Online Colleges Could Spy On Students – By Law

skeazer writes "Tucked away in a 1,200-page bill now in Congress is a small paragraph that could lead distance-education institutions to require spy cameras in their students' homes. It sounds Orwellian, but the paragraph — part of legislation renewing the Higher Education Act — is all but assured of becoming law by the fall. No one in Congress objects to it."

Comments

I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they watch that too?

Re:I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks

[Steauengeglase]

Yes, you can either buy back the footage for a minimal cost or cease activity when watched by administrators.

In all seriousness, isn't this why we have proctors, so that someone can watch you while you perform tasks required for your grade?

Re:I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks

[ad0n]

In all seriousness, isn't this why we have proctors, so that someone can watch you while you perform tasks required for your grade?

Simple answer: cost. I work at a community college, and although we do have an academic testing centre -- the priority is to provide an alternate testing environment for students with disabilities. The secondary priority is students who miss tests for legitimate reasons (medical, weather, etc.).

There simply isn't capacity to allow every student in every online course to come onto campus to complete their assessments. It isn't built into the costing/tuition.

Re:I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks

[AllIGotWasThisNick]

That's why students need to pay for their own proctoring. They already pay for textbooks, transportation, internet, etc. This is just something else to be not subsidized.

Disclaimer: I no longer work in Distance Ed.

Re:I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks

[JCSoRocks]

Most distance learning classes I've taken were based on assignments... not tests. The few that did have tests had a time limit - the assumption being that if you give students a brief period of time to answer a lot of questions only the people that really know it will have time to finish... while everyone else is busy googling and reading their books.

Re:I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks

[Octorian]

I did a whole master's degree through a distance program. When I had to take tests, I did need a proctor. Basically, you have someone who meets certain requirements fill out some paperwork, and then they manage the test administration stuff for the school.

For most of that, I used the testing center at the local community college, which did charge. Of course it could have been free, if I found some other impartial person willing to do it, but I liked the isolated independent environment.

Re:I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks

[mdozturk]

Some schools don't have proctors in exams, for example the University of Michigan engineering school. In fact there are no instructors/profs watching over grown adults who paid a lot of money to be educated.

Re:I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks

[tmossman]

I've taken some similar classes, and it really comes down to test design. My online professors were good enough at making tests that, despite an open book and the internet available, if you didn't know your stuff without them, you simply couldn't finish in time.

This still leaves the possibility that someone else is actually taking the test, but I'm not sure video cameras are the right solution. Are these cameras going to be connected to government mandated face-recognition software, to ensure that the humanoid form in front of the camera actually is the person supposed to be taking the test? Would I have to go to the school at some point to be biometrically examined? Or will the university be given access to the government database that contains my state ID photo? 'Cause now it's really starting to sound creepy.

Re:I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks

[lgw]

Rice is the same way: there's just an honor code. The theory is that of course a few people will still cheat, but there will be *more* cheating among geeks if you make it an interesting challange to cheat than if you don't.

Re:I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks

[rtb61]

Unless it is a 360 degree in the horizontal and vertical panorama camera it is a pretty pointless idea.

Trying to penny pinch is hardly any reason to implement an idea that doesn't really work. Why wouldn't any sane government choose not to sponsor educating the public about their society, their environment, and themselves. It really is the stuff of craziness to somehow think it is of value to society to keep it citizens as stupid as possible unless they are willing to pay huge sums of money to empower themselves with knowledge.

A modern properly functioning democracy requires a knowledgeable populace as a fundamental requirement.Trying to keep the lie going that gut level knee jerk reactions are somehow good and are superior to well informed considered opinion is insanity. Education along with health (physical and mental) should be the two main focus points of any modern society and not feeding the greed of a minority.

Re:I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

You too? Maybe you were the married mother of two I chatted with while masturbating today. Or maybe I was the 18 year old single female that you chatted with while masturbating yesterday?

Re:I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks

[Ignis Flatus]

cheating at engineering is really self-limiting. if you don't learn the material well enough to do it on your own, you'll eventually flunk out.

Re:I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks

[ScreamingCactus]

I can't believe how many people are focusing on the fact that it just won't work and is a pointless idea, and not the fact that it is completely invasive and fundamentally wrong.

What if they do come up with a similar idea that works? Say for instance the 360-degree camera you speak of. That's just that much more invasive. Also, when was the last time the U.S. government did anything sane?

I agree that it is ridiculous how much it costs to attend college, but having a faculty and cirriculum is important. And if you notice, the professors making $40,000 a year at community colleges don't exactly have their hearts in it.

I've taken distance classes and have to say that I could have learned just as much just as quickly by reading Wikipedia articles. The faculty doesn't do shit for you when taking an online class except to provide you with a piece of paper that "proves" you know the material. Which is the only reason most people attend college. So this is their latest attempt to prevent cheating? Most of the companies I've spoken with don't even take distance learning seriously anyway.

And to think. . .

[saterdaies]

I thought school was for learning things rather than getting a fancy piece of paper.

Re:And to think. . .

[flitty]

That was my thought. Why should the government create a law that requires that schools enforce no-cheating? Won't that day of reckoning come when you show up to your first job and the boss asks you to modify a Java program and you give him a blank stare?

Re:And to think. . .

[AllIGotWasThisNick]

rather than getting a fancy piece of paper

While it may be true for you that school is for learning things, it really depends upon which school and program you mean. The majority of the training/education industry (as far as the government is concerned) is about meeting industry's HR needs, and has nothing to do with the lofty goals of education for the benefit of the individual.

Re:And to think. . .

[clifyt]

"Won't that day of reckoning come when you show up to your first job and the boss asks you to modify a Java program and you give him a blank stare?"

No, when it get known that universities are putting out students that can't do the job, they are penalized for this.

Students don't sign up for the universities -- they would if they could because they think it is an easy degree, but parents generally pay the bills and they research this stuff.

Beyond this, a lot of post-graduation research goes into assessing a program. How much is the average student making? How quickly do they find jobs? Are they still holding a job in their field at 1 year, 5 years, 10 years?

The gov't gets involved because they back student loans. Lots of defaults on student loans. If a university has a default rate of say 50% (I'm making up this number), they stop getting loans sent to them. A good friend wanted to go to an experimental psychological program this fall -- only to find that he can't get a loan. Not going to happen.

My day job is in student testing...I get to hear all of this every day...we get all the blame if students are doing poorly, but never any of the credit. I don't like what the law is doing, but it is a start. It is the start of accountability. Beyond that, I really don't think anyone lives anywhere that is all that inconvenient to get to some place that can proctor an exam with the exception of those whom are disabled. Heck, I gave a few exams with a web cam for a student in Iraq this year (I also had a ranking officer present to make certain that what I couldn't see was still legit!)

So lots of reasons for the gov't to get involved. As a tax payer, I hope they are only propping up universities that are churning out students that are qualified...and you should expect the same.

Re:And to think. . .

[BunnyClaws]

While it may be true for you that school is for learning things, it really depends upon which school and program you mean. The majority of the training/education industry (as far as the government is concerned) is about meeting industry's HR needs, and has nothing to do with the lofty goals of education for the benefit of the individual.

Bah, speak for yourself. I majored in Anthroplogy with a concentration in Feminist studies. I would comment more on this but I have to get back to waiting tables.

Re:And to think. . .

[jason.sweet]

Actually, the day of reckoning will come when the boss gets the resume listing as education.

I don't think spying on students is going to make these kinds of schools more legitimate. If anything, we need laws requiring these places to warn potential students that the value of the education they receive may not be what they expect.

Re:And to think. . .

[Bob-taro]

Why should the government create a law that requires that schools enforce no-cheating?

It's so some politician can brag, "I worked with congress to pass a law that eliminated cheating in American universities!"

Re:And to think. . .

[fish_in_the_c]

Sorry to disappoint you with reality. Higher education stopped being about learning things and bettering oneself about the same time that having a higher education became something necessary for the purpose of being able to support an average family with a 'normal' lifestyle.

Of coarse it started when the norm of morality shifted from one in which 'professionals' doctors, nurses, educated people ,became people who expected to be highly paid for their skills as opposed to acting altruistically, which happened as an effect of the materialistic atheism movement of the 40's and 50's in the United State at least. Prior to that most education included a moral component of altruism and one could not gradate without being believed by the professors to meet it.

The idea that degrees are taken for self betterment and the betterment of society is a hang over from the days when graduating from an institution of higher learning meant you were held to a specific ethical and moral code that was taught as part of the institution.

The fallacy is fairly easily rebuffed nowadays by the simple fact that most people view moral education as part of public education as a bad thing. So with changing world views so changed the purpose of higher education.

The bulk of degrees today are taken for vocational aka $$$ purposes and have nothing to do with actually wanting to learn the material presented in the coarse.

Of coarse no one stops you from taking classes because you want to make yourself better today, most courses offered at university do little to help learn anything more the vocational skills however. So you must ask yourself better in what way? Mostly the answer is better at making money.

Re:And to think. . .

[lordofwhee]

Fine then, we'll put a webcam in whatever room(s) in your house has/have your computer(s), but we won't tell you exactly who's watching or when, or say exactly what they can see.

Re:And to think. . .

[Skye16]

Honestly? I'll make you pay for watching me in my computer room.

You will rue the day this law goes into effect. You will rue it.

Re:And to think. . .

[sm62704]

You can learn from books. School is for getting the piece of paper that attests to the fact that you've learned, otherwise why would they need tests?

Re:And to think. . .

[Kaptain Kruton]

I thought school was for learning things rather than getting a fancy piece of paper.

That could remain true.... you just have to change the assumption that the only person learning and gaining information is the student while using the spycams.

Re:And to think. . .

[soliloqy]

I majored in English and minored in Fine Art at a state University.

