Collusion with cheating

MBA cheating
(Largely to Professor Kennedy)

Making due allowance for a first posting I wonder on what evidence 'Worldwide' has for saying:

'So we now have the unholy partnership. Universiities boasting about catching cheats etc all the time keeping very quiet about the other cheat sites to make sure that students still enrol with them.'


Surely no allowances are needed? You ask for evidence and I'll give it to you - hopefully you'll follow links:


read these:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/hig...1005332,00.html

http://education.guardian.co.uk/egw...,628914,00.html

http://education.guardian.co.uk/mba...,817434,00.html

In each case all the people mentioned were contacted and asked to lobby Parliament, lobby education groups etc etc to try and get sites like this one:

www.elizabethhall.com

made illegal.

Not one of the fine upstanding people replied to the emails (from three separate parties over an period of 6 mths) and a search of the internet reveals that despite numerous newspaper articles where very moral people condemn her no-one (including journalists) is doing a thing to try and make the service illegal despite the fact they are procuring fraud by the very fact that they're advertising cheating services.

So we have universiities going on about plagiarism software but doing nbothing at all about www.elizabethhall.com etc etc (there are other sites but this one is the most blatant) so the universitiies seem holier than thou to the media but don't really want to stamp out the real cheating service....I have trawled this site too and though the www.elizabethhall.com site is mentioned I see no condemnation and certainly no-one suggesting it should be made illegal.

"Reputable universities not only discipline cheats, they take preventative measures to limit their scope (including final exams only, closed book, invigilated by independent agencies, no choice of questions, all graded by the faculty not short term 'hires', Externally examined by senior faculty of other universities, no grade drift). "


I went to university last year - I won't say which one but it is very reputable. We were allowed to take one piece of paper into the exam with unlimited words. I put 2800 words on my one piece of paper. For the other exams we were given 12 typical questions and 6 came up word for word; for another exam we were told two journal articles were in the exam and lo and behold there were two questions saying 'according to the article by ****** what are the main points....."

That's not cheating but it does show - anecdotally - how universities in the market place want to make sure their students do well at all costs.

Hence they will not really be cracking down on cheats who advertise their services.

The 'alliance' is by default.

"I am not clear what the difference is implied in the statement:
'It's straight forward cheating, not plagiarism.' Claiming something is written by the name on the exam paper when it was written by someone else without acknowledgement is plagiarism and cheating. Fraud is fraud. And no responsible university tolerates it."

Firstly if the cheating is 'undetectable' which is what the site boasts then it's not that a university 'tolerates' it as they don't officially know it's happening BUT by doing nothing about fraud sites such as the one I have mentioned they, by default, allow it.


__________________
Worldwide student

Mainly to 'Worldwide student':

I have opened a new thread to discuss the serious allegations you have made that "Universiities [boast] about catching cheats etc all the time keeping very quiet about the other cheat sites to make sure that students still enrol with them.'

The evidence you offer is from three 'Guardian' columns which quote several people about the activities of a 'cheat' service with the aim to: 'to make sure that students still enrol with them.'

This is more than a touch exaggerated as a conclusion. I trust you do not make such sweeping assertions based on similar 'evidence' in your work.

Britain is a less litigous society than the US and the idea that a university can 'shut down' an independent entity, or would undertake the hazardous legal task (libel, proof of conspiracy, etc.) of doing so on the basis of what the 'Guardian' reports would not pass a first year legal tutorial group of students. It is additionally perverse to conclude that universities 'keep[ing] very quiet about the other cheat sites to make sure that students still enrol with them.'

The problem you raise seems to come from your experience of what, if true, I can only described as sloppy examining procedures (choice of questions and pre-exam hints about them) which are far more serious than internet downloads because such procedures permit downloads to be used. Even without downloads, pre-exam hints are pernicious. You say the university concerned is 'reputable' by which you must be using a very wide definition of the meaning of reputable.

No reputable university would use such methods as standard, or tolerate them as exceptions, and no reputable dl exam regimes use off-site and out of sight asignments counting for final grades. All those that do, have a serious exam problem that risks their reputations.

But the idea that any university colludes with cheating or cheat agencies or deliberately encourages such practices is ludicrous.
Of the anecdotes you provide you say 'That's not cheating'. It is and it is deplorable.

No such practices are prevalent at EBS, and, unlike those you mention, we do not hide the 25 per cent failure rate of our students in our MBA exams; indeed, we advertise it as a badge of quality. Zero and near zero failure rates in MBA courses are suspicious and if such practices are driven by market forces they provide them with modest results compared to universities that behave differently.

 

Mainly to Professor Kennedy even though the 'problem' I allude to concerns us all

I ofered three columns as evidence because I did not want to swamp this site. I also offered www.elizabethhall.com which you didn't comment on.

The Guardian columns quote 'people from edeucation'. I also said that all these people had been contacted, with others, to ask what they were doing to shut down services such as the one quoted.

My evidence was the lack of activity by 'those who say they care' - not, as you say, 'three Guardian columns'. I therefore concluded that by neglect the cheating service continues and thus with anti plagiarism software etc ect her type of market is increasing. Through their neglect Universities (and others) are allowing such sites to flourish.

