« Faculty Hiring at Alabama | Main | Justice Kennedy sticking around through at least Jan. 20, 2013 »
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Off my usual topic, but soliciting thoughts on cheating...
Did anyone have any thoughts about this article about university-level cheating? Like many of you, I've heard that despite our reliance on honor codes, cheating is widespread even in law schools. Perhaps I am too much of a Polly Anna, but I really hope that is not true. I personally hear about a few instances each year, and I'm always amazed (putting aside the moral issue) that a student would risk so much for so little. I couldn't imagine too many law school faculties or student bodies favoring such a Big Brother approach like the article discusses having been implemented at the University of Central Florida, but maybe I'm wrong?
What does your law school do to police and punish cheating? What do you think is appropriate? Do you have any anecdotal or more formal evidence about the amount of cheating occurring in law school? Is it truly on the rise? Does it occur during traditional exams? Must a professor proctor at all times? Does it occur more during take-home exams? Does it occur more in conjunction with assignments graded by law review students rather than faculty? Is there a lot of plagiarism in student research papers? Is it intentional, accidental negligence or a consequence of inadequate training? Are the risks of cheating associated with make-up exams worth the convenience to students afforded by make-up exam policies? I don't intend to comment on it again here, but rather would really like to hear thoughts of faculty, current students and recent grads on this subject.
Posted by Jen Kreder on July 6, 2010 at 04:23 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef0134853ee125970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Off my usual topic, but soliciting thoughts on cheating...:
Comments
Herbal treatment is 100% guarantee for HSV cure, the reason why most people are finding it difficult to cure HSV is because they believe on medical report, drugs and medical treatment which will only work to an extent but can never flush the virus out of your system and is not helpful to cure HSV. Natural roots/herbs are the best remedy which can easily eradicate herpes forever, for more information about herpes cure Please write Dr. Shaibu Abacha for any health challenge. God bless you.Email: [email protected]: +2349061521409.* Fibroid* Bad breathe* Low sperm count* Stroke* Kidney problem*Hiv Aids* Infertility* Weak Erection.* Do not hide your sickness a problem shared is a problem solved. https://m.facebook.com/Dr-Shaibu-Abacha-herbal-solution-home-100182575406766/?ref=opera_speed_dial
Posted by: shirley peters | Mar 21, 2021 4:37:16 PM
All thanks to Lord Zakuza whose magnificent spell brought back my divorced husband within 48 hours. Email him on Lordzakuza7 @ gmail. com
Posted by: Leta Mancare | Feb 24, 2021 6:05:31 AM
All thanks to Lord Zakuza whose magnificent spell brought back my divorced husband within 48 hours. Email him on Lordzakuza7 @ gmail. com
Posted by: Leta Mancare | Feb 24, 2021 6:05:21 AM
After an experience at my law school, I’ve tentatively concluded that schools, especially law schools, craft seemingly draconian cheating policies just to appear as if they’re inculcating the next generation of lawyers with an ethic higher than what the public has come to expect from the profession so far.
I actually caught MY OWN moot court partner cheating. He was part of the very student-run organization responsible for administering the competition. So, while alone in the office after hours, he was able to find the bench memo (essentially the answer key for moot court competitions), read it and (amazingly) copy it virtually verbatim as his oral argument. The investigation indeed confirmed that his oral argument notes were essentially identical to the bench memo; and my partner eventually admitted to finding the bench memo in the office, although he insisted that he didn’t use it to his advantage during the competition.
This created quite a scandal at my law school; when others heard of my coming forward, they started coming forward with tales of questionable conduct they witnessed by this same person. Another student started looking into the guy’s background and found out via an article in his college newspaper (the article is STILL on the internet) that he had been caught breaking into an undergraduate professor’s office to steal an answer key as part of his fraternity duties. I know, it sounds so extreme as to be unbelievable (like a formulaic college movie that celebrates frat antics or something) but it’s all there in his undergraduate school’s newspaper.
The faculty did nothing about it; no one wanted to do what needed to be done, so everyone buried their heads. I even had one of the faculty members to whom I appealed say to me “if we pursue this, you know ___ will get expelled, right? Do you really want that to happen?” as if I would naturally find such a punishment to be a travesty of justice.
This sort of thing is a big deal, as moot court success can mean the receiving offers from certain litigation firms, and also means certain honors upon graduation. Ok, I can go on all night about this . . . but I won’t.