My current business card reads "Lead Systems Engineer" -- and yes, it's a real business card from a real company that has very large very real clients. I have a lovely office, with a door and windows and everything.

Every interview I've ever had (3 in the 8 years since I graduated), I've mentioned that I went to a university to learn things I couldn't learn anywhere else. It probably helps that I've been a technology junkie since I was a kid, worked part-time in tech the entire time I was in college, and that I took a few CS classes on the side.

I realize I'm a statistical anomoly. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy saying "If I wanted career training, I would have gone to DeVry."

Re:And to think. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Of coarse no one stops you from taking classes because you want to make yourself better today, most courses offered at university do little to help learn anything more the vocational skills however. So you must ask yourself better in what way? Mostly the answer is better at making money.

Of coarse? Jesus, man. It's obvious from your incredibly poor spelling and grammar that you haven't received any higher education. Maybe you should rethink your position.

Re:And to think. . .

[ciaran.mchale]

I thought school was for learning things rather than getting a fancy piece of paper.

Some people believe that the main purpose of school is not to educate students but rather to socially condition (basically, brainwash) the next generation of workers to be materialistic consumers (to drive the economy) and subservient employees for large companies rather than be self-motivated entrepreneurs. An alternative to such a school system is home schooling. Two authors who have written extensively about the state school system and home schooling are John Taylor Gatto and John Holt. You can find their books listed on Amazon.

Re:And to think. . .

[morari]

You are under a woeful misconception then, sir.

Re:And to think. . .

[SkyDude]

The gov't gets involved because they back student loans. Lots of defaults on student loans.

Defaults happen with greater regularity with students that attend commercial trade schools. For example, a school offers a course in food preparation, which could lead to the student being employed in a hotel or fine restaurant. Problem is, during the first few years, the pay rate for entry level jobs in some occupations doesn't pay enough for someone to pay student loans and have a few other simple things, like a place to live or an auto.

This is a fact that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, many students fail to realize this when being given the full court press by an "admissions" officer.

Re:And to think. . .

[janrinok]

Higher education stopped being about learning things and bettering oneself

Dus that inklude speling? E.g. presented in the coarse (course). "Of coarse...." (course, again).

This is not a dig at you because the rest of your comment was well written, but you obviously have a hang up about coarse/course.

I'm also willing to bet that, despite all my checking, I've also made a mistake in this comment!

Re:And to think. . .

[pseudochaos]

What sort of ethical education classes/programs have we lost over the course of the years?

Re:And to think. . .

[clifyt]

"Fine then, we'll put a webcam in whatever room(s) in your house has/have your computer(s),"

Did you get the memo? No one is forcing you to do this. You can unplug it anytime you want. It is only for testing. Don't want to be monitored, go to a proctored environment. Like near me? I can have you come into my office for a small fee and watch that you aren't cheating.

Re:And to think. . .

[apoc.famine]

Check your sig. I'm guessing it wasn't knitted by your grammar.

Re:And to think. . .

[Lord Pillage]

I guess he was the one who put the "arse" in "Of coarse"!

Re:And to think. . .

[cyphercell]

Yeah, but we're not talking about high school we're talking about higher education - the place where the corporate predators get brainwashed.

Re:And to think. . .

[clifyt]

"Unfortunately, many students fail to realize this when being given the full court press by an "admissions" officer."

This is why I tell all my friends to get things like Graduation Rate. Stats on Employment. Stats on First Year Salaries. And then I tell them to get a print out of all this -- if you are a fully accredited university / college / trade school -- you have this. If they do not want to give this out...or only want to make verbal statements...they have something to hide.

I can safely say that my first degree wouldn't pay anywhere near close enough to pay my student loans. I kinda knew this was the case, but I had a career that I could fall back on when everything else went bad. And it was the first stop to grad school...so you have to be an informed consumer like anything else in life. If you only take what people throw at you, you'll also think fast food is good for ya!

Re:And to think. . .

[sulfur]

Not always. I know someone who graduated from a community college and got a job as a desktop support tech in a large company. In 6 years through hard work he has risen to be a Senior Sysadmin leading the team. However, he recently started taking classes in an online college to "get a fancy piece of paper". Why? Because while he is well-known in the company, if he ever decides to change employers, he wouldn't even pass automated HR checks that require bachelor's degree. No matter how knowledgeable and experienced you are, you will most likely be rejected at the pre-screening step, and would not be admitted to the interview.

I find this situation highly ridiculous, but given the whole HR "process" it is not hard to believe.

Re:And to think. . .

[negRo_slim]

You will rue it.

Nose picking, cheeto munching, happy fapping geekdom?

Re:And to think. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

>You can learn from books.

Go learn how to solve boundary value problems "just from books"

It's probably possible. It's probably much simpler with guidance.

Re:And to think. . .

[neuromanc3r]

I majored in English[...]

I realize I'm a statistical anomoly."

Because English-majors are usually better at spelling ? :)

Re:And to think. . .

[Skye16]

And that's when I'm on my best behavior!

Re:And to think. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

"Won't that day of reckoning come when you show up to your first job and the boss asks you to modify a Java program and you give him a blank stare?"

No, when it get known that universities are putting out students that can't do the job, they are penalized for this.

Students don't sign up for the universities -- they would if they could because they think it is an easy degree, but parents generally pay the bills and they research this stuff.

Beyond this, a lot of post-graduation research goes into assessing a program. How much is the average student making? How quickly do they find jobs? Are they still holding a job in their field at 1 year, 5 years, 10 years?

The gov't gets involved because they back student loans. Lots of defaults on student loans. If a university has a default rate of say 50% (I'm making up this number), they stop getting loans sent to them. A good friend wanted to go to an experimental psychological program this fall -- only to find that he can't get a loan. Not going to happen.

My day job is in student testing...I get to hear all of this every day...we get all the blame if students are doing poorly, but never any of the credit. I don't like what the law is doing, but it is a start. It is the start of accountability. Beyond that, I really don't think anyone lives anywhere that is all that inconvenient to get to some place that can proctor an exam with the exception of those whom are disabled. Heck, I gave a few exams with a web cam for a student in Iraq this year (I also had a ranking officer present to make certain that what I couldn't see was still legit!)

So lots of reasons for the gov't to get involved. As a tax payer, I hope they are only propping up universities that are churning out students that are qualified...and you should expect the same.

"Won't that day of reckoning come when you show up to your first job and the boss asks you to modify a Java program and you give him a blank stare?"

Anybody can modify a Java program. Sometimes if they modify it randomly enough, it will even work.

I think some people rely on this technique.

Re:And to think. . .

[fish_in_the_c]

I'm not necessarily talking about courses, but a specific culture and experience. Since I attended North Dakota State University I'll use it's history as an example, I understand it to be fairly typical of state schools.

In the 50's this state run school had a required dress code ( for the stated purpose of promoting unity of community).
All under classmen, were required to live in the dorms. All meals were required to be taken in common at the Dorm and strict curfews were enforced.

There were codes of ethics also enforced and failure to follow them would get you expelled.
Sleeping with someone you weren't married to.
Consorting with 'the wrong' kind of people.
Being convicted of crime all were things that could get you expelled.

In addition to that the close quarters and common uniform as well as the general conventions of society forced a certain homogeneity into the student body because if a person didn't 'fit in' and was 'liked' they would be hazed harassed or otherwise forced to leave while the faculty looked the other way.

Not to say it was a perfect or even a good system.
It was in itself based on the model of older private institutions and the whole system has it's original linage in medieval monistic traditions which resulted in the founding of most of the original universities in Europe.

so culturally and structurally moral formation was always part of the experience. And only a 'certain type' of person was admitted to school or graduate from it.

That , has changed, some say for the better, I tend in many cases to agree , but a knowledge of history should force one to evaluate and understand that with any change of structure their are trade offs and none are perfect.

One consequence of this change is that the word 'educated' no longer is synomous with 'trustworthy and knowledgeable'.

Re:And to think. . .

[hob42]

I know someone who has been through several careers, from programming in the '60s to nursing today. He recently was approached to be promoted to manager over a 20-room OR, has the skills and experience required (both clinical and supervisory), passed management and staff interviews... and then HR realized he's never received a bachelors degree, and won't offer him the position now.

Although they still want him to continue performing the duties as interim manager until they can hire someone else. Since he's so capable, and all.

Re:And to think. . .

[FLEB]

My current business card reads "Lead Systems Engineer" -- and yes, it's a real business card from a real company that has very large very real clients. I have a lovely office, with a door and windows and everything.

So... you work for a printer?

Re:And to think. . .

[zeptobyte]

Those people are called "Java programmers".

Re:And to think. . .

[DragonWriter]

Students don't sign up for the universities -- they would if they could because they think it is an easy degree, but parents generally pay the bills and they research this stuff.

One of the biggest draws of online institutions is for people who are already in the workforce, as they present scheduling flexibility and the ability to work from home that can be very appealing to people who already have a full-time job and don't want to also have to have to go to some inconveniently-located physical institution for education to advance their career.

So, yeah, its usually the student who is making the decision.

Re:And to think. . .

[Atari400]

This is ridiculous. Next thing you know, they'll be putting web cams on cigarette vending machines! Oh, hang on...

Re:And to think. . .

[tmossman]

All under classmen, were required to live in the dorms.

Even if it's cheaper and more convenient to live in an off-campus apartment? I lived in a dorm my freshman year. It sucked. Maybe you liked it, but I did not. I went to school for the academics, not the sleeping arrangements, and I fail to see what the two have to do with one another.

All meals were required to be taken in common at the Dorm

I cook for myself, thank you, because I enjoy it and it'll likely be both better tasting and more nutritious than something from an industrial kitchen.

and strict curfews were enforced.

