Wait? These people were having unsupervised exams with access to their phone and now they see that they need to do something? I mean, the numbers speak for themselves when 45% of students say they were aware of an “honor code violation” during their time as students. I was at uni for five years, and I literally don’t know about a single case of cheating on exams among my peers.
Seems to me that cheating was already rampant, they just found a new excuse to do something about it.
To be clear by the way: Our exam “supervision” literally consisted of some pensioned seniors that got paid to come in for a day to hand out exam papers, receive and archive your response, and otherwise just hang around in the exam hall so people wouldn’t feel safe just blatantly bringing notes or their phone.
it was about letting the students collectively set their own punishments and self-govern their behavior to shut down the possibility of authoritarian abuse. anarchists have been exploring this idea for centuries
I don’t really have any big issue with the students self-regulating exam rule violations, but if it is to have any hope of working, the students would then also need to have supervisors at the exam, if only because it’s ludicrous to think that honest people that are focused on their own exam will be aware enough of their surroundings to catch others cheating, let alone call them out when they’re likely in their close social circle.
As the name implies, this was originally an “honour system”, based around individual students self-regulating based on an idea of honour. That probably worked well enough in the 1800’s and early 1900’s, but it sure as hell won’t work in a modern society that values “getting ahead at all costs” above near anything else (as the numbers show).
Wait? These people were having unsupervised exams with access to their phone and now they see that they need to do something? I mean, the numbers speak for themselves when 45% of students say they were aware of an “honor code violation” during their time as students. I was at uni for five years, and I literally don’t know about a single case of cheating on exams among my peers.
Seems to me that cheating was already rampant, they just found a new excuse to do something about it.
To be clear by the way: Our exam “supervision” literally consisted of some pensioned seniors that got paid to come in for a day to hand out exam papers, receive and archive your response, and otherwise just hang around in the exam hall so people wouldn’t feel safe just blatantly bringing notes or their phone.
it was about letting the students collectively set their own punishments and self-govern their behavior to shut down the possibility of authoritarian abuse. anarchists have been exploring this idea for centuries
I don’t really have any big issue with the students self-regulating exam rule violations, but if it is to have any hope of working, the students would then also need to have supervisors at the exam, if only because it’s ludicrous to think that honest people that are focused on their own exam will be aware enough of their surroundings to catch others cheating, let alone call them out when they’re likely in their close social circle.
As the name implies, this was originally an “honour system”, based around individual students self-regulating based on an idea of honour. That probably worked well enough in the 1800’s and early 1900’s, but it sure as hell won’t work in a modern society that values “getting ahead at all costs” above near anything else (as the numbers show).
Agreed.
Kinda insane that they were just trusted not to cheat.