Posted by: Anotheranon | Jul 13, 2010 1:56:51 AM
I hear you BL1Y. I emerged from law school with a minimum monthly payment of somewhere around $1300 on student loans (and my undergrad was free and I had partial scholarships for grad school and law school). Whereas my debt load certainly has impacted many of my employment choices, I fully understand that many of those choices are not available to most students in today's market. Some of us are having serious conversations about what should be done. I hear you that actions speak louder than words.
Posted by: Jen Kreder | Jul 8, 2010 3:14:19 PM
Jen: If I go to a bar and order a cocktail and it's not made quite right, the bar tender will usually dump it out and make a new one, no questions asked. If you go to a restaurant and something is wrong with your meal, they'll usually offer to fix the problem, or offer a substitution. If you go to an upscale salon for a hair cut and aren't happy with it, they're typically willing to see what can be done to fix it.
But, spend $100,000+ on tuition for a degree that turns out to be unmarketable, you'll find law schools are terribly unhelpful at remedying the situation. I've yet to hear of a school letting unsatisfied graduates sit in on under-enrolled classes in other departments and earn credits towards a different degree. But, it's what any other industry would do if you were spending over $5,000 a month.
While I'm sure that many professors do have a genuine concern for their students, many simply take refuge behind the "Academy" mantra.
This isn't a trade school, it's the "Academy," so we need not be concerned with teaching students practical skills. This isn't a business with customers, it's the "Academy," and academics cannot be tied down by the desires or concerns of students. All you have to do is Google "MacCrate Report criticism" and you can find countless "Academy" apologists. Academic freedom for professors first, financial freedom for graduates maybe never; we'll get to it after we've secured academic freedom for adjuncts, clinicians, and writing instructors, and created some sort of Super Tenure for full professors.
I hope you're able to go beyond discussing how bad the market is and make substantial steps in improving outcomes for your students. Too often law schools confuse concern with action, and because of that, students suffer. And I mean serious suffering. Losing health insurance, your home, and any chance to get out of debt in the next 20 years suffering, not "oh my gosh, I have to grade 100 exams in 50 days" suffering.
Posted by: BL1Y | Jul 8, 2010 3:04:07 PM
I don't think the comments are out of line, anonymous student. In fact, I've been communicating with some other students about exactly the issue you raised - just not in the postings. Many of us in the academy are discussing on a regular basis how bad the market is for you all. We do care and are looking for ways to help. I try to imagine the pressure cooker in which you all find yourselves. In seeing everyone's responses, I think we do need to at least remind students more often than we do (at least at my school) about the Honor Code. Thanks for all of your comments.
Posted by: Jen Kreder | Jul 8, 2010 2:35:33 PM
As a student, I haven't witnessed cheating, though I've heard some stories, rumors, etc. As far as an effective deterrent, I would love to believe that merely reminding students of the ethical and moral aspects of cheating would suffice, but suspect that instilling fear is the better antidote. Proctoring exams would likely deter all but the desperate students. Unfortunately, in the current economic climate, desperation pervades the student body. On a side note, it is disappointing how rarely the desperate condition of students is discussed on this forum. The discussions of pedagogical methods, developments in the law and the like are all very interesting, but, as a student, it would be comforting to discover that our professors are mindful of our present worries, and even more, care. Students don't expect professors to provide the salve, but the silence on this forum only furthers the impression of disengagement. But then again, students are not the target audience here, so perhaps I am out of line.
Posted by: anonymous poster | Jul 8, 2010 2:27:01 PM
There is actually a fairly easy fix that can reduce a ton of cheating, and it's virtually free. Remind students that cheating is against the rules, unethical, and immoral.
What's that you say? Students are already know this? Well of course they do. But, simple factual knowledge isn't what our brains run on. Reminding people of the honor code really does have effects.
There's a study (I think it's discussed in Predictable Irrational) that showed when students were asked to list as many of the Ten Commandments as they could before a test, it significantly reduced cheating. It's not that the Commandments are particularly great, but that it just gets students thinking about ethical and moral behavior. People like to feel good about themselves, and it's harder to be okay with your cheating after you've just written a list of moral rules, even if none of those rules speaks to cheating.
Before starting each exam, have students copy the school's honor code, sign it, and turn it in to the proctor, and let them know that this is going to happen before each and every exam. Some people still will cheat, but most students are not hardened cheaters. They're simply under a lot of pressure and can succumb to moral failings like any other person; reminding them of their ethical obligations can help them make the right decision. It sounds childish, but there's evidence showing this works.