Why does it matter to you, the university I attend, or anyone else what time I like to come home and go to sleep at night? Maybe I was out partying, but perhaps I was working an evening/night job to help finance my daytime studies. How does arbitrary curfew enforcement contribute to a quality education?

There were codes of ethics also enforced and failure to follow them would get you expelled. Sleeping with someone you weren't married to.

Again, what the fuck business is it of yours, the school's, or anyone else's with whom I choose to sleep? And what does it have to do with education? Perhaps you're arguing that the neurological effects of certain STD's might adversely affect my studies, and are really just looking out for me but, more likely, you're simply foisting your morals onto others.

Consorting with 'the wrong' kind of people.

Who gets to decide who the wrong sort are, and by what arbitrary metric? This is simply preposterous.

Being convicted of crime all were things that could get you expelled.

This is still the case at any school I've attended.

In addition to that the close quarters and common uniform as well as the general conventions of society forced a certain homogeneity into the student body because if a person didn't 'fit in' and was 'liked' they would be hazed harassed or otherwise forced to leave while the faculty looked the other way.

Not to say it was a perfect or even a good system.

No, it sounds like a really fucked up system that values conformity, groupthink, and a condescending piety, almost to the exclusion of actual education. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I simply fail to grasp which parts of the environment you describe would be a desirable thing to have return to modern academia.

Re:And to think. . .

[lgw]

No, I'm pretty sure that people who write apparantly random text and genuinely expect it to be a runable program are called "perl programmers".

Re:And to think. . .

[lgw]

Makes sense to me. I hire C++ programers. An English degree will teach you precisely as much about writing good C++ as a CompSci degree from most current schools (entire cirriculum in Java, aside form a "survey of languages" class). Writing consise, clear prose is a useful skill in any language, after all.

Re:And to think. . .

[Original Replica]

I thought school was for learning things rather than getting a fancy piece of paper.

That really depends on what you get your degree in, especially with masters degrees. A masters in engineering or physics might be about knowledge, but and MBA or MFA is more about the people that you get introduced/networked to. Yale business school will open a lot of doors with that fancy piece of paper.

Re:And to think. . .

[petermgreen]

Learning on your own has a few problems. The lack of a bit of paper is one problem but it's certainly not the only one. Other big ones are.

Access to resources: This is not an issue for all disciplines but for something like EE or chemistry you really need to get experiance with kit most people won't be able to keep at home.

Planning: Figuring out what to learn, what not to learn, what order to learn it in and so on can be very hard if you have no experiance in the field.

Discipline: Having the discipline to learn things that don't come naturally to many people but without which you can never truly understand many things that are important to your field (e.g. calculus for those studying physics and most types of engineering).

Access to experiance: When you have a problem understanding something it is often far more productive to talk to people who have more experiance in the field than you. At university you generally have access to such people.

Re:And to think. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

While it may be true for you that school is for learning things, it really depends upon which school and program you mean. The majority of the training/education industry (as far as the government is concerned) is about meeting industry's HR needs, and has nothing to do with the lofty goals of education for the benefit of the individual.

Bah, speak for yourself. I majored in Anthroplogy with a concentration in Feminist studies.

I would comment more on this but I have to get back to waiting tables.

Wow you sound self absorbed and vapid. Perhaps next time you go to school try learning something usefull and you wont have to wait tables.

Re:And to think. . .

[syousef]

Oh dear...A feminist with an online name "BunnyClaws"...

Re:And to think. . .

[SeaFox]

I thought school was for learning things rather than getting a fancy piece of paper.

It was back when it was possible to get a decent paying job without a degree. There are plenty of ways to learn something without going to college, but employers generally don't care if you have no way to prove that you did master it without them having to spend money to test your new education. None of them want to invest in finding qualified candidates based on what you've done. They'd rather sit back and make you prove it to them somehow.

So now going to college is about getting the fancy piece of paper to prove you spent thousands of dollars to increase your skills. Just ask people who went to VoTec schools for something they had learned in their father's garage growing up.

Re:And to think. . .

[jettoblack]

My current business card reads "Lead Systems Engineer" [snip]

You work for a Chinese toy company?

Re:And to think. . .

[fish_in_the_c]

Things that were good in the system that have been discarded:

1) An emphasis on personal responsibility
2) An emphasis on acting for the betterment of others rather then self.
3) An emphasis on acting morally, ethically and legally.
4) those who graduated were of a uniform quality in such a way that the 'reputation' of the institution you graduated from meant something about who you are.

Number 2 above is where the discussion started because the idea that education is for self-improvement comes originally from the idea that ones vocation is a calling by God and education should serve your vocation. A vocation is taken for the betterment of yourself and society at large and not for the sake of money or employment.

As you said it sounds strange to modern sensibilities. It changed because sensibilities changed. Materialistic atheism, philosophical pragmatism and philosophical liberalism have become the order of the day in modern society and each of these philosophies, by their nature oppose the idea that there even is such things as personal responsibility or morality.

The idea from the top of the thread that 'education is for self improvement' can have no meaning inside the context of any of those philosophical frameworks other then 'improving' an individuals objective situation , which is most easily measure by their wealth and self reported happiness. Education can't make you happy so itâ(TM)s only remaining function is to make one more wealthy.

Re:And to think. . .

[Lodragandraoidh]

I have found over the years that guidance is only required where interest is flagging.

There are a few subjects that are downright boring to me (nuances of psychology anyone?) - where someone must guide me by the hand, or I will not be motivated to learn.

I think this stems from a natural recognition that life is short, and there are literally trillions of subjects that I am interested in that I will never be able to cover in any reasonable fashion.

Re:And to think. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I would stop performing those duties immediately...see how they like that kettle of fish...

Re:And to think. . .

[tmossman]

1) An emphasis on personal responsibility

There is still an emphasis on personal responsibility, perhaps even more so. In an environment lacking a religious morality, what personal responsibility exists is truly that--personal, and not responsibility exhibited merely to avoid going to hell.

2) An emphasis on acting for the betterment of others rather then self.

But you initially argued that education is no longer a means of self-improvement, and has not been for quite some time. I'm confused...

3) An emphasis on acting morally, ethically and legally.

I'm not sure I understand what you're implying. I've never been encouraged by university faculty to act otherwise. Further, whose morals should get emphasized? We've already discovered in our brief discourse a moral schism related to sexuality. Should your sexual morals or mine be emphasized?

4) those who graduated were of a uniform quality in such a way that the 'reputation' of the institution you graduated from meant something about who you are.

This is still the case, though likely not in the sense you'd like it to. An engineering grad from CalTech will have the reputation of being a good engineer. Likewise, graduates of Yale Law will carry the reputation of being good lawyers. Or at least, they'll have the reputation of having good engineering and legal educations, respectively. Why should it matter that schools' reputations do not generally come with indicators as to their moral stances?

Number 2 above is where the discussion started because the idea that education is for self-improvement comes originally from the idea that ones vocation is a calling by God and education should serve your vocation. A vocation is taken for the betterment of yourself and society at large and not for the sake of money or employment.

I seem to be reading mixed messages here; apologies if that's not the case. If one's vocation is a divine calling, and one's education is meant to support that vocation, then where does the idea of education as self-improvement come in? If I decide to study marine biology because I think sharks are totally awesome, what divine imperatives am I fulfilling, even if I make some breakthrough discovery that leads to vastly improved marine ecosystem management? Surely god would like that, as we're meant to be good stewards of the world he created, but my motives had nothing to do with god.

What does motive matter, if the outcome is desirable? Take the guys who are creating mobile phone empires across Africa, currently the fastest growing cellular market in the world. There's plenty of money to be made, but increased mobile phone usage creates significant economic growth across the board. Is it okay that this happened because a businessman wanted to make money, instead of a missionary's wanting to help the poor and needy?

Further, would you agree that this divinely-inspired vocation stuff extends to more menial jobs, like garbageman or janitor? Both jobs are necessary to society's continued functioning, but no one says to themselves, "Perhaps I can truly serve the lord via mopping and waxing floors." People take these jobs because they need the money and these jobs seemed like the best option available at the time. Dressing it up in religious terms, that one should be satisfied with the lot god has chosen to give them, not question their place at all, and serve for the betterment of mankind, sounds a lot like a system of control designed to keep the masses from rebelling.

The idea from the top of the thread that 'education is for self improvement' can have no meaning inside the context of any of those philosophical frameworks other then 'improving' an individuals objective situation , which is most easily measure by their wealth and self reported happiness. Education can't make you happy so itâ(TM)s only remaining functi

Re:And to think. . .

[grasshopper77]

mmm yep that sounds about right.

Re:And to think. . .

[grasshopper77]

Well ok but it depends on what you mean by learning and by 'qualified'. The purpose of education to my mind is to teach students how to be lifelong learners and how to help themselves find information when no teacher is around to help. That plus critical thinking skills and presentation skills will enable a student to be a truly effective citizen. Training students just to fit various job roles is a disservice to the student and to our country.

Plagiarism?

[SonicEarth]

So will they be watching for plagiarism or what?

Re:Plagiarism?

[Skapare]

Both.

Right.

[PieSquared]

I haven't read TFA, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that by "spy cameras in their homes" they mean a camera attached to the computer while school work (or at least tests) is being done in an effort to make sure the degree goes to the person doing the work?

As long as it isn't required to be on except while the student is doing work that would take place under the eyes of a professor or TA in a "real" college and as long as enrollment is voluntary I can't imagine it's really that objectionable.

Re:Right.

[phorm]

For any "online" institution I've known, the tests need to be done at an approved institute under supervision, and after presenting proper ID, etc.

You might be able to fob off assignments on somebody else, but in a real school institution you could do this anyhow after classes.

Re:Right.

[Ngarrang]

And you would be right. Was the summary that obvious?

