A Network of Fake Test Answer Sites Is Trying to Incriminate Students (themarkup.org) 116
The Markup reports: When Kurt Wilson, a computer science student at the University of Central Florida, heard that his university was using a controversial online proctoring tool called Honorlock, he immediately wanted to learn more. The company, whose business has boomed during the pandemic, promises to ensure that remote students don't cheat on exams through AI-powered software used by students that "monitors each student's exam session and alerts a live, US-based test proctor if it detects any potential problems." The software can scan students' faces to verify their identity, track specific phrases that their computer microphone captures, and even promises to search for and remove test questions that leak online.
One feature from Honorlock especially piqued Wilson's interest. The company, according to its materials, provides a way to track cheating students through what Honorlock calls "seed sites" or others call "honeypots" -- fake websites that remotely tattle on students who visit them during exams. Wilson pored over a patent for the software to learn more, finding example sites listed. By looking for common code and the same test questions over the past year, Wilson eventually turned up about a dozen honeypots apparently linked to Honorlock, five of which are still operating.
[...] While several companies offer services that tap into students' webcams to track them, setting up fake sites to catch potential cheaters appears to be an innovation -- one that crosses an ethical line for some experts. Before, students searching online for answers may simply have turned up nothing, while now, a potentially incriminating website will be there to tempt them. Ceceilia Parnther, an associate professor at St. John's University who has studied remote proctoring, said the situation is ironic: Students "are being set up" through honeypots, she said, in an attempt to detect academic integrity violations, a practice that's itself ethically questionable.
One feature from Honorlock especially piqued Wilson's interest. The company, according to its materials, provides a way to track cheating students through what Honorlock calls "seed sites" or others call "honeypots" -- fake websites that remotely tattle on students who visit them during exams. Wilson pored over a patent for the software to learn more, finding example sites listed. By looking for common code and the same test questions over the past year, Wilson eventually turned up about a dozen honeypots apparently linked to Honorlock, five of which are still operating.
[...] While several companies offer services that tap into students' webcams to track them, setting up fake sites to catch potential cheaters appears to be an innovation -- one that crosses an ethical line for some experts. Before, students searching online for answers may simply have turned up nothing, while now, a potentially incriminating website will be there to tempt them. Ceceilia Parnther, an associate professor at St. John's University who has studied remote proctoring, said the situation is ironic: Students "are being set up" through honeypots, she said, in an attempt to detect academic integrity violations, a practice that's itself ethically questionable.
At the risk of spewing boomerisms (Score:5, Interesting)
I pity the young people of today who have to study with "AI proctors" at home. However stupid University was for me in the 80s, I realize now late in life that I really, really got a top-notch education compared to what the poor youth of today are going through. And you know anything about education in the 80s, that's saying something: at least my education wasn't dehumanized and unfair: it was human-style unfair, and there's a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:At the risk of spewing boomerisms (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution is easy: oral tests via videoconference, with questions that gauge the student's knowledge and problem solving, rather than rote memorization.
But that'd cost money, so nah.
Re: (Score:3)
The solution is easy: oral tests via videoconference, with questions that gauge the student's knowledge and problem solving, rather than rote memorization.
That kind of testing is subjective, and leads to claims of bias from those that receive substandard grades.
That is what moderation is for! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He was early career then, and went on to have diverse and distinguished contributions to the field and in other realms.
Like Middle Earth? :-)
Re:At the risk of spewing boomerisms (Score:5, Interesting)
Turns out, the kids are often far more comfortable dealing with technology than with people. As in, they'd rather use things like text, twitter, email and chat to communicate with others rather than pick up the phone and talk to people, never mind meeting face to face.
So an AI proctor probably isn't too unusual (and face it - robotic teachers was something that's been promised since the 50s).
No, what has to happen is education has to evolve. A lot of pre-Internet education involved information located in hard to access books locked away in libraries that weren't the most accessible. If you needed to look up a research paper, you had to trudge to the library, hope they had a subscription to the journal, find it somewhere (in the stacks, in microfiche, etc) and then go there. Do then often couldn't borrow the book, and photocopies were expensive, so you took notes longhand, and many hours later you returned. The less you did of this the better, so you were tasked with remembering lots of things like days and dates and events because you had to.