Also, reducing the pressure on exams would probably help as well. Plenty of undergrad professors have figured out better testing techniques, such as having 2 or 3 exams instead of 1, or giving a series of short quizzes in addition to a large exam. This would reduce the incentive to cheat, and would let students figure out earlier on how they're doing, if they need to work harder, and what they don't really understand.
Posted by: BL1Y | Jul 7, 2010 6:42:53 PM
Many law schools are in a sorry state of affairs when it comes to dealing with cheating and plagiarism. You'd think that anyone working in a law school as an administration or faculty would know that better monitoring + meaningful sanctions = less cheating/plagiarism.
However, it costs money to: develop pre-emtive standards and training that puts students on notice; detect cheating in a way that produces useful evidence (often through the use of technology, rather than relying on eye-witnesses); afford students due process when they are dealt with severely (e.g., expelled or otherwise given a permanent "black mark" for character and fitness); account for lost revenue in students who are kicked out at a time when their seat in the class has little marginal cost & cannot be replaced; deal with the reputation hit that will come from draconian policing necessary at the onset of such a policy; and inculcate anti-cheating/anti-plagiarism cultural norms in a student body that has grown up with different norms & has competitive incentives acting against these norms.
Most faculty and administrators would rather turn a blind eye and pretend that cheating or plagiarism is not really a problem rather than devoting the resources necessary to change things. It isn't *hard* to fix, but it is expensive and it will be unpopular to the extent it forces an acknowledgement of the severity of the issue, including admitting that students CAN NOT be trusted (in general).
Posted by: Anonymous Professor | Jul 7, 2010 12:10:45 PM
I just graduated and am studying for the bar.
As documented in the Chronicle and elsewhere, cheating is endemic in college, even at elite schools with well-publicized honor codes and supposed traditions of integrity. I have seen this from student and instructor positions. I don't know why the move to the law campus would cause cheating to stop.
In my experience, student-run honor systems are particularly weak and frankly do not trust even the type of law student who esteems this kind of work with doing an adequate job. The faculty needs to take direct responsibility for enforcing academic and professional standards.
I am sad to think of open-book exams as a concession. Please choose evaluation techniques that are pedagogically sound. The exam is the last chance to teach the material; studying is the last chance to learn it. It is good just to know certain things and not rely on looking them up, if nowhere other than the bar exam (which is still closed-book). On the other hand, my two substantive 1L "books" (best grade in section) were the two traditional timed, in-class, closed-book exams, so maybe I'm just playing to my own strengths.
Posted by: Managing Board | Jul 7, 2010 10:36:33 AM
Agree with SouthernLaw. Amphetamines are everywhere, but law schools pay little attention to them. One of the problems with Adderall is that it is notoriously over prescribed and easy to get. Plus, a prescription means you can get it really cheap through your insurance. One of my friends got addicted to them and ended up in the psych ER after suffering from some severe paranoid delusions (he also drank and smoked a lot of pot, but the Adderall almost certainly contributed).
At NYU, the very last item on the list of the general exam rules, was No Alcohol in the Exam Room. It was the only rule in bold, which suggests it's of particular importance.
Like many people a drink or two relaxes me and I'm able to perform better. It's strange that the law school sells one performance enhancer (coffee) but strictly prohibits another (alcohol), while turning a blind eye to a third (amphetamines) which it subsidizes the purchase of (through insurance).
Posted by: BL1Y | Jul 6, 2010 10:53:45 PM
I see every week one form of cheating that one might not first recognize as cheating: drug use, specifically amphetamine use. While punishable under my school's honor code, illicit use of amphetamine is prevalent -- a sad reality that was recently chronicled in an ABA article. While I have never used amphetamines to study (I'm old fashioned - a pot of coffee can go a long way), I am routinely saddened each semester when I hear of students who have done so well because of thier illicit use. However, I take pride in the fact that my grades are not padded by drug use.