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as it isn't required to be on except while the student is doing work

I can't believe that you missed the point while stating it directly. What guarantees are there that the camera is off when not working? Is that in the law? No. What guarantee is there that no third parties can access the system? Is that in the law? No. What guarantee is there that the camera can't be used for other purposes? Is that in the law? No.

Stop shrugging away your rights!

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

What does TFA stand for?

Re:Right.

[EvanED]

For any "online" institution I've known, the tests need to be done at an approved institute under supervision, and after presenting proper ID, etc.

Well, that's the thing... they're trying to break that restriction.

Re:Right.

[al0ha]

If it was directly implemented and controlled by the actual learning facility I would have to agree with your assessment. However, the introduction of a third party, read public corporation, to provide the services raises severe doubts in my mind. All public corporations can be guaranteed to push the limits on privacy where profit is concerned.

Re:Right.

[SonicEarth]

It stands for www.google.com

Re:Right.

[AllIGotWasThisNick]

What guarantee is there that the camera can't be used for other purposes?

Because you've unplugged it?

Re:Right.

[wile_e_wonka]

I'll assume you're new here, asking in ernest, and answer this for you.

TFA = The F****** Article
RTFA = Read The F****** Article

Yeah, it's /.

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fucking article. Please, spend your mod points elsewhere.

Re:Right.

[ZeroFactorial]

First, I am reminded of the Scott Adams quotes:

Engineers like to solve problems. If there are no problems handily available, they will create their own problems.

Normal people don't understand this concept; they believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Engineers believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.

Second, and more importantly, why are we so focused on putting systems in place to prevent cheating?

Spending time and resources on a system to FORCE obedience to the rule is inherently wrong, and is DEFINITELY Orwellian.
Lets start focusing on teaching our kids to NOT CHEAT instead of expending so much time and so many resources in an effort to force them to comply.
For those who still do cheat, life will ultimately expose them for the stupid jackass they are.

And if it doesn't? Then the educational requirements were probably unnecessary for the profession they chose and perhaps the requirements should be rethought.

You can sit a person down in a chair and force them to stay, but you can't force them to learn.
Learning is a choice. Not learning is also a choice.

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

And last I checked, enrolling in a long-distance higher institution was completely voluntary. Why are we concerned about this again?

Re:Right.

[Mike1024]

You're right - If you read TFA it says:

Tucked away in a 1,200-page bill now in Congress is a small paragraph that could lead distance-education institutions to require spy cameras in their students' homes.

It sounds Orwellian, but the paragraph â" part of legislation renewing the Higher Education Act â" is all but assured of becoming law by the fall. No one in Congress objects to it.

The paragraph is actually about clamping down on cheating. It says that an institution that offers an online program must prove that an enrolled student is the same person who does the work.

In other words the law says distance learning institutions must make an effort to verify work is done by the right person - and one technology those institutions are experimenting with is webcams.

It's typical slashdot to quote just enough of the article to give completely the wrong impression.

Re:Right.

[z00_miak]

I am in favor of this law.

I mean, after all, I've been given no reason to distrust either the government or large institutions with my privacy. I firmly believe they are acting in our best interests.

...

Re:Right.

[gnick]

TFA = The F****** Article

How many *s does it take to obscure the word 'Fine'?

Re:Right.

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

And if they are trying to "break that restriction", employers should take note not to hire graduates of such institutions. This is entirely outside the domain of the government. Now, if fraud is committed - if the student or institution deceives the employer, that is where the law comes into play to hand out punishment and compensation.

Re:Right.

[value_added]

And you would be right. Was the summary that obvious?

Well, the article does discuss both the test-taking aspect in addition to other concerns, and what the legislation actually says isn't made clear, other than a a description of it that reads "an institution that offers an online program must prove that an enrolled student is the same person who does the work."

Without knowing how "work" is defined, my guess is that the intent of the legislation is reasonable. That's not to say the technologies or workarounds being put into effect are.

I imagine that if this is mostly about test taking, then video cameras are hardly onerous. If every computer sold today came with a camera, and video confering was a routine affair, I imagine all on-line educating would be handled that way, as it's little different than being there in person. Granted, being able to "attend" remotely while just wearing your underwear won't be possible, but that doesn't strike me as a significant disadvantage. Or desirable.

Re:Right.

[Knara]

I'm gonna assume you're not a troll, or trying to be funny, because I've yet to each lunch. I suppose it may be informative for others as well.

RTFA = Read the Fucking Article. RTFM = Read the Fucking Manual. This "Fine" stuff is a latter day, dead-tree cleaning up of the original phrase.

Re:Right.

[UncleTogie]

Spending time and resources on a system to FORCE obedience to the rule is inherently wrong, and is DEFINITELY Orwellian. Lets start focusing on teaching our kids to NOT CHEAT instead of expending so much time and so many resources in an effort to force them to comply. For those who still do cheat, life will ultimately expose them for the stupid jackass they are.

So would you consider cops enforcing legal compliance with your local legal code to be Orwellian? BTW, as far as we can tell, being a jackass is no barrier to living. Movies have been made with just that as a title, and it did SO well, there was a sequel...

Some people don't give a rat's kazoo what others think as long as they get "theirs". Exposing folks like that as a jackass does very little to change their behavior; they think they're in the right. Penalizing them for said jackassery, however, might get better results...

Re:Right.

[carterson2]

why congress? Why not on a school by school basis? If congress has precedence, then worse will happen. I went to USC. 90% of the grad students were remote. All 90% had to come to campus for all (4) tests. Tough if you fail a test, but fair.

Re:Right.

[znerk]

I always thought it stood for "full", as in "complete".

As in "read the full manual" or "read the full article".

Re:Right.

[MWProgress]

I am currently "attending" Axia College of the University of Phoenix. There has been no requirement to take tests at all, so far. You have to write papers, have online discussions, and submit programs (so far Java and HTML). Occasionally there were requirements to do certain exercises dealing with grammar, cultural diversity, and the like, but no tests and no requirement to actually go to a brick and mortar location of any kind. A camera would definitely put a crimp in my dress code, though. (You really don't want to know) Besides, you're not hurting anyone but yourself by cheating.

Re:Right.

[th1nk]

For any "online" institution I've known, the tests need to be done at an approved institute under supervision, and after presenting proper ID, etc.

You might be able to fob off assignments on somebody else, but in a real school institution you could do this anyhow after classes.

I'm currently in an online MBA program through WPI. It is a fully accredited program and the degree I get is no different than if I were to be on campus (nor is the price of tuition). However, I have never had to go anywhere to take any test, nor has a camera been a requirement. I'd like to keep it that way, too.

Re:Right.

[denzacar]

Troy University, in Alabama, has been testing a gadget that features a mirrored sphere suspended above a small pedestal. Called Securexam Remote Proctor, it's about the size of a large paperweight and plugs into a standard port on a home computer. The pedestal includes a groove for scanning fingerprints, a tiny microphone, and a camera. The sphere reflects a 360-degree view around the test taker, which the camera picks up.

Students are recorded during exams, and anything suspicious -- such as someone else's presence or voice in the room -- is flagged.
.
The system is not cheap. Students pay $150 for the device. Further, it works only with the Windows operating system and an Internet Explorer browser, creating a problem for students who have Macs, for instance.

Another point that this one misses is use of hidden microphones and earphones with a helper in another room.
Also... bandwidth...
Forget users on dialup.
What about couple of thousands of students connecting at the same time to the universities server and spamming it with hour long videos with resolution high enough to spot cheat sheets around the student.

World Campus, the online arm of the Pennsylvania State University system, is testing another system called Webassessor. It uses proctors, Web cameras, and software that recognizes students' typing styles, such as their speed and whether they pause between certain letters. Students purchase the cameras for $50 to $80 apiece. They allow proctors to view a student's face, keyboard, and workspace.

The Phoenix-based provider of the system, Kryterion Inc., employs proctors who remotely observe and listen to as many as 50 students at a time. If the keystroke pattern of a student who is taking an exam does not match the one he or she provided at registration, or if the image of a student taking an exam does not match a digital photograph that the student provided at enrollment, then the student cannot start the exam. A proctor can also stop a student who is acting suspiciously from completing an exam. Students must have a broadband connection to use the service.

Kryterion charges institutions $20,000 to customize the software and for training. It also charges colleges each time students sit for an exam.

Again... hidden micks and earphones.
Bandwidth partially solved by limiting it to 50 students at a time but it creates a bottleneck which university will be looking to avoid since it has to pay the company each time a student takes a test.
And the keystroke patterning is just ridiculous. You hurt your finger or get lost in thoughts and you are flagged as a cheater?
Also... don't change your hairstyle or hair color.

Acxiom Corporation. The company's system relies on test takers' answering detailed, personal "challenge" questions. Acxiom, based in Little Rock, Ark., gathers information from a variety of databases, including criminal files and property records. The company uses the data to ask students questions, such as streets they lived on, house numbers, and previous employers. If students answer the questions correctly, they proceed to the exams.

National American University Online is testing the system on its students, and the Colorado community-college consortium is also considering using it.

Jeffrey L. Bailie, dean of online instruction for National, says he anticipates that the system will be used on students when they take final exams or other high-stakes assessments. "We want to take just one added step to make sure that the person on the other end is who they're reporting to be," he says.

He declines to reveal how much the system costs. But Michael A. Jortberg, who is leading Acxiom's higher-education efforts, says it costs roughly $10 a student.

This one is just... WTF?
You answer personal questions (which are created with no regard for your privacy) and then let someone else do the test.
Umm.. aah... how is that more secure than a 4 character password?

Re:Right.

[CastrTroy]

you're not hurting anyone but yourself by cheating

That's a big cliche and not true in a lot of cases. Lets say as part of your degree you have to take a calculus course. If you were to cheat in that course, you may not be hurting yourself at all. The material might not be useful in any other courses you do. And the material would probably not be useful in your future career, or could be easily avoided. What harm would you be doing to yourself by not learning the material, and just cheating. Any downsides of not learning it would be offset by the ability to learn the material in more applicable courses better (time to learn material is limited), while still receiving high marks. The only way you could get hurt is if you get caught. However assuming you don't get caught, you haven't done any harm to yourself.

