3 comments

  • avaer19 minutes ago
    Seems like an application of Goodhart&#x27;s law; measuring worth by degree or grades stopped measuring learning or ability.<p>This was a lot harder to cheat before AI, but now the floodgates are open and grades and degrees earned post-AI are showing that they mean little.<p>Cheating on college tests should be a jailable criminal offense (similar to computer fraud) so that there is dignity in the degree again. Considering the money involved, I don&#x27;t see why not.<p>But this probably won&#x27;t happen, because many rich people are very happy to buy their degrees. See also [1]<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stanforddaily.com&#x2F;2026&#x2F;04&#x2F;09&#x2F;the-real-reason-students-disabled&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stanforddaily.com&#x2F;2026&#x2F;04&#x2F;09&#x2F;the-real-reason-student...</a>
    • nkrisc12 minutes ago
      You don’t even need to go that far. If they just expelled cheaters instead of trying to sweep it under the rug and ignore it that would go a long way.
    • croes13 minutes ago
      &gt; measuring worth by degree or grades stopped measuring learning or ability.<p>It still does if the test is in person
  • cm201253 minutes ago
    At-home testing is dead.
    • raddan3 minutes ago
      It is. I think the professor here was being naive, but I appreciate his optimism. When I was in college (in the 90s), take home exams allowed a knowledgeable student to really shine. I’m not saying that they weren’t eminently cheatable back then—they were—but they also had the odd side-effect that, if it was a class you cared about, the test itself could be a learning experience.<p>For context, I am also a faculty member at a highly selective college. I had a similar shocking realization last year that it was likely that there was widespread cheating on homework assignments, which I used to favor heavily toward their grades. To verify my suspicions, I generated custom tests for every student in the class: the exam included code from students’ own programming assignment submissions. All I asked them to do was explain what they wrote.<p>The class performed badly on this exam, and the results were strongly bimodal. Roughly half the class aced the exam. The other half could make neither heads nor tails out of the code. For the students who wrote things like “lol, i have no idea” (real response) I opened honor cases.<p>I think many faculty right now are going through the stages of grief. We all knew that even at selective institutions, cheating existed, that many students were in it for the credentials. But as long as the numbers of known cases was low, we could convince ourselves that the few doing it were outliers. When a class does it en masse, it’s more than a slap in the face; it makes you feel like a chump. Have we been fooling ourselves this entire time? Was all the time I spent becoming a subject-matter expert a waste? Are the students just rolling their eyes when I turn my back? Those thoughts hurt. I personally chose to become a faculty member because it seemed like research and teaching were the best ways to maximize my impact.<p>I still have some hope. After all, I still spend my days working and socializing with like-minded thinkers, some of whom are truly brilliant. And every year, a handful of students come out of the woodwork and surprise me. But it’s hard not to think that the group of people who find joy in learning and creating is shrinking.
    • Cider998621 minutes ago
      That would be good.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.baneproctoring.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.baneproctoring.com&#x2F;</a>
    • drdaeman44 minutes ago
      Just wait a few decades until brain-machine interfaces will become a mass-market thing.
      • noosphr30 minutes ago
        Can&#x27;t wait for the EU brain control bill.<p>We support our citizens right to free will so long as they don&#x27;t think anything bad.
        • drdaeman6 minutes ago
          You jest, but I’m pretty sure it’ll be a thing somewhere, it’ll take its toll, and eventually fail from its own flaws. Then, chances are, there will be some lessons learnt - although, most likely, not on the first try. But that’s just a futuristic speculation.<p>My point was, however, that in modern age, where we’re literally on the verge of redefining humanity, we might be forced to redefine “cheating” as well. It’s all surely starting to slowly crack at the seams for the last half a century, and the pace is only increasing.
  • lapcat50 minutes ago
    &gt; Ivy League college students are, by definition, intelligent.<p>I stopped reading after the first sentence.
    • cowanon7733 minutes ago
      I’m not sure why that’s controversial - I have met many Ivy League students and grads; they are all intelligent, at least in an academic way. The only other common characteristic is that they almost always had some form of privilege. Either rich parents, or adults around them who worked very hard to get them to that level.
      • yamillove26 minutes ago
        If you have privilege, don’t be ashamed. USE IT TO YOUR ADVANTAGE!<p>It’s yours anyway. You don’t owe society anything just because you have privilege.<p>Everyone else, put on a helmet! Welcome to life.
      • lapcat9 minutes ago
        &gt; I’m not sure why that’s controversial<p>Do you know what &quot;by definition&quot; means?<p>&gt; I have met many Ivy League students and grads; they are all intelligent, at least in an academic way.<p>You probably wouldn&#x27;t meet the dumb ones, because they&#x27;re probably not in your social class:<p>&gt; rich parents
    • midtake22 minutes ago
      I agree that they are intelligent, just don&#x27;t know about the &quot;definition&quot; part. A typical Ivy Leaguer isn&#x27;t a dumbass. What&#x27;s wrong with calling one intelligent?<p>Try visiting a Walmart and interacting with literally anyone. That&#x27;s the average. Let&#x27;s not allow our egos to gatekeep who we consider intelligent, fellow HNians.
    • tangenter32 minutes ago
      Ars Technica has gotten very bad over the years. IMHO not worth reading for many, many years now.
    • cyanydeez35 minutes ago
      technically, they invented the IQ to test their IQs so, this mighe be strictly correcg.
    • lifthrasiir41 minutes ago
      Hey, a typical person should be intelligent because we human have used ourselves as a de-facto definition of intelligence anyway. That sentence probably means something like &quot;no intellectually disabled person here&quot;. Even though we don&#x27;t normally feel so because higher educations seem &quot;typical&quot; to us.
      • drdaeman36 minutes ago
        I think the article used a different colloquial meaning of “intelligent”, more akin to “intellectual” (the noun), as in “well educated”.<p>Either way, an odd statement shouldn’t normally instantly invalidate the whole article.
    • otikik39 minutes ago
      “Rich”
      • jimt123422 minutes ago
        I didn&#x27;t attend an Ivy League, but I think I went to a good school. I was very nervous before I left for school - a little intimidated, so I talked to an academic mentor. He told me something I&#x27;ll never forget: <i>&quot;You&#x27;re gonna be around a lot of really smart kids. No doubt about it. But, mostly, what you&#x27;re gonna find is you&#x27;re surrounded by a lot of rich kids.&quot;</i> He was 100% correct. Lots of smart kids, and lots of kids from well-to-do families. I think I met, maybe, 2 other kids that were as broke as my family.