These days, we have access to all that information at our fingertips, 24/7. There is no need to memorize facts and figures, and most of the education system involved memorizing facts and figures and regurgitating them back.
These days that needs to evolve - facts and figures don't need rote memorization because they're accessible everywhere - it's one of the great things about the Internet that despite its crass commercialism, it still provides access to a huge wealth of information.
Thus, education needs to evolve from rote facts and figures to analysis, critical thinking and synthesis - these are all higher level thought processes. Students don't need to remember actual facts and figures, but they need to be able to compose them into a deeper analysis of things. No longer "when did the Civil War happen" and more "What caused the rift between the North And South to end up going to war, and what have been the after effects of the North winning" followed by "Hypothesize that the South won instead, and showing proof, discuss how things woiuld've changed. Defend your position."
Education needs to move towards more complex thought, because right now it's basically the equivalent of fast food - cheap and easy, leading to cheap and easy outcomes like social media where cheap and easy is what brings up engagement numbers, and thoughtful, nuanced discourse is heavily discouraged.
gen education classes need to move to CC level and (Score:2)
gen education classes need to move to CC level and 1-2 years of CC needs to free like HS.
also all colleges must take TAKE community college credits in full with no redoing classes and no must take our gen education classes.
also we need more trades and not more years in school we can't paid for people needing masters for low level jobs.
enterprise rent-a-car wants an 4 year degree to work the rent a car desk for low pay.
Re: (Score:1)
Right now we are learning how to do that. But just like paper tests, we need walls and rules that will redirect the student to behaviors that are more likely to lead to
Or just do what my uni did for a decade (Score:2)
Being set up? No they're not. (Score:5, Informative)
Student A is cheating by looking for answers online, and finds answers that trigger a cheating warning because they're fake.
How is this unethical? The unethical behavior is being done by the student.
Unethical would be the test popping up a browser and going directly to the fake answer site.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, if it's ethical for the FBI to use honeypots to catch criminals, how is it unethical for an organisation to do the same to catch cheaters?
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI finds you and actively try to convince you to commit crimes, and then supplies you with the equipment.
They don't just operate a www.terroriestsuppies.com website that offers to ship bombs but instead delivers an FBI van to your doorstep.
Illegal entrapment is when you find some gullible slightly retarded individual and groom him over months to do what they want. It involves enticing someone to do something, in this case the student is already searching online for test answers. He already decided to c
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if it's ethical for the FBI to use honeypots to catch criminals, how is it unethical for an organisation to do the same to catch cheaters?
It is unethical if it leads to people who had no plans to commit crimes committing crimes. That's called entrapment. For example, if the FBI set up a table at the local mall covered in candy boxes with a sign saying "FREE! Take one!" and the boxes actually contained some sort of contraband, the possession of which is a strict liability crime, that would be highly unethical (and yet it would still be hard to argue entrapment in court under the court's standards for entrapment).
It reminds me a bit of a kit th
Re:Being set up? No they're not. (Score:4, Insightful)
Student A is cheating by looking for answers online.
Student B is not cheating.
Student A and B are both behind the same NAT IP address.
Student B is labeled a cheater because his IP address was logged as hitting the honeypot site.
This is a problem. Period.
Re:Being set up? No they're not. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They're being tracked by cookies and other means in addition to just IP addresses.
VMware and VPNs for the win.
And here I thought the thing that kept people from cheating at college was the crippling student loan debt..
Re: (Score:3)
Heck, just taking the test in chrome while searching for answers in firefox appears to beat the system if WankerWeasel is correct on how this works.
Re:Being set up? No they're not. (Score:4, Interesting)
Read the article. It specifically mentions tracking IP addresses for people using a second device to lookup answers.
If you imagine a venn diagram, companies that develop test proctoring solutions and tracking companies are separate circles with no crossover.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Being set up? No they're not. (Score:4, Insightful)
You are so close, but miss the forest for the trees.
This is the whole point. The worst thing that can happen with Google achieving a 75% accuracy in identifying an individual might result in ads for penis enlargements going to the wrong person...