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Fine" stuff isn't an attempt to clean up the original phrase. It's typically a tongue-in-cheek attempt at humour because everyone knows what the "F" stands for. "Fine" is just good-natured silliness.

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

What stops said spy camera from being used when not testing? Who has control over access to the camera? Can it be accessed without the students knowledge? What stops them from turning the camera on whenever they want? side from disconnecting it, if you're allowed. Maybe covering it with an old sock when you want to be sure of privacy?

Re:Right.

[Catbeller]

Last I checked, breathing is also voluntary.

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, that's tampering! Go directly to jail, do not pass Go.

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

no it's not

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

what does TFA stand for?

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

>And the material would probably not be useful in your future career, or could be easily avoided.

Not where I work. Our primary business is the prediction of floods and control of floodwater.

We do calculus on the whiteboards. All the time.

Re:Right.

[Skapare]

Obviously, they accidentally let someone in here that didn't know.

Re:Right.

[againjj]

Spending time and resources on a system to FORCE obedience to the rule is inherently wrong, and is DEFINITELY Orwellian. Lets start focusing on teaching our kids to NOT CHEAT instead of expending so much time and so many resources in an effort to force them to comply. For those who still do cheat, life will ultimately expose them for the stupid jackass they are.

So would you consider cops enforcing legal compliance with your local legal code to be Orwellian?

Laws generally only work correctly when everyone buys into the system. Do you drive with flat tires? Do you drive at night with your lights off? Do you burn other people's houses down for fun? No? Why? Because it is illegal? Probably not. Rather, it is bad for the car, dangerous, and ethically wrong, respectively. On the other hand, have you driven above the speed limit? Have you ever bought a candy bar from a kid without paying sales tax? Have you ever thrown away a (battery-powered) watch into the trash? Probably, even though they are all illegal. And putting in measures to always enforce these restrictions, or worse, only enforcing them for capricious reasons, is Orwellian. I actually am of the opinion that some of our local legal code and some of the enforcement thereof to be Orwellian. If there is a legal system that it is not possible to avoid offending, even with the best of intentions, you give power to the police force that they should not have. Sorry, not the best example.

That said, I do not know if I would consider legally requiring anti-cheating measures for online courses to be Orwellian. But I would say requiring cameras as the implementing method (which I did not get out of the article) would be.

Re:Right.

[dontPanik]

You have a very idealist view of humanity if you think people can be taught to not cheat.

Re:Right.

[CastrTroy]

Like I said, it could be easily avoided. There are many programming jobs out there that don't require the use of calculus. The fact that some require calculus doesn't mean that jobs that require calculus can't be avoided if you don't know calculus, or just don't want to work with calculus.

Re:Right.

[retchdog]

What if I thought the best way to do it was with a blowtorch and pliers?

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

As though an RSA Key couldn't be used instead. Or maybe a thumb reader. This is stupid! Is this the only PROOF you have SlashDot?

Re:Right.

[DragonWriter]

For any "online" institution I've known, the tests need to be done at an approved institute under supervision, and after presenting proper ID, etc.

Certainly this is not universally true; Concord Law School, for instance (part of Kaplan University) does not do this; pretty much everything in most classes can be done online through a secure web site. J.D. (bar track) students have to comply with CA Bar requirements for non-ABA schools, which include a proctored First Year Law Students exam and must, of course, pass the bar exam before being admitted to practice law, and those exams, naturally, are quite concerned about verifying ID.

You might be able to fob off assignments on somebody else, but in a real school institution you could do this anyhow after classes.

Heck, even for exams in physical institutions, particularly with large class sizes, at most institutions I've experienced there was no serious effort to verify identity (with small class sizes with mandatory attendance, a ringer would be obvious). I suspect that this provision was pushed by the vendors of security devices; I can't see any other interest that would be served by making these devices mandatory.

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like I can't just record myself apparently doing 'work' for a few hours and then just replay the video feed.

Or acting like I'm doing the work but having a friend using a remote desktop application actually taking the test.

Stupid idea, typical government B.S.

Re:Right.

[petermgreen]

IMO it is at least highly deceptive to call yourself a "university" and call what you issue "degrees" when it is awarded under far lower standards than degrees from the traditional institutions. Unfortunately it seems that in the USA that cat is far too far out of the bag to put back in.

Re:Right.

[petermgreen]

Laws generally only work correctly when everyone buys into the system.
True but that is an ideal that is unlikley to be reached.

Do you drive with flat tires? Do you drive at night with your lights off? Do you burn other people's houses down for fun? No? Why? Because it is illegal? Probably not. Rather, it is bad for the car, dangerous, and ethically wrong, respectively.
Indeed i'm sure that is true for most people. Unfortunately for every rule there are exceptions.

It doesn't take many people driving without any respect for othere drivers to fuck things up big time for all the other drivers in the area. It doesn't take many people burning down houses for fun to set a whole neighbourhood on fire. People who would consider doing theese things need to be either scared into not doing them or if that fails rounded up and removed from society,

IMO it is a similar case with cheating in exams.

Lets assume that naturally 5% of students get marks in the top band and that 10% of students would cheat to get into that top band if they thought they could get away with it. You would end up in a situation where most of the students receiving top marks were cheaters. That would seriously fuck things up for the real high achivers and those looking to employ said high achivers.

Re:Right.

[petermgreen]

Presumablly if you were paying someone to sit your exam for you then you would give them your key.

Thumb readers don't seem like they would help much either.

To be honest I think having students sit exams on thier own computers in thier own homes is unreasonablly risky even with a camera. How do you know that the camera is next to the keyboard that is being used to do the test. A monitor splitter and a dummy keyboard should fool someone looking through the camera especially if the resoloution is crappy.

Re:Right.

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

That is a good thing. Handing over your responsibility to another entity is not a good idea, nor is it justifiable to force an institution to use its own funds to do anything against its will.

Re:Right.

[ZeroFactorial]

Or perhaps you just have an incredibly cynical view of humanity.

My parents taught me to not cheat, and I don't cheat. Granted, I had to make the choice for myself, but being taught correctly sure didn't hurt.

Clearly I can't project my own experience onto all of mankind, but I have many close friends who also were taught to not cheat and wouldn't do so even if it meant failing. And so from my perhaps somewhat limited exposure to mankind, I have observed that people CAN be taught to not cheat.

However, just teaching someone to not cheat might not even be the best approach.

The best antidote for cheating is a proper education as a youth from good teachers. Teach someone to enjoy learning and they'll learn to teach themselves. Who needs to cheat when they already know how to solve the problems?

Re:Right.

[ZeroFactorial]

I'd say the CIA is always looking for people.

Re:Right.

[AaxelB]

I used to think that, too! I always thought it was pretty harsh to specify that you have to read the full manual (some of those things are looong). Telling someone to read the fucking manual just seems nicer, more casual.

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like I said, it could be easily avoided. There are many programming jobs out there that don't require the use of calculus.

And those jobs are the boring ones.

Re:Right.

[KlausBreuer]

Excuse me... you're saying that

a) They only want to control you via spy cam when you are working
b) This is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to spying on you via spy cam

Personally, I don't give a shit where they put spy cams, wether they'd spy on me while working, while sleeping, while pointing my arse at them.
It is an idiotic idea, absolutely orwellian, and defending it, even partly, even because of some wording, is not exactly very... hmm, how do I put this... not a sign of a patriotic freedom fighting USA citizen who loves his country (phew).

Re:Right.

[WNight]

Wouldn't that be wonderful. Nobody would trust grades so they'd make you do practical tests for the job.

As opposed to now where people trust grades more than anything. It's not even cheaters that ruin this, just that tests aren't very indicative of actual skill.

Re:Right.

[WNight]

That just teaches them that you'll hurt them if you catch them, not that they shouldn't do it. Haven't you ever had a cat?

It's easy to teach people not to cheat. Show them they won't be condemned by any one-time failure. Currently tests usually mean you get a single chance. As opposed to having a near-infinite amount of question and letting people try over and over again.

Also, to stop cheating make open-book tests. Who cares if the person memorizes the formula or reads it - if memorizing it is important their speed will suffer until they do. Nicely self-correcting.

Re:Right.

[WNight]

Don't cheat by whose rules? If I threw you in prison unjustly, could you be trusted to not try to escape?

I think your last statement is actually what did it - you merely internalized that bit about cheating yourself - and learned to like learning.

Cheating, really, is just rule breaking. Teaching people not to break rules breeds sheep. Sheep who follow broken rules to bad ends. You need to raise intelligent people who do things safely/right despite rules.

Re:Right.

[Lodragandraoidh]

Like I said, it could be easily avoided. There are many programming jobs out there that don't require the use of calculus.

And those jobs are the boring ones.

I guess I'm easily amused...

So far, I haven't had to dust off the calculus books. I work in the communications industry - discrete math has sufficed.

Re:Right.

[ZeroFactorial]

While I agree wholeheartedly with the point you made, I would also point out that cheating and rule-breaking are two different things...

Cheating is inherently a lie - deception in order to wear the trappings of success. Rule-breaking might be necessary in many situations, but never in the form of deception for personal gain.

Re:Right.

[retchdog]

Yes, I have a cat. I have noticed that it is quite unlike human beings in many ways (although there are similarities yes - that's why I find it cute).

Open-book tests don't stop collaboration, and there is still the HW issue.

To understand the rest, I hope you are American. Otherwise, fuck it.

The funny thing is, I came from an intellectually honest and nurturing environment like you describe; they are called "small liberal arts colleges" and, not a coincidence, they are widely and wrongly derided as flaky for much the same reason.