I did not see you counter any of that argument.

I trust you do not dismiss students' work without considering their actual arguments when you deal with work submitted to you.

You say: "Britain is a less litigous society than the US and the idea that a university can 'shut down' an independent entity, or would undertake the hazardous legal task (libel, proof of conspiracy, etc.) of doing so on the basis of what the 'Guardian' reports would not pass a first year legal tutorial group of students. "

It would pass a first year group of Politics students. The idea is that Universities and others can lobby Parliament to encourage a change in the law which seems to allow the procurement of fraud to exist. You have not quoted anything from the site concerned, allow me to do so:

"EHA is the high quality academic cheating service. We provide customised and undetectable commissioned academic writing - cheating - bespoke, unique and owned by you.

EHA 'cheating' is undetectable cheating. Anti-plagiarism software holds no fears - customised work is never submitted by any other student for any other course. All work is 'one off' work."

Can you suggest any reason for universities and others in Education NOT to actively campaign for such a site closure other than the desire not to be seen as being excessively hard on cheating? The only other one I can think of is 'apathy'. Ignorance of the site's existence I suppose but this I doubt as it has been featured in many newspapers.


You then refer to the problem i raise about exam hints etc. This problem is of course confined to the university I attended. I have no idea if it is widespread. Far more important is the existence and growth of cheat sites that circumvent the anti plagiarism software. I would suggest such sites are everyone's problem.

The cheta sites are NOT internet downloads but bespoke subcontracting.

I quote about MBAs:

"MBA problems? Need to cheat your way to an MBA? EHA's customised writing team will rescue you.

MBA Rescue is designed for busy professionals who need an MBA, even if they have to 'cheat' to get it.

Every piece is commissioned by you, bespoke for you and owned by you. It cannot be detected using any existing anti-plagiarism software. It is written for you alone and is not part of a bank of MBA work.

If you are going to have to ‘cheat’ use the best, most comprehensive UK based service available."


Does it not bother you at all that DL colleges that have a dissertation as part of the overall assessment, may be passing people who have cheated using such services?

You say "But the idea that any university colludes with cheating or cheat agencies or deliberately encourages such practices is ludicrous."

My closing point was not about active collusion. What I actually wrote was:

Firstly if the cheating is 'undetectable' which is what the site boasts then it's not that a university 'tolerates' it as they don't officially know it's happening BUT by doing nothing about fraud sites such as the one I have mentioned they, by default, allow it.

Note: by default.

You say: "No such practices are prevalent at EBS...."


I did not say it was a 'practice'; more a lack of action. Since you mention EBS let me ask you this then:

'What have you done to ensure that none of your students make use of such services as : "EHA's undetectable cheating provides customised assignments, dissertations and research papers. "(again from the site) or "Welcome to Degree Essays UK. We pride ourselves in providing an exceptionally high quality UK essays and dissertation writing service. Ever wanted essays of a guaranteed 2:1 or 1st class standard that aren't available anywhere else? We are the UK's only personalised custom written essays and dissertations service supplying work of such a standard." (Source: http://www.degree-essays.com/)


Presumably as your courses are 100% exam assessed you'll say that these sites don't affect you - but they do as your own graduates compete with others whose MBA includes coursework which just may have been written by someone else.

Do you not think that as a part of a world of education you should pro actively be seeking change? In July you wrote:

"Cheating is always possible but can be minimised in an invigilated exam room (most modes of cheating are known and we seldom discover new ones, but we catch most of the others and deal with them). When cheating reaches 80 per cent of a class (as it did recently in a UK University - not EBS - we have a crisis of potential to compromise DL where detection of this kind of fraud is weak. I hope you care about this half as much as I do."

In the past 7 months, other than promote EBS and its 100% exam assessment, what have you done to protect your graduates from losing out to others in the jobs market who may have 'succeeded' by using cheat services?

It is relatively easy to stop this kind of cheating: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/390044.stm (EBS namesake NOT EBS itself) but with bespoke services you have to tackle the source - and with that you need a change in the law. To get that you have to lobby as a citizen, as a corporate body and through membership of any organisation, committees etc etc - but it could also be done by taking a stand on your own website.....


Earlier I said that for EBS cheating (on coursework) may not directly apply as you assess by examination. To suggest there is no direct threat would be wrong, however. Your website states: "Exemptions from specific core courses may be granted to holders of recognised academic or professional qualifications if they are of degree level and if they have been obtained by examination. "

Let us say that I achieved a degree in 'X' which contained assessment that was 50% coursework based.

Let us also say that the coursework was written by www.elizabethhall.com (as an example). I obtained the degree by fraud; I gain exemption from one of your exams through fraud; I therefore obtain the MBA through you by fraud.

The ONLy thing you can do to stop that is refuse exemption for any qualification that is not 100% exam based.

I don't see that EBS does that.


In July you wrote: I hope you care about this half as much as I do.

Believe me I do. I now wait to see see your reponses to the above.