But correctly identifying 99% of the cheaters and 1% false accusations that can cause innocent people to be kicked out of school and left in 10s of thousands in debt. But at least you got the low hanging fruit, right?
Re: (Score:2)
So a cell phone with wifi turned off fixes this.
Re: (Score:2)
So the kid takes the test on his laptop, and uses his tablet to look up answers... doesn't seem so hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see you really want to look the other way, but seriously, you seem to not understand how determined some cheaters will be. If you as a student, use MOM's iPad to do it, or your little brother's kindle, or your boyfriend's android device? The point is, if a student KNOWS they're being watched, or if they SUSPECT that honey pots exist, they just go borrow a device from someone completely unrelated to their normal day-to-day usage, and they're golden.
BTW, this arms race has already given rise to procto
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem you are ignoring is that these systems flag innocent students as cheaters.
False positives are unacceptable. The consequences for a student are too costly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you asserting that there are no false positives?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it worked that way (it doesn't), using IP addresses for something they can't reliable be used for isn't unethical, it's incompetent.
Plus, it doesn't work that way.
Re: (Score:2)
The article specifically calls out the use case of tracking IP addresses for people using secondary machines.
As they say, never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
Re:Being set up? No they're not. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Then, though, you would likely be misleading people who are looking up something and aren't even students, let alone taking a test. How is that ethical?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but it isn't necessarily ethical or even moral as it could mislead those who purchase their maps.
Suppose a road is shown on a map you bought but that road doesn't actually exist and someone gives instructions to "take the third right after Main Street and proceed for four miles". You then look up what that street "three rights after Main Street" is named. You therefore turn one street too early and end up in a part of town where one shouldn't be after dark and get killed by a carjacker. Was the cartog
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose a road is shown on a map you bought but that road doesn't actually exist and someone gives instructions to "take the third right after Main Street and proceed for four miles".
"What's the name of that street? So I can know I haven't accidentally overshot it."
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the street in question is many miles and several turns away from the person's home you are visiting and they don't recall the name and just know it's the third right after Main Street.
I've actually lived "on" a street for many years (although my mailing address was on another street) for years and used it to access my home every day and never could remember the name of that street (it was the "first right after the Dodge dealer" and I never cared what its name was).
Oh, and both of us are using prehi
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt they are using common knowledge material. Most likely it is specifically tied to the test itself, being an answer to the question.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a better approach would be to set up a "honeypot" that includes directions for how to tackle the problem but not the answer. eg. To find the length of the hypotenuse square the lengths of the short sides, then take the square root of the sum of the squares. That way the lesson is learned.
I don't think tests are intended to capture what a student has known for a year, or will know tomorrow. Just what they know at the time.
And FWIW, why would it even be possible to get an answer to any reasonable tes
Re: (Score:2)
Already inadvertently in use (Score:2)
Dont use cookies. Use wrong answers that are are just a little off from the right answer but in a way you couldnt get from a calculation mistake.
That's the method many cheat sites seem to use. I don't think it's deliberate but the people providing answers seem to be drawn from the same pool of idiots cheating so, at least for physics, they sometimes get almost half the questions wrong and often in bizarre and unique ways making it really easy to catch those cheating.
Re: (Score:3)
I am surprised someone hasn't shouted, "ENTRAPMENT!", because your comment is exactly why this is not entrapment. The proctoring company is not doing anything to entice the student to cheat. It is the student who is going out of their way to cheat. They could have made the choice to not cheat. No one is forcing them to cheat.
This applies to a whole host of situations such as leaving a car unlocked to see who will rob from it, leaving a computer out in the open to see who steals it, etc. It is the person
Depends on how you look at it (Score:2)
It's in the providing of a temptation to cheat to people who for the most part are just barely adults and are experiencing personal freedom for the first time. It's like leaving a pack of cookies out where a kid can see and get to them. When the kid sneaks a few for themselves how much of that is their fault and how much of it is the person's fault who left them out?
I know when I as working my way through college I was at least tempted a few times to cheat.
Of course I know opinions will vary strongly on thi
Re: (Score:2)
>It's in the providing of a temptation to cheat
What, by having an internet connection? These honeypots don't do out and grab students - the students have to be *already* actively cheating to find them!