By contrast we seem to be promoting the influx of amoral and ruthless ------- students. I am fairly convinced that on some level we have decided that intellectual honesty is counterproductive to our national goals and, ironically, are willing to import foreign nationals just to stock middle-level intellectual positions with the desperate and hungry. That is, we have solved the honesty problem ourselves but almost simultaneously realized that we don't actually want it solved.

One way to ameliorate the problem is obvious but politically unacceptable: deport anyone on a student Visa who is caught cheating.

Give them a show...

[Anonymous Coward]

They may get more from this than they bargained for.

They can't stop it in person

[DustoneGT]

They can't stop the cheating in person...what makes them think they can stop it over the internet?

Re:They can't stop it in person

[oahazmatt]

They can't stop the cheating in person...what makes them think they can stop it over the internet?

Exactly. Get a webcam, point it at yourself while sitting at a decoy computer. Have someone log in as you at the same time. Have them do the test while you play a round of Wow.

DNRTFA but I'm assuming they've though of this.

Re:They can't stop it in person

[sumdumass]

They don't need to stop it entirely. They just need to bring it to the same level playing field. They want accreditation to stand for it's merits as a whole.

I haven't read the entire bill, but I'm betting that this requirement is only if they pay for the education with federal moneys through a loan or a grant too.

Re:They can't stop it in person

[Anonymous Coward]

but I'm betting that this requirement is only if they pay for the education with federal moneys through a loan or a grant too.

Yes, you can probably assume the government did not deliberately antagonize the collective of Ivy League Law schools. The RIAA tried that, no?

Re:They can't stop it in person

[Angus McNitt]

Or even use a remote desktop application (or a monitor splitter and spare kb and mouse) and have another person do the work while you sit there and appear studious.

Re:They can't stop it in person

[DragonWriter]

I haven't read the entire bill, but I'm betting that this requirement is only if they pay for the education with federal moneys through a loan or a grant too.

Usually, the requirement on the school in order to be eligible to, e.g., participate in federally subsidized loan programs. Without the actual text of the bill, its not clear how much verification is required; while clearly some vendors and schools are looking at a variety of intrusive measures, its not really clear from TFA that anything that intrusive would be mandatory under the law.

Re:They can't stop it in person

[grasshopper77]

you're absolutely right, and really what difference does it make? students who feel the need to cheat will be found out eventually like when they try out for a job that requires some level of competence. students who don't cheat (the vast majority) should not be penalized for the inadequacies of the few.

So....

[Otter]

Basically, this is talking about requiring webcams or biometric devices when you take an online exam. Whether or not that's a good idea, it hardly qualifies as "Orwellian". Timothy and skeazer seem to think this is going to involve 24/7 cameras in your bedroom or something like that.

Re:So....

[JaffaKREE]

Whether or not that's a good idea, it hardly qualifies as "Orwellian".

agreed... but

Software Secure Inc., based in Cambridge, Mass., developed the device with $1.1-million in seed money from Troy [University]. In return, the university gets the first 10,000 Securexams that the company produces. If it sells more than that, the university receives a share of the proceeds.

I bet the students are pretty psyched to see their tuition going towards spy camera development... with the students being the presumed targets of the cameras.

At what cost?

[LoudMusic]

First of all that is entirely hackable. How many movies have we seen where someone brakes into a building by switching video feed of a security camera?

Beyond that, I can't imagine this being cheap. It would take more than a $25 web cam to generate quality enough images, then substantial bandwidth to send that much video data back home. And if you're talking about tens of thousands of students, that's a LOT of bandwidth.

Re:At what cost?

[houstonbofh]

So how will all that bandwidth hurt my p2p downloads? Or will the uploads be filtered by my ISP? Oh, and I am charged by the gig...

Re:At what cost?

[MightyYar]

So how will all that bandwidth hurt my p2p downloads?

Extra points if your ethics exam is what's killing your download rate.

Re:At what cost?

[Skapare]

And it discriminates against a minority group: people with dial-up.

FUD spreads better than butter

[RabidMoose]

This article is setting off my FUDDAR. Summary written to make the new law sound worse than it likely will be, and ommiting the reasons behind it.

Re:FUD spreads better than butter

[oodaloop]

No, it really is that bad. I know I must be new here and everything, but you could actually RTFA.

Re:FUD spreads better than butter

[Zenaku]

Well I did read the article, and it is a clear cut case of FUD. The law says only that these schools must be able to prove that the person enrolled is the person doing the work.

All that crap about requiring them to put cameras in students homes is just some disingenuous person trying to claim that that is what it would take, because they don't think colleges have that verification responsibility.

What this really comes down to is that most distance learning institutions require students to take their exams at a testing center, where they provide identification and are under the observation of a proctor. And those that don't are raising a fuss because they would prefer not to pay for that.

FUD is exactly what it is -- the are proposing the most ridiculous solution that they can think of to bring them into compliance with such a law, because they would prefer not to have to comply at all.

Re:FUD spreads better than butter

[RabidMoose]

OK, went ahead and RTFA. And it still doesn't seem that bad. Yeah, that dangling sphere with the fingerprint taker is pretty damn scary. But the law isn't going to require that. All it's going to do is require that online universities do a better job of authenticating students taking tests that will give them degrees.

It's either have a proctor watch you, or be required to travel to a branch of the university (at student expense) and take the test locally. If it were up to me, I'd rather have somebody watching me on a webcam during a final exam than pay hundreds of dollars for a trip to the school.

After the test, I unplug the camera, and put it away in it's box. I really don't see what the issue is here.

Re:FUD spreads better than butter

[homer_s]

because they don't think colleges have that verification responsibility.

Some schools might want the most stringent controls to ensure students do not cheat. Others might not care. Some schools may provide the option and charge accordingly (and probably have different certificates).
Why should this be the business of anyone but the school & the student?

Re:FUD spreads better than butter

[Anonymous Coward]

A trip to the school isn't required.

Companies like Sylvan has testing centers all over the country. People who take Sun/Microsoft/Red Hat certification tests typically go to these centers. The online university could also contract this out to local community colleges. The community college in my county does this.

Re:FUD spreads better than butter

[MindStalker]

Eh, its not even that bad. My college requires that I find some proctor to take the exams with. The requirements for the proctor are fairly lose. You local library would do in many cases, or you can choose one of the many community colleges, which all offer proctor services for $10-$20.

Re:FUD spreads better than butter

[ZeroFactorial]

How about a custom app with an inexpensive biometric scanner that hashes the current date/time into the mix (or some such algorithm)?

Someone might find a way to hack it, but if they do, clearly they're smart enough to deserve a degree anyway (at least in CS).

Re:FUD spreads better than butter

[Zenaku]

Did you go to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College, too?

Re:FUD spreads better than butter

[CastrTroy]

Because the school receives federal or state funding and they want to ensure they aren't funding institutions that don't live up to certain criteria.

Well, I guess no more online education

[oodaloop]

I'll go to a brick and mortar school next time. No way am I putting one of those things in my house.

More needless government intervention

[operagost]

First of all, I don't see a problem with an online school implementing this on their own, exclusively for exams, as long as the device can be disconnected and software removed afterwards. Don't like that? Try another school. Capitalism wins.

The real issue, I believe, is that the government seems to think it has the right to require that these devices be used. This will keep the price of these devices high and the slope nice and slippery.

Re:More needless government intervention

[AllIGotWasThisNick]

The real issue, I believe, is that the government seems to think it has the right to require that these devices be used.

So long as the government continues to pay out tuition subsidies, it should have the authority to specify the requirements for academic credibility. No doubt some "elite" institutions could forego government funding and avoid the regulation.

This is pretty similar to drunk driving laws vs. federal highway subsidies, and AT&T vs. wiring subsidies.

Re:More needless government intervention

[ZeroFactorial]

Actually this is VERY different.

The federal government is supposedly BY, FOR, and OF the poeple, and yet they TAKE our money, then "benevolently" "give it back" to us... oh but there's a catch....
"you have to do what we say, or you can't have your... er.... OUR money!"

Businesses only have money because people continually support their good service.
The federal government has money, but because they TOOK it from the people, and then do a terrible job in spite of (or perhaps BECAUSE of) the fact.
Why do a good job when you're guaranteed to get paid either way? Well any decent, self-respecting person would... oh wait... politicians... right)

I can see how they have a right to tell us what to do with our money - after all, they're doing a fantastic job of running the show!

Nice.

Re:More needless government intervention

[AllIGotWasThisNick]

I will not attempt to defend taxation, since I agree with the core of your argument -- it is quite simply wrong. However, the bulk of Americans don't seem to have that opinion, so they do get to decide how their money is spent, via their elected representatives. Or is your problem also with the general principle of democracy as well?

Re:More needless government intervention

[Quattro Vezina]

Actually, yes, I do have a problem with the principle of democracy.

Other people do not have the right to decide how _my_ money has spent.

I can tolerate taxation for basic services (police, etc.) as a necessary evil, but that does not make it not evil. Any government-funded service that is not necessary should neither be government-funded nor have any government involvement whatsoever.

Re:More needless government intervention

[AllIGotWasThisNick]

I can tolerate taxation for basic services (police, etc.) as a necessary evil, but that does not make it not evil.

How do you decide which basic services are "necessary" for you to pay for? How does everyone else decide? Do you need to agree? Are you suggesting simple vote-with-your-dollars Voluntary Anarchy? You seem to imply that there are some basic collective services which *are* necessary, and thus anarchy would neccessarily transform into minarchy, or the services would simply not be provided except on a voluntary basis (what you seem to want to avoid, whilst arguing for voluntary payment). Which brings us back to democracy.

Mod parent down! Oops, it's the story!