 

You write: “with bespoke services you have to tackle the source - and with that you need a change in the law. To get that you have to lobby as a citizen, as a corporate body and through membership of any organisation, committees etc etc - but it could also be done by taking a stand on your own website”

From enquiries I have made about these agencies they are not easy to ‘shut down’ and it is not ‘neglect’ why this has not yet happened. The highest university body in the UK (Universities UK) is looking at the legal problems, and individual universities are too. Your original, and ‘final’, claim or allegation (with hints of libel’, though you did not accuse any specific university so you covered your tracks, legally speaking - known as the ‘scattergun defence’) was:

“So we now have the unholy partnership. Universities boasting about catching cheats etc all the time keeping very quiet about the other cheat sites to make sure that students still enrol with them.”

That is rubbish (‘to make sure’, an intention?), to which I have replied calling for evidence, to which your response was three articles from ‘The Guardian’ and a website, none of which show any sign of universities ‘making sure’ that these sites continued. It may be an excellent aspersion for a politics student but is shockingly a low standard for a law student.

Your advice is: “with bespoke services you have to tackle the source - and with that you need a change in the law. To get that you have to lobby as a citizen, as a corporate body and through membership of any organisation, committees etc etc - but it could also be done by taking a stand on your own website.....”. More activism required? But not much evidence of the way the law is changed in the UK (and, I suspect, the US).

Bills with a chance of passing the House of Commons need the support of the government and parliamentary time and this is unlikely to be found before 2004-5, even should the change you wish be capable of being drafted sensibly (I do not know if it would be as I am not an expert), and it have a high enough priority (which is not decided by your sense of urgency but by that of the government’s).

Now, as your quotes from previous posts show, I have long campaigned here for tougher exam regimes and I have often commented when cheating scandals break on their danger for the integrity of distance learning degrees. What we have done at EBS is institute an exam regime that precludes the assessments upon which cheating agencies can feed. Other institutions have not (yet) done so and I suggest you exercise your ire against them, and against those contributors to this Board who decry the idea that there is nothing wrong with off-site and out of sight assignments counting towards the final degree grade. They do not count at EBS.

Exemptions in one subject are available for a bachelor degree in a single subject and, of course, there is a (small) risk that this may let in someone who used a cheating service in that subject. He or she still has to pass another eight subjects for our MBA under our tough but fair final exam regime (and may be required to take an ‘exemption exam’ under our rules if there is any doubt whatsoever of the relevance or quality of their degree).

You then raise an interesting subject of EBS refusing to accept degrees awarded by other British universities as qualifying the holders of the exemption entitlement. Now that would really advance the cause we both share (apparently, if we disregard your aspersions about universities ‘mak[ing] sure that students still enrol with’ cheat services) and that ‘they don't really want to be too tight in case it drives away candidates’, and would have severe repercussions and demonstrate a naïve attitude to politics and influencing, let alone the law. I am not even sure it would be legal – it certainly would not be wise if we want universities to support what you seek through top-level influence with the Department of Education.

Our stance on the need for a tough MBA exam regime has led us not to participate in so-called private ‘accreditation’ agencies and ‘rankings’ which cover ‘reputable’ institutions, some of which have examination processes wide open to fraud. First step, therefore, is to change their exam processes to make redundant the cheating agencies and to frustrate the cheats. EBS has done that.

But campaigns of the kind you want – complete with repeated URLs of where to find them (are you advertising them too?) – would be, in my opinion, counter-productive. Single-issue activism from Politics 101 is not a suitable guide to how to tackle these problems, and nor is making wild assertions about the intentions of those who run universities.

 

cheating (contd)

I am putting varioius elements of this in bold not to be rude but to ensure that they are actually read. I infer from Professor Kennedy's reponse that he has not fully read my post - perhaps I have annoyed him. If so then I apologise but I do not apologise for accusing universities for not being proactive in trying to stop cheating.

I originally wrote: “with bespoke services you have to tackle the source - and with that you need a change in the law. To get that you have to lobby as a citizen, as a corporate body and through membership of any organisation, committees etc etc - but it could also be done by taking a stand on your own website”

Professor Kennedy replies: "From enquiries I have made about these agencies they are not easy to ‘shut down’ and it is not ‘neglect’ why this has not yet happened"

Really? I have said (and you quoted me) that what is needed is a change in the law making procurement of fraud illegal. To get that change in the law lobbying is needed or maybe a University (or a body of universiities) taking a site to court for that offence and trying to set a precedent.


I do not see some of the steps I have suggested - eg 'taking a stand on your own website' as being difficult. What is to stop any university (eg EBS - but clearly there are many examples) from emailing all universitiies along the lines of : "We believe that cheating is a cancer in Education. With the growth in anti plagiarism software students may now be drawn to the growing niche market of bespoke cheating i.e. where someone else writes the essays/dissertation. To stop such a thing happening is virtually impossible however it is possible to stop a business advertising such services. I ask you to join with us in writing to Congress/Parliament etc etc...."

What do you have to lose by doing this?
Why would you want not to do this?

Professor writes: "The highest university body in the UK (Universities UK) is looking at the legal problems, and individual universities are too"

You seem to think that this will really achieve something. In 1999 Universities UK reported: "01 September 1999
CVCP(1) and SCOP(2) have successfully co-ordinated action to obtain an interim injunction from the High Court last week to stop the provision of fake degree certificates by a businessman who has been advertising them on the internet and elsewhere."

