Teacher sets off Chabot online furor

"After successfully completing an online computer class using his friend's identity, Chabot College instructor Larry Beal proved his intended point -- it can be easy to cheat in the school's online classes"

http://www.timesstar.com/Stories/0,1413,125~10859~1615124,00.html

 

And the 28-year faculty member who demonstrated the flaw in the system is threatened with being fired. Way to go, Chabot. Kill the messenger. That's what we learned in the Hoyer School of Ethics.

 

I could easily walk into a department store down at the mall and steal to my heart's content, but the fact that the store security doesn't make it impossible doesn't justify my doing it.

 

My hats off to Larry Beal!

Many universities (including the one for which I work as an adjunct) have their heads in the sand. This issue needs to be exposed and addressed.

 

What bothers me about this is that I've heard too many use this as an example of "the problem with DL...". A cheat is a cheat, whether by hand or by keyboard. I've been catching my students cheating by text messaging answers to each other by cell phone.
The method isn't the problem; the lack of ethics is the problem.

 

I have seen and heard of similar things while attending class on campus a few years back. Just think of all the stories that have made the news over the last few years where athletes have been caught haivng other people take tests for them -- I am guessing there is a similar market as there has always been for someone to write term papers for you. It is just a matter of finding the right person under the right circumstances.

I personally can't think of one exam in my entire 4 years as an undergrad where my ID was checked to see if I was who I said I was which amazed me in the large lecture classes of 100+ students where a large percentage only showed up for the exams. I am guessing that many others can echo the same comment.

As for disciplining the instructor, I completely agree since he committed fraud and was happy enough to publicly acknowledge it. I am guessing that by signing up for the class he stated he would comply with all the college's rules including those related to cheating. I cannot feel sorry for him this case. My question would be, did he personally check everyone's identification for his on-campus classes to ensure that someone was using a stand-in to finish up a degree?

 

Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from a Birmingham Jail: an eloquent statement of why it is important to disobey laws that you do not agree with.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Marina has her ethics classes read it first class session. Good for an hour, or perhaps a lifetime, of spirited debate.

 

I earned my first 97 credits at brick & mortar institutions (Brookdale Community College, Kean University and Monmouth University) and only the community college consistently checked my school picture ID... and that was only for tests taken in the testing center. The instructors in the regular classrooms NEVER checked.

At the university level, only Monmouth has ever checked my ID, and that was only for a writing proficiency exam that about one thousand students had to take at the same time... All of the other finals and midterms... no checking. I could have very easily had someone else attend all of my classes from day one and take all of my tests (other than the ones I've mentioned) and nobody would ever know.

This is my first semester at TESC, but since we must have proctors for our exams, it would be pretty hard for me to cheat. I'll be getting mine proctored at the same testing center that I used while in community college...

 

I earned my Bachelor, two Masters and Post Baccalaureate Certificate from brick and mortar schools. I cannot remember ever being asked for an ID before or during an exam. No one has ever bothered to check if I am who said I was. During my undergraduate years, I knew of a student who usually stationed other students in the hallway to help him do his work. Once he was caught and he negotiated an F in the course to avoid worse. He eventually graduated and to the best of my knowledge, he never went beyond the bachelor level. Another student who was known to be a habitual cheater but was never caught graduated with top honors but ended up unable to complete his graduate program.

DL or not, a cheat is a cheat. Taking a course online using fake identity does not prove anything because it can be done in brick and mortar schools as well. It is interesting that when I applied to Touro University International, they requested for my resume or CV, which was not part of their published application process. After they received it, they asked for a photocopy of my driver's license. When I asked for a tuition discount, another photo identity other than drivers license was requested.

Did every Touro student (or applicant) go through this? My point is my brick and mortar schools did not bother to verify identity whereas Touro an online division of a brick and mortar school asked for it. Touro sharply told me if any one would spend three or more years working to earn a degree for another person, good luck to that cheat because s/he would not complete the program. I wonder what they have in place in to catch such cheat.

Cheating is not exclusive to online programs. It is everywhere including face-to-face programs. It is in the industry as well; remember Enrons and the worldcoms of the world? Does any one still remember the savings and loan debacles of the late 80s?
I don’t think that professor proved anything negative against online education that can’t be done in face-to-face program as well.

 

Let's be honest the typical/average DL degree program containes more possibilities for cheating then the typical/average B&M degree program.

In the B&M degree program their would be few large lecture classes. Once the lecture classes are past students will interact with professors and other students. Unless the 'fake' student has the same name as whoever they are cheating for this could quickly become problematic. Additionally, after going through one degree program at a school the 'fake' student would have to have a lot of guts to go through the program for another student. Additionally, the B&M 'fake' student would need to spend significant time showing up for classes.

Conversley, the 'fake' DL student could breeze through classes spending little time. Additionally, not only could a 'fake' DL student do one program after another with little likelyhood of being caught due to professors recognizing them, but they could complete several degree programs at the same time for various students.

In short if one was to think like a 'bad guy' and develop business plan one could become very rich very quick making REAL degrees for individuals. If people are willing to pay several thousand for fake degrees how much would they be willing to pay for real degrees? The only disadvantage is it would take some time to receive a legitimate degree instead of the immediacy of a fake degree. To tell you the truth I've been really surprised that no one has started this business on the internet yet. Why can you buy fake degrees, term papers, research, resumes, but no one to take a Harvard Extension course or degree for me???

 

The closest I ever got to showing any identification was at UMass-Lowell, where I had to provide a notarized statement that I was a Massachusetts resident, and they also wanted to see my original DD-214 for the Veteran's tuition waiver (they inspected the original, copied it, and gave the original back to me).

Like someone already said, a cheat is a cheat, whether it's online or in a classroom. I've never cheated or plagiarized, and as a result have little sympathy for those that do.

 

but the fact is that the opportunities for cheating are present at both types of schools. I don't know what the breakdown is between the DL schools that do and don't use proctors, but it would seem that proctoring would greatly cut down on cheating via imposters, assuming that the proctors are checking ID's as they have in my experiences.

Knowing that it's very possible at both types of schools, it just doesn't seem right to single out one or the other.

 

I have been away so I missed this very interesting debate and in general I am much encouraged by the contributions. Cheating is a serious academic problem and should be dealt with severely. Donwplaying its seriousness for DL programmes is not wise, nor acceptable. This seems to be clearly understood by the contributors.

My regular point on this suject is that where DL programmes adopt soft exam regimes from campus programmes and their pedagogies, they endanger the integrity of DL courses where the attestation of fitness role of the university is compromised.

Whatever the arguments for evaluation by final examination (of which several members of the forum have expressed views in other threads) the DL context cannot accommodate these soft concessions.

As a minimum, all exams must be invigilated (proctored) by independent persons. We do not allow faculty to invigilate any exams, including those on our campus (we tend to use the staff of the British Council - an adjunct agency of our Foreign Office - at our 350 international exam centres). This reduces cheating to the minimum as is usual on well run campuses.

It is not possible to accommodate assignments and essays written off site and out of sight. This is where DL is highly vulnerable to cheating. It is no defence to say that on campus courses are also vulnerable. Off site and out of sight essays are well entrenched in on-campus schools. They are not suitable for DL schools and should not be entertained no what the problems it creates for people unable to sit exams (these people can go to a campus school instead or adapt to an exam regime).

For DL it must be assessment by final exams only, properly invigilated, closed book, no choice of questions, graded by senior not adjunct faculty of the DL School, externally examined by senior faculty of other universities, one re-sit only. Tough? Yes. Fair, Yes.

DL, like Caesar's wife, has to be above suspicion.