> It's like leaving a pack of cookies out where a kid can see and get to them.
Again, by having an internet connection? And these young adults are supposed to have a little bit more maturity than little kids with cookie jars.
>Of course I know opinions will vary strongly on this as some people have a
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha, you're ridiculous and so are your questions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is this unethical? The unethical behavior is being done by the student.
It's unethical... no, scratch that. It's an _abomination_ because it's seeding the Internet with fake information. If someone on a test wants to know the conversion formula from Fahrenheit to Celcius on a test, and the requirements of the class are that they have it memorized, then sure it's cheating if they go and look it up. Plenty of people, however, are either taking open book/open notes tests or they aren't taking a test at all and are just searching the Internet for the information because, let's say,
Nope (Score:2)
I'd never allow proctoring software to run on my box unless ithe machine is a dedicated exam box, isolated physically, isolated on the network level and immediately wiped out after the exam.
Re: (Score:2)
We have some Red Hat training subscriptions at work, and I was looking at how they do remote test proctoring... they give you a thumb drive image and you boot their live image for the duration of the exam. That seems like a good way to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So do you then go to campus to take the test?
I don't like it either since I had to install windows just to take a test in Chrome for one of my classes. But I'd rather do that (or a VM I can then destroy), then try to work school around my work.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever I have come across proctoring software it's been on a provided asset that the student wasn't allowed to modify the settings on or install/remove software. They shouldn't be doing anything personal on that computer anyways, you would have to assume it is monitored and have no expectation of privacy.
So do your cheating on a different computer. Or you know, don't cheat.
A good lesson (Score:2)
The only value from college is the diploma (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason that cheating still (and will always) occur is because college education (the actual learning) has almost no value. The only real value from college education comes from earning the diploma (along with your GPA, honor roll, etc), which is a signal to employers (and others) that you are able to complete college.
If college education WAS actually worth something beyond the diploma, no student would cheat. Instead, if the educational content was worthwhile, students would be falling all over themselves to acquire as much of this useful knowledge as possible. If taking extra classes led to higher levels of income, students would fill their schedules to the brim, and study harder.
But it's not: Getting a college diploma is only useful as a signal. There's no real difference in the quality of instruction from the 5th best college to the 45th. The only reason someone earns more money from the 5th best college is because it's harder to get into, and that is a signal to employers.
Students cheat because it's not worth learning the useless material; cheating allows them to save time and still work towards getting their diploma (which is the only thing that really matters in the end).
Re:The only value from college is the diploma (Score:5, Insightful)
Students cheat because it's not worth learning the useless material; cheating allows them to save time and still work towards getting their diploma (which is the only thing that really matters in the end).
That is certainly what students think. It also turns out not to be true. If the goal is "learn stuff", but you haven't learned it yet: I'm pretty sure that you don't even know what you don't know.
It's also a bad feedback loop. In the case of my students, they'll cheat on the homework, because "it's just homework, why bother?" Then, since they skipped the "practice it" step, they're screwed on tests since they don't actually know how to go about solving the problems, so are strongly motivated to cheat to cover up the fact that they haven't learned what they're supposed to have by that point. (and then it becomes my fault for writing a test that's "too hard!!!")
I teach physics: a random engineering student might indeed never end up needing "useless" information about electromagnetism, for example: but the real value comes in being able to approach a complicated problem and figure out how to solve it: a skill which is at the core of any future engineering job. So, not bothering with actually doing the useless homework: that student is completely missing the point as to why they're there in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of any course I took in college in the CS department that wasn't likely of some use to multiple students in their later careers.
Since most students end up specializing in a few areas, few probably benefited much from every course they took, but few actually knew what area they would end up specializing in. The area of one's specialty tends to be driven by interest (perhaps motivated by exposure in a course), ability/bent (perhaps exposed by a course), and market forces (beyond the individual's
Re: (Score:2)
Looking up answers to problems is of course a necessary thing -- few people remember every obscure option setting in every tool/application they use when they rarely use the application or having installed it from scratch in years. However having to look up basic stuff, for example, about a language you claim to know and having to do it on a regular basis is an indication that you're insufficiently qualified for the job and likely less productive than expected.