That's four years ago. And yet 3 years later the Guardian reported: "Despite a court injunction, a service continues to sell forged degree certificates over the internet. "

http://education.guardian.co.uk/elearning/story/0,10577,629486,00.html

The article also quoted Baroness Warwick:

"Baroness Diana Warwick, chief executive of Universities UK, the body representing academic chiefs, said: "Universities UK strongly disapproves of the production of fake degree certificates. We have taken a strong line on this issue in the past and we will continue to work to counteract those who attempt to falsify qualifications. Such attempts devalue the efforts of genuine students who work hard to achieve their degrees.""

So they are working to counteract....

Despite the injunction....

"David Anderson-Evans, a policy advisor at UUK, however expressed frustration that universities could not stop the service. "Having spent a considerable amount on money on legal fees, the law has been unable to deliver, which is very dissappointing," he said. A forum of examination boards is now petitioning to bankrupt the business."

Ah, a forum of boards is petitioning........

Now I do not know if http://www.fakedegrees.com/ is the same site (the other one was fakedegrees.co.uk ) but clearly the whole proces of faking degrees has not been stopped. When Baroness Warwick was emailed by an organisation in the UK as they were seeking her help to stop cheating in education she didn't even reply- even though she was emailed three times. (July/August 2003)

So cheat sites flourish through neglect.


Anyway, I am not talking about 'looking at' I am talking about doing something . In any case the two are not mutually exclusive.

Professor then quotes me: "“So we now have the unholy partnership. Universities boasting about catching cheats etc all the time keeping very quiet about the other cheat sites to make sure that students still enrol with them.”

I also said that I could not think of any other reason NOT to do something about the cheat sites except apathy. I dismissed 'ignorance' as being unlikely.

So what alternative conclusion have I missed?


Your put-down of: "It may be an excellent aspersion for a politics student but is shockingly a low standard for a law student."

neatly avoid offering an alternative. So you dismiss my argument merely by pouring scorn on the evidence when the whole thrust of my post(s) was that universities by default allow cheating services to flourish.


Professor then writes: "Bills with a chance of passing the House of Commons need the support of the government and parliamentary time and this is unlikely to be found before 2004-5, even should the change you wish be capable of being drafted sensibly (I do not know if it would be as I am not an expert), and it have a high enough priority (which is not decided by your sense of urgency but by that of the government’s)."


In the UK we have a Prime Minister elected on the mantra 'Education, education, education'. Certainly university top up fees dominate the politics pages. Education is a very high profile issue. The British Cabinet have already considered the existence of cheat servoices but concluded they were not widespread enough to warrant a law change.

That is their mistake as of course they have no idea as to how many people use the services of the cheats. I have no idea either BUT it is logical that with plagiarism stopped (in part) there will be a drift towards bespoke cheating.


The Professor then writes about his campaigning for tougher exam regimes etc. I have read some of his posts and agree with him totally - in fact my very first post here stated that an exam only qualification, in my opinion, carries more weight than one that has an element of coursework etc.

Professor - we are on the same side.

The difference I suspect is that I want something done about this but am too small fry to do it whereas you are much bigger fry but you seem to think I should be addressing other Universiities especially those that have a coursework element.

I disagree. Your University has taken a stand against coursework - perhaps in part for the possibility of cheating. Thus your university would be the ideal one to lobby for a law change. You're already there in spirit. Other universities who allow coursework may mutter about cheating being a minority etc etc and do nothing.

I agree 100% with the EBS view that off-site and out of sight assignments should not count towards the final degree grade.


I suggested that EBS changed their rules on exemption. Professor Kennedy suggests that it may not be legal 'I am not even sure it would be legal'. Why not? It's your University and your rules.

it would have severe repurcussions, yes. Student intake may fall. But in the name of 'educational honesty' is that not a step worth taking?

This 'sacrifice' that EBS makes would enhance its standing even further and may actually lead to more not less support. I assume you're being ironic when you say "Now that would really advance the cause we both share"

Take off the irony and I agree.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to advance a reason why EBS would NOT want to ensure 100% that no cheats ended up with EBS Masters ...other than a fall in student numbers. If the law was changed then the short term disdvantage would disappear and EBS would forever be known as the University that stood up for what it believed in.


Professor writes: "Our stance on the need for a tough MBA exam regime has led us not to participate in so-called private ‘accreditation’ agencies and ‘rankings’ which cover ‘reputable’ institutions, some of which have examination processes wide open to fraud. First step, therefore, is to change their exam processes to make redundant the cheating agencies and to frustrate the cheats. EBS has done that."

I agree with your stance 100% - except by accepting students with coursework for exemptions, however few, you have not made cheating agencies redundant. You could do so much more along the lines I have described.

"But campaigns of the kind you want – complete with repeated URLs of where to find them (are you advertising them too?) – would be, in my opinion, counter-productive."

