to obvious cheating aren't big enough. People do "cheat" in the sense of "acting unfairly to gain an advantage." For example using ADD prescriptions to get extra time on exams is a well-known trick, another is to have college application counsellors ghostwrite essays and then there are numerous other methods which may not technically count as cheating but achieve the desired effect. The difference is that people whose kids do this are also those who control the media narrative, so you've all been brainwashed into thinking that this is somehow more acceptable.
>Gain(cheating) * P(not getting caught) > Cost(cheating) * (1 - P(not getting caught))
Western society has a much higher chance of getting caught and a much higher cost when caught because it views that behaviour as abnormal. India has a cultural problem where cheating is expected.
Western society has a much higher chance of getting caught and a much higher cost when caught because it views that behaviour as abnormal. India has a cultural problem where cheating is expected.
[deleted](1)
India has a cultural problem where cheating is expected.
You are condemning an entire country and its "culture" with a single sentence. What evidence can you provide?
You are condemning an entire country and its "culture" with a single sentence. What evidence can you provide?
Even a minority of people engaging in a particular behavior can have a very significant impact on a culture as a whole. It's perfectly valid to say that the culture thus suffers from some sort of a problem, even if not everybody associated with that culture is responsible for the problem.
Going based on the information in the article, and assuming it's correct, there does seem to be at least some sort of a problem with cheating far beyond what we see in other cultures, and it does appear to be widespread. The preventative actions described would be very unexpected in many other cultures, and totally unthinkable in others.
Going based on the information in the article, and assuming it's correct, there does seem to be at least some sort of a problem with cheating far beyond what we see in other cultures, and it does appear to be widespread. The preventative actions described would be very unexpected in many other cultures, and totally unthinkable in others.
[deleted]
Disagree on the ADD prescription point. ADD meds can boost performance but you still have to at least learn the material. Pills can't put knowledge in your head. But then again, I'm the one that wants to legalize steroids in the Olympics.
The parent isn't referring to juicing with medication, rather seeking a diagnosis in order to receive accommodations like extra exam time [0].
The most notable example of this is probably the 2000 California audit:
" An analysis of the numbers from the report yielded the following figures: white students were over-represented by 45%, students coming from families whose incomes exceed $100,000 were over-represented by 139%, and students from private schools were over-represented by 100%. The report also concluded that 18.2% of the requests granted were of “questionable” merit and gave students an “unwarranted” and “unfair” advantage. The report cited weaknesses in the College Board’s approval process as the cause of some of the unfair distribution." [1]
In the meantime it actually became more desirable...
"A 2000 audit of California test takers showed a disproportionate number of white, affluent students receiving accommodations, igniting suspicions of exaggerated or nonexistent disabilities. Three years later, in the wake of a lawsuit, ACT and the College Board stopped flagging scores of accommodated students for admissions offices; with the stigma gone, the incentive grew to game the system." [2]
0: https://professionals.collegeboard.com/testing/ssd/accommoda...
1: https://www.applerouth.com/blog/2006/04/27/extended-time-and...
2: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/education/edlife/07strateg...
The most notable example of this is probably the 2000 California audit:
" An analysis of the numbers from the report yielded the following figures: white students were over-represented by 45%, students coming from families whose incomes exceed $100,000 were over-represented by 139%, and students from private schools were over-represented by 100%. The report also concluded that 18.2% of the requests granted were of “questionable” merit and gave students an “unwarranted” and “unfair” advantage. The report cited weaknesses in the College Board’s approval process as the cause of some of the unfair distribution." [1]
In the meantime it actually became more desirable...
"A 2000 audit of California test takers showed a disproportionate number of white, affluent students receiving accommodations, igniting suspicions of exaggerated or nonexistent disabilities. Three years later, in the wake of a lawsuit, ACT and the College Board stopped flagging scores of accommodated students for admissions offices; with the stigma gone, the incentive grew to game the system." [2]
0: https://professionals.collegeboard.com/testing/ssd/accommoda...
