←back to thread

427 points JumpCrisscross | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
skhunted ◴[] No.41904004[source]
I’ve been teaching in higher education for 30 years and am soon retiring. I teach math. In every math course there is massive amounts of cheating on everything that is graded that is not proctored in a classroom setting. Locking down browsers and whatnot does not prevent cheating.

The only solution is to require face-to-face proctored exams and not allow students to use technology of any kind while taking the test. But any teacher doing this will end up with no students signing up for their class. The only solution I see is the Higher Learning Commission mandating this for all classes.

But even requiring in person proctored exams is not the full solution. Students are not used to doing the necessary work to learn. They are used to doing the necessary work to pass. And that work is increasingly cheating. It’s a clusterfuck. I have calculus students who don’t know how to work with fractions. If we did truly devise a system that prevents cheating we’ll see that a very high percentage of current college students are not ready to be truly college educated.

K-12 needs to be changed as well.

replies(30): >>41904090 #>>41904152 #>>41904186 #>>41904319 #>>41904511 #>>41904722 #>>41904882 #>>41904929 #>>41904934 #>>41904943 #>>41905073 #>>41905157 #>>41905596 #>>41905932 #>>41906086 #>>41906130 #>>41906190 #>>41906347 #>>41906523 #>>41906538 #>>41907338 #>>41907713 #>>41907755 #>>41907916 #>>41908035 #>>41908705 #>>41908832 #>>41908901 #>>41909789 #>>41910517 #
lumost ◴[] No.41905157[source]
My personal take, we’ve made the cost of failure to high and cheating too easy.

As a student, the only thing the next institution will see is GPA, school, major. Roughly in that order. If the cost of not getting an A is exclusion from future opportunities- then students will reject exclusion by taking easier classes or cheating.

As someone who studied physics and came out with a 2.7 GPA due to studying what I wanted (the hard classes) and not cheating (as I did what I wanted) - I can say that there are consequences to this approach.

In my opinion, the solution is to reduce the reliance on assessments which are prone to cheating or which in the real world would be done by computer.

replies(17): >>41905181 #>>41905237 #>>41905294 #>>41905316 #>>41905725 #>>41905726 #>>41905940 #>>41906139 #>>41906569 #>>41906787 #>>41906869 #>>41907018 #>>41907041 #>>41907532 #>>41907650 #>>41908740 #>>41909188 #
pj_mukh ◴[] No.41905726[source]
Serious question from someone who is regularly tasked with hiring Juniors. What IS a good assessment for entry-level/right out of college positions?

-> GPA can be gamed, as laid out.

-> Take Home assessments can mostly be gamed, I want to assess how you think, now which tools you use.

-> Personality tests favor the outgoing/extroverts

-> On-location tests/leet code are a crapshoot.

What should be best practice here? Ideally something that controls for first-time interviewer jitters.

replies(15): >>41905746 #>>41905920 #>>41906068 #>>41906227 #>>41906275 #>>41906546 #>>41906692 #>>41906696 #>>41906735 #>>41906854 #>>41907285 #>>41909279 #>>41909462 #>>41909611 #>>41909757 #
1. DowagerDave ◴[] No.41906854[source]
IME: 1. build a co-op/intern program and hire out of that exclusively for junior. It's like an extended, two-way interview or try before you buy for both sides.

2. screen for passion and general technical competency above all else. You're going to make arbitrary decisions & restrictions (ex: we're only hiring from these 3 schools) which is fine, then work within those constraints. Ask about favorite classes (and why), what they've done lately or are excited about, side projects, OS contributions, building/reading/playing. The best intern I've hired lately answered some high-level questions about performance by building a simple PoC to demo some of their ideas, with React - a technology they didn't know but that we use.

3. recognize some things on the hiring side that from the hunting side don't make sense or are really annoying: you're playing a numbers game, hiring is a funnel, it's better to miss a great hire than go with a poor candidate (i.e. very risk averse), most hiring companies are at the mercy of the market; they hire poorer candidates and pay more, then get very picky and pay less. In a tight market you can't do much internally to stand out, and when lots of people are looking you don't have to.