I re-read your post and could find nothing to support this view. So you have disagreed with a lot of what I say (I suspect the style rather than the theme) and yet advanced no reason to explain why EBS accepts students who may have cheated; no reason to say why EBS does not want to urge a campaign against cheats (other than by saying it would be counter-productive, though you fail to explain why); no reason to suggest you will or will not be contacting other universities to encourage them to support you for a change in the law.

I make no assertions about why EBS (or the Professor) takes no action - I just think it's a pity. I am not advertising the sites I quoted - I hoped that by repeatedly bringing them to peoples attention someone might actually think it right to do something

If 0.0001% of students leave EBS with an MBA that includes in it an exemption gained indirectly through paying someone to write your work - isn't that 0.0001% too many?

 

cheats etc (contd)

To add to what I have written......

Professor Kennedy writes: "From enquiries I have made about these agencies they are not easy to ‘shut down’ and it is not ‘neglect’ why this has not yet happened. The highest university body in the UK (Universities UK) is looking at the legal problems, and individual universities are too."

So UUK is 'looking at the legal problems..."

Please explain why you think that. The reason I ask is that UUK emailed the following in answer to someone who wrote asking what they were doing about cheat sites:

"You ask what UUK is doing in this area:

We have alerted our members to this site via the Assessment Practitioner
Group of Academic Registrars. We have also discussed this particular site
with the JISC plagiarism advisory service.

As you know, Universities UK takes the issue of plagiarism, and all forms of
cheating, very seriously. However, academic misconduct is a matter for
individual universities to deal with.

This is possibly not the answer you were hoping for, but this is as much as
we are able to do in cases of this kind."

So it is a matter for individual universities.......which is where I came in. And it is most certainly not 'looking at the legal problems'.

 

Your long rants are extremely difficult to reply to, not helped by your anonymity which would allow me and others to judge the weight I should place on your prescriptions to solve the problems you have raised.

For example, a court issuing an injunction is the only authority that can impose it (in Scotland - a separate legal system - it is an interdict). How a petitioner can enforce an injunction is not clear. The fact that something is sold over the internet is not a clear case that the injunction is not being enforced - it is called 'jurisdiction'. If the DofE is the petitioner, other bodies cannot intervene.

The process in changing the law is complex. EBS does not run the government. Universities UK, representing all British universities, is in close contact with the Department of Education, and they are pursuing all avenues in this field. It is not appropriate that EBS intervenes directly (did nobody mention this in your political activism elective?).

As for declaring unilaterally that we refuse all other degrees from British universities because there might be fraud included in them - are you serious? Please identify yourself so we can judge if you should be listened to - which university do you run, or are you someone with a bee in your bonnet who should be humoured? From making wild assertions that universities intend to encourage students to use cheat agencies (as stupid a conspiracy theory as ever I have heard) you advocate political behaviours that frankly are juvenile (with all due respect to the anonymity behind which you hide).

In Britain we have the rule of law and due process and much as these agencies have managed to keep a step ahead of judicial retribution, 'lynch mobs' would not help. Universities are powerless to stop something they have no legal authority to act upon - this is Britain, not Iraq. Quoting Blair's mantra on education is rhetoric not serious action.

I am now seriously of the opinion, or at least alert to, an attempt by you to tempt me into making injudicious statements against a named cheat agency (which I have avoided by not naming any of them so far) which one of these agencies can make a legal case against me and EBS. How else explain your attack on EBS, which has done more to prevent academic fraud (none of our students can possibly gain from a cheat agency under our exam regime) when dozens of others have left themselves open, unintentionally, to exploitation by a cheat agency?

Unless you reveal yourself and your affilliations, I am not prepared to continue such a risky debate. You can use the email connection for privacy if you wish. I can imagine now why Universities UK decided, probably on legal advice, not to reply to emails that may be from agent provocaters.

Nobody, finally, can pay anyone to write their work for the EBS exam regime even if EBS is duty bound to accept a British degree qualification for an exemption in one subject, or can require them to sit one of our exemption exams under our exam regime rules.

The number of 'accountants' and 'economists' who fail such tests is comforting to those of us who are cautious about claimed competence. As those who are awarded an exemption in a single subject out of the nine they have to pass, must still pass the other eight, I think I can sleep at night without worrying about the unknown number of cheats who might have slipped in unnoticed. Our exams are tough enough and our failure rate tough enough to screen out potential cheats.

 

Can't resist the temptation to argue with the Professor here...

"Other institutions have not (yet) done so and I suggest you exercise your ire against them, and against those contributors to this Board who decry the idea that there is nothing wrong with off-site and out of sight assignments counting towards the final degree grade."

Well, I once argued in favour of off-site assignments. I believe they are valuable pedagogical tool, often impossible to replace. In the graduate program I am in (Computer Science, Florida State University) the "hard" classes are precisely those that rely heavily on assignments. Compiler Construction, Advanced Unix Programming, Real Time Systems etc... No way can you test those in any proctored examination regime (unless you propose week-long exams). Under this conditions trying to get tough in exam regime will severely limit learning experience. And while plagiarism is possible and I am sure ocassionaly happen, I don't beleive it happen on a massive scale, and experienced faculty has ways to minimize it. While I have no experience in other fields, I can easily imagine a faculty member considering lagrer-scale assignments nessesary for what s/he wants to teach, even in business-related subjects. The fact that EBS found their ways to offer credible MBA in exam-only mode does not mean that others should follow the same philosophy and metodology.