Posted by: SouthernLaw | Jul 6, 2010 10:25:40 PM
Here are two reasons why I think cheating is so incredibly common in law school:
(1) Students are often taking out six figures of debt to attend law school (I still owe $175k). Unless a grad is able to land a top paying big firm job, his debt will usually mean returning to a quality of life far below what he enjoyed before law school. Even at top schools a big firm job is not guaranteed, and students are evaluated almost exclusively on their 1L grades. This creates a huge incentive to cheat. And combine that with,
(2) Law schools fail to command the respect of their students. A large number of classes are devoted to subjects the students consider jokes, such as law and literature, jurisprudence of underwater basket weaving, or social thought of 18th century Aboriginal kangaroo farmers, and at the same time it is incredibly difficult to get into the few experiential classes that exist. Professors are largely hired and promoted based on their publications, but the publications are not peer reviewed, and often contain basic mistakes of fact or logic, despite the hundreds of hours minimum-wage research assistants put in to writing them. Career services is largely ineffectual, and the schools publish plainly misleading employment data. And, at least at my school, the administration failed to realize that a kegger without substantive food (I'm talking pizza, not chips) is going to result in alcohol poisoning and destruction of property, a simple prediction your average college frat has figured out.
In short, many students view law school as a joke. A high pressure, intimidating joke, but a joke nonetheless. It's a chore that students must suffer through to (possibly) gain entry into the legal profession. Cheating makes that chore easier and increases the odds for professional success.
I agree with anon journal editor that the best solution is to nullify cheating by putting everyone on equal footing. Go ahead and release your old exams and model answers, because you know some students are getting them anyways. Make the tests open book (wouldn't you rather test analytical ability than rote memorization anyways?). And, make the tests in class. That take home exam you can work on for any 48 hour period of the two weeks of exams practically begs students to cheat on it.
By the way, if any NYU lawyering professors read this, at least 10% of your students cheated on their oral brief this Spring. I know. I helped. (But, I helped in a way that doesn't disadvantage others (class is undgraded), and which would only let them get more from the class, not simply blow off the assignment. I enjoy breaking your rules for the good of your students. Nah-nah-nah boo-boo, stick your head in doo-doo.)
Posted by: BL1Y | Jul 6, 2010 8:52:29 PM
A study published in Bloomberg found that 45% of law students self-report that they have cheated while in law school.
Another 20-30% abuse adderall as a study aid to give them a competitive edge to study or concentrate during exams.
Posted by: BL1Y | Jul 6, 2010 7:01:53 PM
One of the journal writing competition entries I graded last month (obviously supposed to be 100% the student's own work, no discussion with anyone else) still had track changes/comments from whoever the little weasel had gotten to edit it for him. It made me sad, because while this guy obviously didn't, I have to assume that the vast majority of cheaters do rise to the minimal level of competence it would take to prevent us from knowing they cheated.
Posted by: Patrick | Jul 6, 2010 6:19:40 PM
I'll be a 2L this fall. My school has a very open honor code policy. Exams are not proctored. Everything is on the honor system. Students are expected to report any cheating they become privy to. I am sure that cheating must happen. But, I think cheating would still happen even if the "safeguards" were more stringent. Personally, I like being treated like an adult, so I appreciate our honor system. I have never cheated myself, but I will admit that the thought did cross my mind with regard to one exam last semester. This was my only completely closed book exam all year, and I think the anxiety of that is what created thoughts of storing text that I could call forth in my word processor by simply typing in an assigned code and pressing the space key. That would be a very easy way to cheat, and I'm sure it gets used. Instead of cheating, though, I just studied my ass off. But I'm an ethical person, and unfortunately, not everyone is. If even I could be tempted, I'm positive that cheating takes place. I agree with anon journal editor that open book exams are a good way to circumvent cheating.
Posted by: Sra | Jul 6, 2010 5:39:44 PM
One honor code violator was compelled, among other things, to send a letter of apology to the school community for forging something.
Posted by: David Friedman | Jul 6, 2010 5:25:30 PM
As someone who just graduated and who was involved with the writing and grading of a law review writing contest, I always thought that the best way to avoid cheating was to nullify its effect. Many of my exams were completely open book - where I could bring in anything at all that I wanted - and as a result there was no way to cheat. We wrote a hard journal writing competition assignment also, so that even if a student looked at materials that were "off limits," no use would arise from it. Certainly plagiarism on notes and papers is a different issue - but a good, hard, totally open book exam, eliminates almost everything from the definition of cheating and still forces students to learn the material. I find those exams the best pedagogically as well - they are most similar to what I imagine practice will be like.
Posted by: anon journal editor | Jul 6, 2010 5:17:14 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.