1: https://www.applerouth.com/blog/2006/04/27/extended-time-and...
2: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/education/edlife/07strateg...
This is one of those impacts of immigration that would be interesting to discuss. Given a society is defined by it's people. The introduction of a sub set that has a lower corruption tolerance, this must lower the overall tolerance.
"Who cares if the left/right gave money to their friends. At least it went towards roads. In my country they just pocket the money."
"Who cares if the left/right gave money to their friends. At least it went towards roads. In my country they just pocket the money."
Another way of looking at it is that those who are willing to uproot their lives and move to another country are much less tolerant of such practices in their home countries than the average person there.
Don't be so hasty to judge an entire country. Remember, what is corruption in a third world country is lobbying here. What is cheating in a third world country is "inner city youth problems." (Guns in schools anyone?)
1.The focus should be on creating a conducive studying environment , where knowledge retention and skill demonstration via projects is given more importance than a score on a paper.
Let's face it , every newspaper you open is flooded with an add of the mother being thankful to a coaching class for a good education. (Not a school or a teacher) commercialization of a students future and dream is what needs to be tackled. Cheating would hypothetically cease to exist if students didn't feel like they have a need to prove themselves on paper by a score
Let's face it , every newspaper you open is flooded with an add of the mother being thankful to a coaching class for a good education. (Not a school or a teacher) commercialization of a students future and dream is what needs to be tackled. Cheating would hypothetically cease to exist if students didn't feel like they have a need to prove themselves on paper by a score
* Cheating would hypothetically cease to exist if students didn't feel like they have a need to prove themselves on paper by a score*
Unfortunately we are moving exactly in the opposite direction:
other companies request them {SAT Scores} even for senior sales and management hires, eliciting scores from job candidates in their 40s and 50s.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230363640...
Unfortunately we are moving exactly in the opposite direction:
other companies request them {SAT Scores} even for senior sales and management hires, eliciting scores from job candidates in their 40s and 50s.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230363640...
How do you scale that up? Say you implement your system. Now the output of the system is a Map[Student,List[Project]] rather than a Map[Student,Int]. How do I compare schools, determine whether a school is doing it's job, or do the same thing for students?
Ultimately all consistent objective decisionmaking processes [1] must come down to a single number - that's a simple exercise in undergrad topology. Anything else will be either subjective or inconsistent (i.e., we prefer A to B, and B to C, but prefer C to A).
So what are you proposing? A different format/syllabus for standardized tests, a subjective testing procedure, or an inconsistent one?
[1] On a countable set of choices. Things get weird on uncountable sets.
Ultimately all consistent objective decisionmaking processes [1] must come down to a single number - that's a simple exercise in undergrad topology. Anything else will be either subjective or inconsistent (i.e., we prefer A to B, and B to C, but prefer C to A).
So what are you proposing? A different format/syllabus for standardized tests, a subjective testing procedure, or an inconsistent one?
[1] On a countable set of choices. Things get weird on uncountable sets.
It's very arguable that every decisionmaking process must come down to a number, as we're talking about people and not cattle.
In this perspective, having people working on projects would be an appreciation of the "multidimensional" nature of people.
After all, contemporarily, psychology started to think of multiple intelligences rather than a single one. If we assume this is true, what's the sense of assigning a single number to a person? Either it's false that multiple intelligences exist, or it's useless to single-dimensinally evaluate them. Then, let's start to assign 10 numbers instead of one.
I don't say that single-dimensional ratings are inherently wrong, but just that they're too narrow minded. "Scaling up" such procedures would mean scale up something wrong and inefficient; it's not real scaling up.
I would propose to throw standardized tests in the garbage, and try novel approaches in the evaluation processes of people; I find hard to believe that assigning a number to a person is the only possible (and practical) perspective.
In this perspective, having people working on projects would be an appreciation of the "multidimensional" nature of people.
After all, contemporarily, psychology started to think of multiple intelligences rather than a single one. If we assume this is true, what's the sense of assigning a single number to a person? Either it's false that multiple intelligences exist, or it's useless to single-dimensinally evaluate them. Then, let's start to assign 10 numbers instead of one.