[LostCluster]

Spy camera? Not quite. They're basically just posing a "Hold up a picture of yourself with today's local newspaper so we know you are where you say you are." type challenge to prove that when you sit down for a high-stakes college exam, you are who you say you are.

It's not like they're requiring your iSight camera be on 24/7. So this sensational headline doesn't match the story. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Bow chicka wow wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Cameras in dorms, recording compromising video?

Did Congress just get in bed with the porn industry?

Verify who is doing the work

[TurdTapper]

That's all, it doesn't require cameras, just that they can prove who is doing the work. It could be as simple as still requiring the student to go to a proctor to take an exam. There's nothing like trying to make something seem worse than it is. This poster is just like the media. Here's the answer. If you are going to take a class where they require you have a camera on you in the house and you don't like that, take the class somewhere else.

How will they work it for Dialup and sat internet.

[Joe The Dragon]

How will they work it for Dialup and sat internet where they don't have the bandwidth / ping times for this to work good?

So, just what was your room number in college?

[LostCluster]

Identity-proving trivia questions have been around for a while. Ever try to access your credit report online? It's just a matter of time before other websites that really want to know your identity (and you have a reason to want the site to know it's you) jump on to this technology.

Re:So, just what was your room number in college?

[ckthorp]

That occurrence will only make Phishing these answers out of consumers easier.

Re:So, just what was your room number in college?

[Anonymous Coward]

Identity-proving trivia questions have been around for a while. Ever try to access your credit report online? It's just a matter of time before other websites that really want to know your identity (and you have a reason to want the site to know it's you) jump on to this technology.

But the more it's used, the less those secrets become. Everyone and his uncle demands to know my mother's maiden name. No everyone and his uncle knows it.

Re:So, just what was your room number in college?

[fishbowl]

>Everyone and his uncle demands to know my mother's maiden name.

This is culturally insensitive also. It is quite common for one's name and one's mother's maiden name to be the same name.
It's taken for granted as an assumption in the question, that you had married parents, and that your mother changed her name to your father's name, and that your parents gave you your father's name.

Not everybody does that.

Re:So, just what was your room number in college?

[bws111]

Um, yeah. This about trying to prevent some gang of criminals from going around breaking into university systems and taking tests for you, without your consent. Is that what you are saying? Those types of challenges only work when you are trying to protect your identity. This is the exact opposite - they are trying to prevent you from intentionally giving your identity to someone else. Here's $100, my userid/password is xxx, and my mothers name is Jones.

This is how telecommuting will be, too

[PingXao]

Employers generally don't trust their employees working at home. They think that without a tyrant-boss to keep an eye on them, most people will slack off. If these cameras were a regular part of telecommuting, more companies would support it.

Eventually you get to the point where the government asks nicely if they can watch. Then they tell the companies that they WILL watch. Then they insist cameras be put in place if telecommuting is even a remote possibility for an employee. Then they eventually get around to passing laws to make it legal. So it won't conflict with the Constitution.

Re:This is how telecommuting will be, too

[BunnyClaws]

Employers generally don't trust their employees working at home. They think that without a tyrant-boss to keep an eye on them, most people will slack off. If these cameras were a regular part of telecommuting, more companies would support it.

In the past year, I've started to see laptops loaded with Cisco's Unified Personal Communicator , with headsets and webcams get distributed to our employees who telecommute. Right now, the video portion is only required for conferencing into meetings but who knows how long before one is required to keep it up all day from home.

Re:This is how telecommuting will be, too

[cdrguru]

Most people don't really have the discipline to work at home. I used to write video games at home (no office, ever) for a company. They had about a 60% failure rate with people trying to do this - most of them just couldn't maintain focus and motivation. It has almost nothing to do with being watched and everything to do with there being an infinite number of distractions and other things that interrupt you. Everything from dripping faucets to Jehovah's Witnesses coming to the door.

Lots of companies have tried telecommuting and had miserable results. Wrong people, wrong projects, there are a million excuses. But the statistics have been collected pretty well and they are not encouraging. Would "employee monitoring" services and devices make companies more open to telecommuting? Maybe. That would be a good thing, especially if it made telecommuting more of a reality than it is today.

However, the one thing you can't get away from with telecommuting is it removes people from a social environment - the office. People aren't made to work for hours at a time in isolation in most cases. Without the social interaction they aren't happy people. Probably the underlying reason why telecommuting will always be a niche thing and will always fail on a large scale.

What is the true return on investment?

[iXiXi]

What is the true return of investment on a degree from one of these institutions? If there is some real market value and respect for the credential, I may consider. Now that I can go to school naked on camera.. I am really considering it.

Re:What is the true return on investment?

[gcalvin]

The question as you ask it is so vague as to be unanswerable. "These institutions" include distance learning programs at state universities and other brick and mortar schools, as well as schools that are exclusively distance learning. But to give you some idea of what's possible, I'll relate a bit of my experience.

There are three colleges in the USA that are particularly well-suited to accelerated distance learning: Excelsior College in New York, Thomas Edison State College in New Jersey, and Charter Oak State College in Connecticut. Collectively, they have become known in the distance learning community as the "Big 3." What makes them different from other schools is:

1) They have the same accreditation from regional accrediting bodies that more traditional colleges and universities have.

2) They have particularly flexible policies for accepting transfer credit from other institutions, and examination credit from standardized examination programs such as CLEP and DSST.

3) They have zero residency requirement, meaning they have no minimum for credits that must be earned by taking courses at that institution.

Because of this, I was able to earn a Bachelor of Science in General Business from Excelsior College in about five months. I started from zero credits, took my first CLEP exam on 11/27/2007 and finished my final Business Strategy course project on 5/2/2008. I took a total of 16 CLEP exams, eight DSSTs, nine Excelsior College Exams (ECEs) and one Thomas Edison exam (TECEP). I also took two online courses from Excelsior, and one course from Penn Foster College (which had a proctored final exam). I was able to complete everything except the final "capstone" Excelsior course within 60 days of my first CLEP exam. The whole program, including all college fees, exam fees, books and other study materials, cost me less than $10,000.

As far as respect for the credential is concerned, I have already been recruited for many MBA programs. I haven't sought employment since earning the degree, so I can't speak to that, but it is a regionally accredited Bachelor of Science, so I can apply for any position that has that requirement. Other Excelsior graduates have accomplished a great deal academically and professionally.

To get back on topic, all of the CLEP, DSST, ECE and TECEP exams were proctored. The ECEs are administered at Pearson Vue testing centers, and the others at testing centers operated by colleges and universities -- I took most of mine at Fullerton College. My two Excelsior College courses did not have proctored exams, so I don't know how this new legislation (has anybody seen the actual text?) would have affected them. The final project for the Business Strategy course was a research paper. I don't know how a research paper submitted by a distance learning student is substantially different from a paper submitted by a brick-and-mortar student -- how does either prove it's his own work?

could is a bit of an understatement

[holdenkarau]

Maybe I mis-read the article but it sounds like they "could be required to" which is lame sauce. It makes distance education more expensive which is lamesauce++ . Distance education has the ability to potentially bring college level education to so many, I'm of the opinion that we should avoid placing restrictions on it and encourage it to evolve for the winsauce. education++

Cross Platform Availability?

[Vizzoor]

I didn't see in the actual bill if this is something that is specified, but I noticed in the actual article one of the solution providers states that their product only works on Windows and Internet Explorer. How much would it suck if you were forced to use Windows to go to an online school?

So many holes

[stickrnan]

I read TFA as up to the point where people started screaming "unfair". After reading about the devices they're considering to prevent cheating (like blocking http traffic on the client machine), I don't think there's anything that a KVM and second computer wouldn't be able to get past. Just remember to keep the camera BEHIND the monitor.

Re:How will they work it for Dialup and sat intern

[ckthorp]

The answer is the won't make it work and you likely won't be able to take classes. I RTFA, and the existing products presented in the article require both Windows and broadband. So tough cookies for *nix and OS X users... The cameras still won't prevent determined cheaters. The solution is probably oral final exams at some point in the college career.

Hyperbole in slashdot summary

[johnny cashed]

Once again, hyperbole in a /. summary. News at 11. Hint, it isn't a spy cam if the person knowingly installs it at their house, for their own use.

Re:Hyperbole in slashdot summary

[Skapare]

But what about all those people that prefer online learning so they don't have to put clothes on?

For those of you not reading TFA

[techiemikey]

TFA is saying that distance-colleges have to have some way to verify that the person on the computer is the person who signed up for the course. This could be a camera, or a fingerprint scanner, a typing analysis program, a photo, or a combo of the above. It's not spying 24/7 or anything like that, just using the devices during some assignments.

Proof?

[pseudorand]

From TFA: "The paragraph is actually about clamping down on cheating. It says that an institution that offers an online program must prove that an enrolled student is the same person who does the work."

And how is a camera in my home proof? If I have access to the hardware, I can send any video footage I want. And as for proof, there's no proof that I do any assignment that takes place out of class at traditional universities either. It sound more like it will create a market for test taking centers that contract out to universities that offer distance learning. Fuck those who live out in the boonies.

Re:Proof?

[cdrguru]

There are plenty of those test taking centers already. And some online schools require them. A lot of certification programs require them as well.

Re:Proof?

[Vegeta99]

When you take a test, though, the professor can see you.

Penn State is mentioned in the article, and that's where I attend. I don't take any web classes because they're a joke, but a lot of professors use the "Angel Course Management System" to give computerized tests at home.

What does everyone do? Meets at once and does them all on computers in the lab. Duhh.

The only class I've ever seen anyone get in trouble with was using Babelfish to do a Spanish paper - In reality, Babelfish did better than this girl could have (wrote a form of a verb we didn't know), BUSTED.

As a non-American your system of laws seems broken

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you bundle a bunch of laws together and then have people vote for/against the whole lot?

That just can't work and is probably the reason the USA is so fucked up right now.

They can already do this.

