If they are so 100% sure about the offenders, then why does everyone have to retake the exam, why is everyone being punished. Maybe he does not have the data he claims he does. Until they could prove that they do, I would be standing my ground on not retaking the test because I am innocent until proven guilty and if they did prove it they would prove why I as a non-cheater need not retake the test.
I'd show up with the note signed by God just to aggravate him. The main reason why people get desperate and cheat is because they have to maintain a certain GPA for additional financial aid.
Your teacher was standing in front of you saying those things, probably because she really didn't know what to do. It's an incredibly difficult position to be in. Even the students that cheated for sure, you don't always want to turn them in. You think, 'maybe I can/should keep this small and avoid ruining their lives- don't people deserve second chances?' Have you ever been cheated on by a s/o? Do you know that feeling of undirectable anger, helplessness and rage with no clear outlet, and the confusion over what you should do next? That's about what it's like.
If they don't then he is shaking people down, which is not entirely fair. If they don't have the data then the innocent don't deserve to be shook down for a witch hunt. He should just tell the class, we know some of you cheated, we don't have the data to unwind who did and who did not, so it's a do over for all of you. To the ones that did not, I am sorry but you can thank your fellow classmate.
I would be pissed if they came clean and said they can't sort it out, but I would not blame the professor for the actions of others. As it sits, with the claims that they know who the cheater are, I would hold it against the administration for holding me as a non-cheater to account when they claim to have proof that exonerates me.
I'm not condoning cheating in anyway, but it's not the students fault that he is creating his exams from a public publishers test bank, which anyone could purchase and distribute. In my opinion the professor is just lazy.
Now for a what if. What if the students apply themselves and study, but the class ends up getting around the same distribution of scores?(Where the median is a 90.) The professors theory of cheating is thrown out the window.
I personally think it's neat to see the analysis he did. It's cool to see the way statistics can uncover things with clarity you wouldn't have expected (e.g. the bimodal distribution) The implications are heavy, but I am impressed by his results (the confessions, which are a positive thing).
I have been on the non-cheating side of this sort of thing, both as an instructor and as a student, so I know exactly how both the professor and the honest students are feeling. It's a heavy, heavy weight to deal with (you can hear his voice is just shy of cracking- that's real, I've BEEN THERE), and there are no good and no right answers, but it must be addressed.
Didn’t you use test exams or example exams to prepare for the real test? I know that as a widespread and morally perfectly acceptable preparation method.
This is from the MIT press website, for example:
"Instructors with access to the manual must agree not to share the manual’s password, to make any of the solutions publicly accessible, on the Web or otherwise, or to make any of their own solutions publicly available."
If a student has access to that material, someone violated that agreement, and the student is in possession of an illegal copy.
Classical fear tactics. By offering a level of "immunity" for those who come forward, he's creating fear for those who actually did cheat.
Look at what he's offering to those who come forward:
"Any permanent record of this will be wiped from your transcripts. There will be no further action taken."
Then he goes on to taking a reverse psychological approach by saying:
"You want to take a high risk gamble, take it! I challenge you to take it…."
What he essentially did was scare the students into believing that his statistical analysis would be enough to expel them from college.
Sure, matching previous student batch's midterm results vs. current batch of midterm grades gives an insight. If you further compared that with the students other grades of similar subjects, then it is statistically possible to say that there's an anomaly present.
As far as I know (maybe the rules has changed since I went to college), you can't get kicked out of school because the administrators believe that it is statistically possible that you cheated.
* assuming the test bank is publicly accessible or is supposed to be (the instructor's statement that the publisher has been informed that the test bank is compromised implies it is intended to be private to instructors);
* assuming the test bank is accessible through teacher's versions of textbooks (it could be online via authentication);
* assuming the access by any student must have been illegitimate (the students could have easily thought it a study guide, and the source could have been someone other than a student--some instructors also can and do reuse questions and reward students for researching and studying them);
* assuming the access must have been legitimate;
* assuming the staff can prove particular students cheated (yeah.. we just don't know this, especially if we don't know how the test is structured or how the data analysis works);
* assuming the staff CAN'T prove particular students cheated (first, you can't assume something impossible just because you can't imagine how it could be possible; second, data analysis is shocking in what it can inform; third, the data analysis can be used just to indicate suspicious tests that the human instructor and TAs then review themselves; (and fourth, yes I did just nest semicolons and parens within other parens and semicolons));
* assuming the student who turned in the copy of the test bank was one of the cheaters or could even make use of it (it's possible they acquired it afterwards and turned it in out of spite or after discovering how widespread it was and that it would greatly disaffect the class results);
* assuming students feeling guilt implies guilt of the actual wrongdoing (people can feel bad about actions that aren't wrong, even when they know they aren't wrong);
* [I can't even list all the rest of the ones I've read..]
Then there are the assumptions that, even if true, aren't relevant, like:
* assuming students paid money for it because it's a business school
* assuming older generations have superior ethics to the current generation (many would argue on the hypocrisy of older generations accusing others of entitlement);
* whether the instructor is lazy or not (this is only relevant to issues of perceived value of the class, instructor, program, and school; not to the issue of academic dishonesty)
I have read these and many more from both people criticizing the students and people criticizing the instructor. The point is that people in these threads are assuming the video gives more facts than it does.
The only relevant factors I see are how they acquired the test bank and how the instructor communicated the nature of the exam. Neither of these factors are actually that easy to determine from the video. On one hand, the very existence of the test bank isn't something the instructor should feel either has to be divulged, if he has a reasonable expectation that it is supposed to stay private, or explicitly informed to the students that it's off limits. On the other, this is also a possible scenario: that some students reasonably assumed past or public exam material was fair game; encountered the test bank publicly (or acquired it from someone else thinking that they got it legitimately); used it to study; thought, upon seeing the exam contained some of the same questions, that they had studied from the right material; and only realized it afterwards, even as late as when the instructor revealed the extent of the incident, then felt compelled to confess. Is it likely it happened with all the confessors? Probably not. Is it possible and plausible it may have happened with some of them? Certainly. Presumably, all the confessions were in private, some possibly anonymous.