However a "test" is just that - a "test". It's
Re: (Score:2)
If college education WAS actually worth something beyond the diploma, no student would cheat. Instead, if the educational content was worthwhile, students would be falling all over themselves to acquire as much of this useful knowledge as possible.
That assumes the students are all forward-thinking and smart. Given they're getting caught cheating at exams, that's clearly not the case
Re: (Score:2)
Your cynicism is misplaced. If your university and degree are any good then the most important thing you will have learned is not Laplace transforms or whatever, but how to teach yourself. That is a skill that will always be usable.
Re: (Score:2)
"but how to teach yourself"
Everyone learns how to teach themselves, or we wouldn't be able to speak. You learn how to teach yourself as a child, but some people forget how in their journey to adulthood and are spending $100k+ to remember what they already know. Even though I knew how to think critically and learn on my own, I had to pay 4 years of college tuition for the credentials to convince others of this fact.
As a geek, the hardest thing I had to do before earning a degree was to convince others
Re: (Score:2)
My College had an Honor Code. You could take your exam anywhere (under a tree was nice) and, yes, everybody had Internet access and laptops (phones were phones then).
But if you every got caught cheating there was no 'warning' or Second Strike - you were out instantly. A few med students were in the news last year for being expelled by terrible anti-cheating software that false positived due to bad programming. A lawsuit ensued.
All these systems are in place to ensure integrity of students, but they will alw
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but it's not just the piece of paper or we'd see far more degree mills.
That's probably more a statement on the difficulty in securing accreditation by fly-by-night schools, than a lack of demand for easy diplomas.
People cheat for the same reasons people always cheat. They want the rewards without the hard work.
Let's say you spent years teaching yourself how to code. Your prospective employer (a software development firm) notifies you that during an upcoming video interview, you'll be required to jump up and down on one foot for an hour. This requirement is not because it will ever be a task you'll be expected to perform as an employee, but because the company has too man
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. So pessimistic. So people only go to college to earn money? Glad to know that degree in earth science I pursued in my own time for my own enjoyment unrelated to my career was a total waste according to Echoez.
Re: (Score:2)
The least valuable thing you get from college is the diploma.
The life you live while attending college shapes the rest of your life. People you meet, things you do, work, concerts, sex, drugs, roommates, hunger, discipline (or lack thereof) -these are far more important.
Ever hear the phrase "It's not what you know, but who you know" ?
If all you learn in college is how to cheat on exams in order to get a diploma... then that is who you will be in life.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not always so much black and white.
A student can love their profession, but hate exams. Or they could have anxiety during the test. Or they just want to "ace" it to show off. Or maybe they want a 4.0 GPA instead of 3.5, and cheating gives them that final push...
Many college degrees, especially most computer science ones are valuable in my opinion.
Put The Blame In The Correct Place (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, that's precisely what the gun control..er, sorry, gun "safety" folks are doing today.
They blame the gun, not the criminal use of one.
Gun control is not about controlling guns (Score:2)
Just like you need to take driving lessons, a driving test and have valid drivers license and insurance to be trusted with an automobile you should need gun
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, not questionable (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, not at all questionable. They're not enticing students into searching for these honeypots. They're not saying, "Here's the answer key, but promise not to look at it, nudge nudge wink wink." The students are searching online for the answers of their own volition, and the honeypots are merely a means to detect that. The cheating behavior happens *when the search is conducted*, regardless of whether or not any answers are found or used. If the student wasn't cheating, they would never even know about the honeypot's existence.
I'm not really in favor of anti-cheating software in general. It's much too invasive, to the point where if I were a student I'd want to have a dedicated testing-only computer because I wouldn't want that spyware crap on the same machine as my personal information. But, as techniques go, honeypots are pretty much the least objectionable way to detect cheating. Anyone who gets stuck in them is by definition trying to cheat.
Re: (Score:2)
But, as techniques go, honeypots are pretty much the least objectionable way to detect cheating. Anyone who gets stuck in them is by definition trying to cheat.