That said, having NO proctored exams for courses does seem unreasonable. Such exams are invaluable for the precise reason you present - preventing fraud.

 

Professor Kennedy

You are replacing substance with condescension. I asked a number of questions. You failed to answer them but, perhaps seeing my persistence, are now talking of not answering any more.

So be it.

It would have been much better had you answered my points in particular about eradicating the possibility of someone leaving your university having cheated their way to an MBA.

When you mark exam papers I assume you do so anonymously i.e. without knowing the name of the candidates. That is to make sure you assess the paper on its merits without any preconceptions. However now you seem to think my identity is important as if that had the slightest bearing on the points I raise.

It doesn't - and I'd have thought you'd know that.

You dwell on a point about petitioning - despite the fact that it was not me who made that point.

I asked you for the evidence for your statement that UUK is exploring legal problems. You ignored my request and instead sought to dismiss my post as being a rant.

You say it is not appropriate that EBS (or presumably any other university) intervenes directly. UUK say: "However, academic misconduct is a matter for individual universities to deal with." But that's only if you catch them! So you see no role for EBS or you as a citizen in trying to change a law for the benefit of those in education.

Is 'lobbying' a foreign concept to you?

Is it juvenile to make a principled stand against fraud? Apparently so. So you will continue to accept students who may have cheated in coursework - whilst making the point that you care a lot about honesty in education.

Fine. I can see marketing reasons for not taking a stand - but not ethical ones. You say I made a wild assertion that universities encourage students to use cheat agencies - and for the second time you ignore my point that this encouragement was by default i.e. by lack of action.

I asked you what action you will take.

You did not answer.

Of course your 'exams only' stance is excellent but it's a pity you are not prepared to go the extra kilometre.


You compare lobbyists with 'lynch mobs'. An unfair comparison. What exactly is wrong with someone who cares about education writing a letter to his Representative/MP and asking that the possiblity of a law change be looked into?

Shame on you for seeing Universitiies as powerless. Whatever happened to individual voting rights? Whatever happened to political lobbying?

You then try to cloud the issue by suggesting I might be trying to tempt you into making an injudicious statement against a named agency. (I named three). This is rot.

What possible statement could you make that has not been made already? You can call an agency a 'cheat' - which is hardly injudicious as at least one of the agencies named offers 'undetectable cheating'.

I am not attacking EBS. I am debating with you but unfortunately you either dismiss what I say (without substantiating your dismissal) or refer to my posts as 'rants', make jokes about 'Politics 101' - in fact do many things except actually deal with the questions I have raised.

Of course, by exemption, someone can gain by a cheat agency. They can gain a lot more elsewhere, granted (as I have said before) but there still exists the possibility that someone who cheated can gain an MBA which, because of the exemptions, they have gained fraiudently.


"Unless you reveal yourself and your affilliations, I am not prepared to continue such a risky debate. "

The debate is not risky in the slightest but this is your get-out clause. Rather than support your put-downs on me you seek to find my identity and somehow this will affect my argument.

You say UUK didn't respond.

I do wish you'd not misrepresent what I say.

I even quoted the UUK response!


I am sure you can sleep at night concerning your own systems but how, as someone involved in education, can you ignore what is happening elsewhere and yet completely avoid all responsibility by refusing to do anything other than make sure the EBS system is 'tight'.

I accept that you will not debate - this is far more your 'home site' than mine. I do not wish to insult you or pour scorn on what you write. These are traits I feel are not worthy. I worked in industry in the 70s and 80s and, because I was taking professional institute examinations, became familiar with some of your work. I had hoped that adopting a 'high ethics' approach towards the existence of sites that procure fraud would be 'non negotiable'

I was right - but only in that your non-negotiation was blanket refusal, rather than acceptance of the need for action.

I'll not trouble you again with attempts at discussions about cheating, ethics etc. As I originally said, it is the very lack of action by those in a position to take action, that encourages, by default, the spread and growth of bespoke cheating agencies.

Sadly one of the many questions you refused to answer is this one:

In the past 7 months, other than promote EBS and its 100% exam assessment, what have you done to protect your graduates from losing out to others in the jobs market who may have 'succeeded' by using cheat services?

I'll leave that with you.

 

11 Days have passed

"But I'm always careful. The best way is to combine library materials with essays bought from the internet."

Essays for sale

Anna is not alone. Cheating, especially internet cheating, is increasingly becoming the way of the academic world.

There are several websites offering well-written essays for token fees, and business is booming.

Other internet operations will not only sell students essays and term papers but also remove them from cyberspace altogether so that nobody can trace the source."

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3265143.stm

I find it a little strange that the good Professor Kennedy has omitted to put on record his proactive approach against cheating by students NOT enrolled in EBS.