I don't say that single-dimensional ratings are inherently wrong, but just that they're too narrow minded. "Scaling up" such procedures would mean scale up something wrong and inefficient; it's not real scaling up.
I would propose to throw standardized tests in the garbage, and try novel approaches in the evaluation processes of people; I find hard to believe that assigning a number to a person is the only possible (and practical) perspective.
It's very arguable that every decisionmaking process must come down to a number, as we're talking about people and not cattle.
It's not debatable if you believe in the axiom of induction (or the axiom of choice for countably infinite sets).
Theorem: If there is a total order (a consistent decisionmaking process) on the set of people (or any countable set), then there exists an order preserving function f: People->Real numbers.
Sketch of proof: Start with an arbitrary person A. Define the ranking function f(A)=0. Choose an arbitrary person besides A, call them B. If B > A then f(B)=1, else if B = a then f(B)=0 else f(B) = -1. Choose a third person C, different from A and B. If C > max(A,B) define F(C) = f(max(A,B))+1. If A < C < B or B < C < A define f(C)=0.5x(f(A)+f(B)). If C < min(A,B) then f(C) = f(min(A,B))-1. Continue ad nauseum.
Either it's false that multiple intelligences exist, or it's useless to single-dimensinally evaluate them.
Multiple intelligences probably don't exist. But even supposing they do, claiming that the domain of a function is multidimensional does not disagree with my claim that the range is one dimensional.
Background:
A total order is a way of saying "person A is at least as good as person B" which obeys all the obvious laws. Person B can be either a real person or a standard of achievement (e.g. "passing").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order
http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/metrics_manifesto.htm...
It's not debatable if you believe in the axiom of induction (or the axiom of choice for countably infinite sets).
Theorem: If there is a total order (a consistent decisionmaking process) on the set of people (or any countable set), then there exists an order preserving function f: People->Real numbers.
Sketch of proof: Start with an arbitrary person A. Define the ranking function f(A)=0. Choose an arbitrary person besides A, call them B. If B > A then f(B)=1, else if B = a then f(B)=0 else f(B) = -1. Choose a third person C, different from A and B. If C > max(A,B) define F(C) = f(max(A,B))+1. If A < C < B or B < C < A define f(C)=0.5x(f(A)+f(B)). If C < min(A,B) then f(C) = f(min(A,B))-1. Continue ad nauseum.
Either it's false that multiple intelligences exist, or it's useless to single-dimensinally evaluate them.
Multiple intelligences probably don't exist. But even supposing they do, claiming that the domain of a function is multidimensional does not disagree with my claim that the range is one dimensional.
Background:
A total order is a way of saying "person A is at least as good as person B" which obeys all the obvious laws. Person B can be either a real person or a standard of achievement (e.g. "passing").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order
http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/metrics_manifesto.htm...
Holy circular reasoning, Batman! The premise of your theorem, that there is such a total order, is equivalent to the existence of such a numbering function. You're saying "A must be true because B is true", where B is just an identical version of A, disingenuously obfuscated by a thin veneer of mathematics!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense
This all ignoring the fact any such "total order" is going to be highly variable through time (today's top engineer is tomorrow's dementia patient is yesterday's toddler)!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense
This all ignoring the fact any such "total order" is going to be highly variable through time (today's top engineer is tomorrow's dementia patient is yesterday's toddler)!
A total order is a consistent objective decisionmaking function.
I'm assuming that consistency and objectivity are obvious properties that any reasonable process must have. If you want to argue against consistency and/or objectivity, go ahead and do so. It'll certainly be interesting.
I'm assuming that consistency and objectivity are obvious properties that any reasonable process must have. If you want to argue against consistency and/or objectivity, go ahead and do so. It'll certainly be interesting.
The theorem is fine, but there's obviously not a total order of 'general aptitude' on the set of people since there definitely exist two people and two jobs for which the first person is better at the first job than the second person and worse at the second job than the second person.