"the company explains that its sites can track visitor information like IP addresses as evidence that a student was looking up answers on a secondary device."
Seems foolproof to me. "What could possibly go wrong"?
Re: (Score:2)
This could also be oversimplification for the masses.
Somewhat like and article might read: "The security expert used several tools to remove the ransomware, and when he was done, he had information like an IP Address to track down the malfeasants."
Visitor information "LIKE" and IP Address doesn't mean that they are just using ONLY the IP Address.
black students get flagged for face errors more th (Score:2)
black students get flagged for face errors more then others with systems like this
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
You're misinforming people.
2019, Wired: The Best Algorithms Struggle to Recognize Black Faces Equally [wired.com]
"US government tests find even top-performing facial recognition systems misidentify blacks at rates five to 10 times higher than they do whites."
2020, Harvard University: Racial Discrimination in Face Recognition Technology [harvard.edu]
"A growing body of research exposes divergent error rates across demographic groups, with the poorest accuracy consistently found in subjects who are female, Black, and 18-30 years old."
Re: (Score:2)
does useing diabetic supplies get you flagged? (Score:2)
does useing diabetic supplies get you flagged?
online exams are awful (Score:2, Insightful)
Bite the bullet, take a page from the best community colleges, and build dedicated testing facilities that allow people to come to campus 3 times per semester to take their exams properly.
Re:online exams are awful (Score:5, Interesting)
I teach face to face, but all of my exams are online and essentially "open everything". And yes, we have both ProctorU and Honorlock available, as well as 2 testing centers on our main campus and a testing center on each of our 5 branch campuses.
What is really required is for faculty to think differently about the best way to assess learning. Of course, the best way will change depending on the subject matter you are teaching....
Then again, the 4 exams in the term make up 16% of the final grade. 9% comes from participation, and the other 75% is from labs and projects - you know, actually DOING stuff to prove you've learned the materials.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be curious to know what topic you teach. Honestly, if you teach in STEM, I'm skeptical that your structure can successfully assess student performance. In my field, labs and projects are quite repetitive from semester to semester and it's well known that students talk to each other. We've actually done grade distribution studies as part
Re: (Score:2)
I think the crux of the matter here is the it is only optimal and better and cheaper to use the same exam and same lab every year and for every class in the same year. The math, the material, the knowledge is not changing, why invest time into changing anything.
But, if a student wishes this grants them the ability to look up exactly step by step how to get 100% on an exam of what to do on a lab.
So if it is cheaper, easier, faster to use cheat detection then to put the effort into making every classes exam d
It's deliberate sabotage (Score:3, Insightful)
FOrget about the test. What happens when students who are studying the subject trip across a 'honeypot' site and are fed false information? The very existence of sites which knowingly claim false is true should be illegal, let alone sites targeted at students.
Re: (Score:3)
Nowhere does it say they are providing false information (or any information at all). In fact, it says exactly the opposite - when you click 'show answer' all you get is a 'you've been caught' indication.
Huh? (Score:2)
It is somehow âoeunethicalâ to use a honeypot to catch cheaters cheating during a test?
How about it being unethical to search for the answer online while taking the test?
AI Proctor or not, something seems amiss here.
My 2 cents worth of bitching (Score:2)
I heard there was a new drug dealer in town (Score:1)
I'm being set up by him, just by him being here! I am the victim of a setup!
ethically questionable? (Score:2)
Why is trying to catch students cheating ethically questionable? If the student isn't going to cheat, they won't be searching for those specific questions.
Okay problem solved. (Score:2)
Reminds me of a mistake in a reference book (Score:2)
Back when I was a TA. The students insisted they copied the answer from there and hence they should get the points for that. Fortunately the professor insisted that the points were for giving correct answers and that an "argument from authority" very much does not cover it in engineering. The mistake in the reference book was also pretty obvious and several students had commented on that in their answers.
Why does nobody ever point out the obvious (Score:2)
If a business makes its money selling ever more intrusive and extreme anti-cheating systems then it's in their best interest to make damn sure that there are always enough cheaters for them to "catch".
It's like how turnitin will basically tell you everything everywhere is plagiarized even if you feed it utter horseshit.
I can't wait... (Score:2)