Let us not forget this about EBS:

1. 50 companies in the FT 100 pay their employees' fees who undertake the Heriot Watt MBA

2. For the Commonwealth, the Business Council has chosen the EBS MBA as its sponsored MBA for Commonwealth countries

3. 10,000 EBS MBA students have sat EBS exams in the past 15 months

4. It is a fact that everywhere in the world, the city of Edinburgh has high brand recognition and it makes good sense to use that 'pull' to inform potential sponsors and students of EBS offerings.

5. So does Scotland and its educational standards.

With all of that going for it why is EBS not in the vanguard for trying to stop cheating everywhere in education - not just EBS?

11 days have passed since I asked Professor Kennedy:


In the past 7 months, other than promote EBS and its 100% exam assessment, what have you done to protect your graduates from losing out to others in the jobs market who may have 'succeeded' by using cheat services?

Do you agree that: it is the responsibility of all academics to try and put a stop to all forms of cheating whever such cheating may be found/advertised not least because your own students who do not cheat may be disadvantaged?


I hope there is a reply to this.

 

It is also 12 days since I asked you to identify yourself as to your credentials for your statements about what a university should do in respect of policy issues, such as telling other universities by direct campaigning interventions into how they should manage their affairs. So far you have declined to do so. If you do not wish to reveal this on a public forum, fine, but you could email me on a confidential basis and I would respect your privacy.

The problem is how credible is your campaigning advice? I suspect you are not a member of a faculty in a university because of the naiveté by which you assume an individual faculty member can run a public campaign that would be construed as public criticism of other named universities. Only Principals can speak on behalf of their universities. Others can speak as individuals, which lessens the impact of their views and advice. It is called ‘bringing the university into disrepute’. If you were at a senior level in any university you would know all of this, as well as appreciating the boundaries of our ‘politics’.

Should certain issues merit transcending such boundaries and taking to the ‘streets’? Maybe but rarely, and certainly not on the issue you have chosen to focus your spleen upon.

First put your own house in order. At EBS we have done so. What about your institution? What have you done about the issues of cheating? Do you even work in a university? If so, where and in what role? Janitor or Principal?

EBS is in the ‘vanguard’ of tough exam regimes where the possibilities of cheating are minimised. We do not grade out of sight and off-site assignments, class performance, attendance, projects, group work and other ‘soft’ practices (sight of questions, choice of questions, open books, downloadable pre-prepared essays, non-psychometric multiple choice questions, mere memory tests, non-proctored tests, ‘Honour’ systems, self-assessed performance measures, grading by adjunct faculty, franchised grading, proctoring by faculty who taught the students, knowledge by instructors as to an exam’s contents, ‘three strikes at cheating and then you might be out’ policies, innumerable ‘re-sits until you pass’ regimes, students ‘negotiating’ their grades, allowing lawyers into the grading process, submitting to pressures and intimidation to change grades or disciplinary decisions, grade drift, seriously unsound pass marks as a norm (+ ‘97 per cent’), and many more.

If you were employed in a university examination process, you would know all about these and other practices, none of which occur in EBS. So, until you reveal yourself (what are you afraid of? – you know where to find me) and establish your credentials I shall desist from responding to your obsessions of criticising one of the universities in the world that practices what you claim to preach. I shall also resist following your call to mount a pointless public attack on other named universities for their practices. Of course, I shall continue behind the scenes to advocate within the academic community and within proper channels for the adoption of anti-cheating practices in all exam regimes.

When I contribute here I do so in my name and from my institution. That is why I criticised your original nonsensical statement that universities collude with cheat scams and encourage them to maintain pass rates. I think this is what got you going and turned this exchange into an obsessive single issue ‘campaign’ to denigrate my institution.

Incidentally, the overwhelming majoirty of EBS distance students are already in employment, that is why they opt for distance learning. I presume you know this? It is what this thread is about and why the section is called 'Distance Learning Discussions'.

 

Mr. Worldwide - There's something going on here that I don't understand and perhaps you can clear it up for me. You have obviously directed this thread at Prof. Kennedy but I'm not sure why that is. Prof. Kennedy has posted often here and virtually everyone is aware of his connection with EBS. But, unless I've missed the announcement regarding his promotion, I do not believe that he is responsible for the policies and practices of EBS or any other school. Furthermore, I do not believe that he posts here as an official representative of EBS. He primarily reports his own opinions and practices and I do not believe that these necessarily reflect the official position of his employer (unless he states this explicitly). You postings seem to suggest that he is personally responsible for solving the problems you've identified and I do not believe that is the case. You are clearly frustrated with a system that does not seem as responsive as you would wish. While your frustration may be valid I do not see how it then becomes approriate for you to lay this at his feet. You are beginning to appear as someone who is less interested in the cheating issue than you are at "gunning" for Prof. Kennedy. You appear to be someone with a hidden agenda.
Jack

 

Allowing cheating thru neglect

I have no particualr criticism of Professor Kennedy except that he continually avoids my straightforward questions and continues to attempt to pass scorn on me, presumably in the hope that such methods resemble 'debate'.

I asked two very very clear questions:

In the past 7 months, other than promote EBS and its 100% exam assessment, what have you done to protect your graduates from losing out to others in the jobs market who may have 'succeeded' by using cheat services?