Each job would have a different decision function.
Of course, it's irrelevant for exams - the decision function in that case is just to answer the question "is student A > minimum passing standard" or "is student A > student B at math".
Of course, it's irrelevant for exams - the decision function in that case is just to answer the question "is student A > minimum passing standard" or "is student A > student B at math".
>"Ultimately all consistent objective decisionmaking processes [1] must come down to a single number"
Look up Campbell's law. Here, I'll even do it for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law
Look up Campbell's law. Here, I'll even do it for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law
[deleted]
Cheating would hypothetically cease to exist if students didn't feel like they have a need to prove themselves on paper by a score
I can bet that it won't happen. As long as people need to complete, they will try to cheat.
I can bet that it won't happen. As long as people need to complete, they will try to cheat.
I hated Chemistry. I still do. I loved Math and Physics, also Geography. So, there was no way I was going to pass my 10+2 (last school year) without cheating and I am lucky that I somehow managed to cheat. I wish I could have cheated better so that the meagre Chemistry score couldn't bring my total % to around 75. Anyway, bygone is bygone.
The matters were made worse by the uninterested, unintuitive and unqualified teachers (no exception), outdated and idiotic curricula, arcane books written in an ad-hoc manner, uninteresting tests. Everything was showing just one solution - rote, which I am pathologically allergic too (though sometimes I wish I had just done it like everybody else and this what I told my younger brother).
The result is I didn't study Math, didn't study Physics either and certainly didn't study Geography. I took up Computer Science - just because it has the jobs. All along knowing fully well that you end up being a clerk or a daily wage worker (or a teacher which has a similar pay; professorship is rare) in this country if you try to follow your passion in studies and study anything other than a course that gives you a professional degree. Another path was to have rich parents who can send you to The Fancy University of UK/USA/West to study psychology/political science/geography and what not. This was certainly not under my control. Well, that's my reason.
The matters were made worse by the uninterested, unintuitive and unqualified teachers (no exception), outdated and idiotic curricula, arcane books written in an ad-hoc manner, uninteresting tests. Everything was showing just one solution - rote, which I am pathologically allergic too (though sometimes I wish I had just done it like everybody else and this what I told my younger brother).
The result is I didn't study Math, didn't study Physics either and certainly didn't study Geography. I took up Computer Science - just because it has the jobs. All along knowing fully well that you end up being a clerk or a daily wage worker (or a teacher which has a similar pay; professorship is rare) in this country if you try to follow your passion in studies and study anything other than a course that gives you a professional degree. Another path was to have rich parents who can send you to The Fancy University of UK/USA/West to study psychology/political science/geography and what not. This was certainly not under my control. Well, that's my reason.
Those are excuses, not reasons.
What's the difference?
"Reasons" are merely statements of why something is as it is. Justification isn't used.
"Excuses" try to put an unjustifiably positive (or perhaps a less-negative) slant on the explanation of why something is as it is.
balladeer wrote things like, "So, there was no way I was going to pass my 10+2 (last school year) without cheating and I am lucky that I somehow managed to cheat." and, "I wish I could have cheated better so that the meagre Chemistry score couldn't bring my total % to around 75."
To me, those appear to try to make it sound like the cheating was somehow okay, or even a good thing, even though this cheating was apparently covering up a lack of ability. They aren't merely saying why cheating was used; they try to make it sound acceptable, when it clearly isn't.
"Excuses" try to put an unjustifiably positive (or perhaps a less-negative) slant on the explanation of why something is as it is.
balladeer wrote things like, "So, there was no way I was going to pass my 10+2 (last school year) without cheating and I am lucky that I somehow managed to cheat." and, "I wish I could have cheated better so that the meagre Chemistry score couldn't bring my total % to around 75."
To me, those appear to try to make it sound like the cheating was somehow okay, or even a good thing, even though this cheating was apparently covering up a lack of ability. They aren't merely saying why cheating was used; they try to make it sound acceptable, when it clearly isn't.