To which the good Professor merely pointed out that most EBS students are in employment. He fails to mention that many people study for further qualifications to improve their employment situation.

I also asked:

"Do you agree that: it is the responsibility of all academics to try and put a stop to all forms of cheating whever such cheating may be found/advertised not least because your own students who do not cheat may be disadvantaged?"

For some reason he refuses to answer this.

Who I am is totally irrelevant. How would answers differ if I were a reporter, a Primary school teacher, a University Examiner, a lecturer or even a Janitor?

Does my status make any difference at all to my question? Does it make me less worthy of an answer?

Of course not. But it does deflect the casual reader from your failure to answer the question. Other academics have been directed to these forums by me and those who work with me. Academics from the Plagiarism Advisory Service; teachers; two journalists; one writer and several students.

I hope they join in because as I have said before, cheats survive and prosper because those in a position to do something about it do nothing and seek to discredit those who highlight this.



Jack Tracey

I have no hidden agenda. I want those who offer cheating services stopped. I want the practice of procuring others to commit fraud, stopped. I cannot do it by myself and therefore I seek those in responsbile positions to help 'purify' education.

Someone who has influence at a major university, who is a Fellow of the Institute of Marketing, someone who is a prolific writer could make a difference.

Strangely he doesn't seem to want to. Statements such as:

"Of course, I shall continue behind the scenes to advocate within the academic community and within proper channels for the adoption of anti-cheating practices in all exam regimes. "

has nothing to do with advocating the banning of services that offer cheating services.

Not that it makes any difference at all but:

a. I mark papers for a Professional Institute for Distance learning students

b. I have extensive experience in the world of education, some of it working for a University (not as a Janitor) but most of it in Secondary Education

c. I am also a 'Fellow' though not of Marketing

etc etc etc

 

Maybe it's because your posts come across as so arrogant and impolite. I'm surprised that he has engaged in this discussion as much as he has.

 

Impoliteness

I agree that it is impolite to hint at personal comments, to suggest I am a 'Janitor', to cast aspersions on 'Politics 101' etc etc.


But I'm not bothered about that.

I am bothered about cheating in education and I am bothered that the 'movers and shakers' seem to want to do nothing about it outside their own - however commendable - employer.

Oh - I have just realised you said I was coming across as being arrogant and impolite! So continually refusing to give details about my own background is 'arrogant'? By refusing to engage in making personal attacks is impolite.

Well, I guess it saves you too from having to address the central theme of my posts : that through indolence/apathy those who could do soemthing, don't and cheating will grow.

 

Re: Impoliteness

 

'small and angry'

J: Furthermore, I'd like to add that I don't believe that you really are who you say you are. I think you're a small angry person with no power or influence.

W - Well here's to healthy debate! Why is it so important to people to try to identify the originator of posts and yet at the same time ant to ignore the substance of what is posted? You can believe what you wish BUT if I had posted: 'I am currently a marker for a University and day after day I see scripts that I am sure are beyond the capabilities of honest students - though lazy ones - so I strongly suspect they have cheated but can do nothing about it' what difference would it make to my central point? None. Still I guess your lack of belief in my 'identity' (therefore calling me a liar) certainly stops you answering the question. My posts are not just to Professor Kennedy but he has shown he is singularly elusive when faced with a direct question - most interesting. I'll throw the question to you too: "Do you, Jack Tracey, if you are involved in education, feel you have any responsibility to try and stop cheating that goes on?"

Will you address the central theme of my posts : that through indolence/apathy those who could do something, don't and cheating will grow.

Oh yes you suggest I am a small angry student. Now why would a small, angry student want to stop people cheating? Do you have to be a small angry student to want cheating to stop?

Apparently in your mind, yes.

Are you a student, Jack?

 

Re: 'small and angry'

 

anomie

Thanks for that Jack. Your posts have been constructive and well thought out. I can see how you wish to add to the debate though your total lack of a feeling of responsibility to try and stop cheating negates any sensible points you may have.

I wonder why you post on this thread.

Luminaries in the Plagiarism Advisory Service most definitely feel that they have a responsibility to try and stop cheating and, to return again to my central point, cheating will continue to flourish until those that can make a difference, do.

How is your research for your PhD going?

 

Re: anomie

 

re: anomie

W - I can see how you wish to add to the debate though your total lack of a feeling of responsibility to try and stop cheating negates any sensible points you may have.

J - I have a responsibility to my employer through my employment contract. I have a responsibility to my family and to a lesser degree those in my community. I feel no responsibility to control the actions of others. You may say I have such a responsibility but this does not make it so, it's only your misinformed opinion. You can not produce a valid irrefutable argument that proves I have any such responsibility


I have not said you have sucha responsibility. I was simply posing the question.

You answered it.

I am not trying to prove anything - I don't have to.

Professor Kennedy has posted many times how anti-cheating he is - and yet is seemingly unable/unwilling to say whether he feels he has a responsibility to try to stop cheating.

You say I have to be 'small and angry' to post as I have done. And where is your irrefutable evidence?



I see you feel no responsibility to control the actions of others . Do you feel that the actions of cheats affects those who do not cheat?