You have completely misread it.
The only thing I wanted to convey was: "I didn't have an option". You want to debate why and how I didn't have an option? Well, you are welcome to do it but my answer would be simple and I've typed most in my original comment.
> covering up a lack of ability
I hope you were not simply trying to be mean.
> they try to make it sound acceptable
I am not sure whether I am right replying to your highly judgemental comment but anyway I did. And yes, you are almost entirely off the mark and wrong.
The only thing I wanted to convey was: "I didn't have an option". You want to debate why and how I didn't have an option? Well, you are welcome to do it but my answer would be simple and I've typed most in my original comment.
> covering up a lack of ability
I hope you were not simply trying to be mean.
> they try to make it sound acceptable
I am not sure whether I am right replying to your highly judgemental comment but anyway I did. And yes, you are almost entirely off the mark and wrong.
Why can't I highlight text on that page? I'm not even sure how to read an article without it...
Selection is not actually disabled, it's just that selected text is styled the same way as unselected text. You can still hold your mouse button, drag your mouse across the page, ctrl-c, ctrl-v and...
Flying squads with police protection, surveillance cameras and mobile jammers are deployed to stop the nation's students from cheating.
It's examination season across India, a matter of grave security concern. The threat comes from cheating, which has organised itself into an industry. For those who seek to prevent cheating, like flying squads that randomly check exam centres for malpractices, police protection is often necessary.
The exam season could well be called cheating season. It began in the middle of February. Here are the headlines. In Bihar, 200 class 12 examinees of the Bihar School Examination Board have already been expelled for cheating. In Assam, 421 have been caught across various centres. Odisha had a slightly better time, with only 367 caught this year, down from 654 last year. The Odisha board attributes this to multiple-choice question papers that give them no time to cheat. Students who want to pass the exam will have to answer 50 questions in 60 minutes.
Flying squads with police protection, surveillance cameras and mobile jammers are deployed to stop the nation's students from cheating.
It's examination season across India, a matter of grave security concern. The threat comes from cheating, which has organised itself into an industry. For those who seek to prevent cheating, like flying squads that randomly check exam centres for malpractices, police protection is often necessary.
The exam season could well be called cheating season. It began in the middle of February. Here are the headlines. In Bihar, 200 class 12 examinees of the Bihar School Examination Board have already been expelled for cheating. In Assam, 421 have been caught across various centres. Odisha had a slightly better time, with only 367 caught this year, down from 654 last year. The Odisha board attributes this to multiple-choice question papers that give them no time to cheat. Students who want to pass the exam will have to answer 50 questions in 60 minutes.
http://scroll.in/ajax/get_article_content.php?article_id=658...
Here you go, I hate those developers with small brains think that these kind of cheap tricks will prevent the content to be copied!
Here you go, I hate those developers with small brains think that these kind of cheap tricks will prevent the content to be copied!
Why do you assume it was the developers who wanted the cheap tricks?
(I know the founders and developers of scroll.in, and I'm 99% sure that the developers just did what they were told.)
(I know the founders and developers of scroll.in, and I'm 99% sure that the developers just did what they were told.)
I am sorry, you are probably right. Then my words are for the product owners!
Disabling Javascript didn't work. I tried to use Safari's web inspector and the tab crashed hard...
They disabled it using some javascript. I have seen this in some websites which can usually be fixed by using RighttoClick addon but it doesn't seem to work here.
Cheating in tests being widespread is more of a condemnation of the how/what the schools are teaching than the students.
There is nothing called India Board Exams - Each ethnic state has a board which conducts exams - and the surveillance is different for each.
But all boards agree and exist for the rote learning model which leaves no scope for creativity. kid in, zombie out!
But all boards agree and exist for the rote learning model which leaves no scope for creativity. kid in, zombie out!
I've been through mind-numbing classes focused on memorization of meaningless trivia, as have all students, and I personally feel fewer moral qualms about cheating in that kind of class than a class where I am able to make the personal connection between the material and its value to me.