[LostCluster]

I'm not sure a law is needed in this case... can't colleges basically require you to do anything they want under threat that they won't admit / will expell you if you don't comply?

Re:They can already do this.

[Skapare]

I think the issue is that the government was afraid that some colleges would not do this, for example for reasons of cost.

The one part the law forgot:

[wykell]

was that they didn't include the line where you are required to be wearing pants.
If I ever fall under this legislation (not likely), I can guarantee the first time a proctor checks on my camera will be the last time.

Teleconferences

[HTH NE1]

Called Securexam Remote Proctor, it's about the size of a large paperweight and plugs into a standard port on a home computer. The pedestal includes a groove for scanning fingerprints, a tiny microphone, and a camera. The sphere reflects a 360-degree view around the test taker, which the camera picks up.

Nevermind proctoring, how about using this for round-table podcasts? Instead of a multi-camera shoot, put this on the table in front of everyone and do your cuts to who is talking all in post.

Students pay $150 for the device.

Losing the fingerprint scanner would drop the price a bit, and audio for each panelist could still be recorded using a multi-track recorder. But you may need HD resolution for capture in order to get SD-quality shots for editing, which you don't need for simple monitoring.

I am looking for a long wire:

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I am looking for a extra long USB cable extender. It should plug in to the computer in the next room and allow the thingie given by the university to by in my room, allowing me to pretend I am working on a computer, while my friend, (friend? What friend charges 200$ for one lousy test, he is no friend) Venkatasubramaniapalvayantheeswara Rao takes the examn on the other computer.

Re:I am looking for a long wire:

[Yvan256]

All you need is an active USB extension cable. Shouldn't be worth more than 15-20$.

Re:I am looking for a long wire:

[znerk]

Ethernet.
VNC.
???
Profit!

Re:I am looking for a long wire:

[Skapare]

You left out a step: India

Real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

School is for learning things...and that is the problem.

The increasing availability of higher education (through convenient and affordable online colleges, as just one example) is resulting in an increasingly high percentage of highly educated people in the work force.

Unfortunately, the number of jobs that actually require that kind of education is not increasing at the same rate.

What happens when supply increases faster than demand? The price drops.

That means that more employers are requiring higher education for jobs that don't really need it, and are paying less and less for the jobs that actually do need it. Thus, all the workers lose out, because now one MUST have a higher education just to do a mundane job that won't use any of those skills and won't pay you enough to dig yourself out of the debt you incurred from all the student loans.

Don't believe me? Look at the economy in India.

Re:Real problem

[MightyYar]

Don't believe me? Look at the economy in India.

Yes, I'd hate to have the second largest rate of economic growth since 1980 (behind China). Sounds awful.

Re:Real problem

[Alwin Henseler]

To some degree you're right, but a more accurate description would be that education is distributed very unequal across working classes, countries, ethnic and age groups. Related is the problem that there is always some mismatch between education/skills of workers, and what's needed in the marketplace.

To solve those problems, one would need a more targeted approach to education. Target people who have little or no education, so they don't get stuck in low-paying, unskilled jobs for the rest of their life. Make it more attractive to choose studies that will be useful in the marketplace at the time people finish their study. And so on.

But you know what? These things are hard. If a study takes 4 years, the market will be 4 years further when students are done. A lot can change in that period. A new research area may open up, that creates an instant demand for people with a very specific knowledge/skill set. Some studies may be useful, but not to the degree that spending (taxpayer?) money on them has a net positive effect. But how to determine or predict all this?

So if anything, your point really over-simplifies things.

Re:Real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

falls behind early so you have more time to catch up. sounds great.

Re:Real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If economic growth (real one) could be stated by empty numbers, I would concur. But, India is a poor shack country, with everybody working on a call center, or some sort of very-low-wage job that totally depends on what WE, in the US, want.
So, the day that you have real economic growth and not a bunch of Illegal aliens trying to get in my country, or Australia, or Europe or any other civilized place, you can come here and say something. Meanwhile, go back to your slave call center bench, Apu!

Re:Real problem

[MightyYar]

Sounds like you wouldn't be happy even if they were number 1. If the only way you'll be happy with India is by going back in time and changing decisions made in the 19th century, well...

Re:Real problem

[MightyYar]

Hmmm, let me guess... you don't really like McCain, but you sure as hell won't vote for Obama because he's black.

Almost 30% of the Indian economy is manufacturing, BTW.

Re:Real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aparently OK with the western colonists raping Apu and other people living in these countries for centuries. But the moment the foreigners dare ask for a reacharound, you make them illegal?

What an asshole!

Re:Real problem

[Skapare]

So lets see if they can export my leet water closet sanitation technician job to India. Those guys don't have the cool degrees for this that I do. :-)

Re:Real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish you'd stop with your "not for Obama"=="racist" bullshit.

There are very good reason to not vote for Obama besides racism, beginning with the idea that the guy is exactly like George W. Bush:
1) Both have a proven record of failure
2) Niether held a real job ever in his life
3) Both said the right things while running for office, while their record shows them to be actively lying about what they will actually do (google: obama pressed the wrong button
4) Both have addictive personalities, with recorded histories of drug abuse.
5) Both are dependent on handlers to reach any decision
6) Both are endorsed by special interest groups
7) Both are loved by the media (at least while running for office)
8) Both are self-admitted born-again Christians
9) i could go on but you wound't care anyways :(

Re:Real problem

[MightyYar]

Nope, presuming you are the same racist asshole with the "Apu" comment, I can only say that if I wanted to talk to dicks I'd hang out in a mens' locker room.

You're just upset that I have you pegged.

Re:Real problem

[kayditty]

If he won't take your shitty ad hominem and red herring-filled arguments, then I will. I am a racist, and I admit I'd never vote for a stinking nigger. That said, there are plenty of better reasons not to vote for Obama, starting with the ones the GP outlined. Not to mention he has close ties with AIPAC and other lobby groups (OH NO I'M ANTI-SEMITIC!!), voted for telecom immunity, voted to fund the Iraq war time and again until it was near primary time, and on and on and on. Plus he's a fucking socialist. Don't forget that part.

Re:Real problem

[MightyYar]

Wow! A real-live racist, and not afraid to admit it. I'm simultaneously impressed with your courage and disgusted that I share the same race as you (as in human, not white).

Of course, real courage is in standing up to people like you back when they actually ran things and mattered. Now the tables have turned and you'd have trouble even holding a decent job if your employer knew you wrote the above post.

Enjoy your hate-filled life!

Re:Real problem

[mdwh2]

I don't know if any of that is true or not, but in any case, I think the criticisms of Bush go far beyond those nine statements. Most of those points would be true for just about all presidential candidates. No one is saying Bush is bad on the grounds that he is "loved by the media" or he's a Christian (born again or otherwise). You are setting up a straw man.

Re:Real problem

[kayditty]

I'm simultaneously impressed with your courage and disgusted that I share the same race as you (as in human, not white).

That's good, because I never said I was white, did I? Thus, if racism had anything to do with making assumptions, like so many people seem to [wrongly] think, then you'd be eerily close to that line. Real courage is standing up for ANYTHING that's not accepted by society at large, and that's what I've demonstrated and will continue to demonstrate throughout the course of my life, in spite of silly, naive, and thoughtless reactions like yours.

people like you

Stop it. You're killing me.

The tables have turned, quite unfortunately. The tables have turned from one injustice to another, and you seem to love it. Real courage is standing up to people like you.
The fact that you assume I have an employer (oh, imagine that!!) or would ever have an employer is part of what's most amusing about your post; the rest of the drivel with which said post was laden has become mundane to me, as it is almost expected of people with average intelligence (or those who've been put through Western schooling, at the very least [which, in most cases, seems to overlap with the former quite reliably]). That said, there are plenty of like-minded people in control a wide array of businesses, large and small. The fact that you either can't fathom that or want to pretend it isn't true doesn't particularly bode well for your grasp on reality, let alone your intellectual honesty.

And the fact that you think my life is hate-filled shows just how assuming you really are, as well as, ultimately, mis-informed.

Re:Real problem

[MightyYar]

That's good, because I never said I was white, did I?

Unlike you, that doesn't matter to me. I don't care if you are black and hate Jews, or if you are Indian and hate Pakistanis. Same trash.

The tables have turned from one injustice to another, and you seem to love it.

The tables have indeed turned and I am loving it. I'm in an interracial marriage and have a mixed kid that couldn't exist if your ilk still ruled the US.

The fact that you assume I have an employer

You get your money from customers, then? Same difference. How do you think your clients would like dealing with an unabashed racist? Of course, you could sell hate rags to racists - probably make a good living doing that. What a delightful niche.

But from some of your other posts, it seems like you are in IT in some regard. So I know you have someone to answer to.

And the fact that you think my life is hate-filled shows just how assuming you really are, as well as, ultimately, mis-informed.

Mis-informed! Assuming! Ha! Like, assuming something about a person's worth based on their skin color? Mis-informed... like not having a single shred of evidence that race is anything other than a societal construct? We'll see who's life is hate filled now that you have two dating-age kids, when they start bringing home undesirables. If it hasn't happened already, it sure as hell will when they hit college. Or maybe they'll be smart enough to just clam up and not share anything with their racist parent.

Re:Real problem

[kayditty]

Unlike you, that doesn't matter to me. I don't care if you are black and hate Jews, or if you are Indian and hate Pakistanis. Same trash.

Well, hating Jews wouldn't have much to do with racism (even if racism meant hating another race, which it doesn't), then, would it? Because Jews are not a race, despite what you've probably been taught in your Jew-run schools. Judaism is a religion. I may or may not be prejudiced toward or against Jews, but that would not make me anything but prejudiced. All the same, you seem to be forgetting that I could be a Pakistani and hate Pakistanis or be white and hate Caucasians or be black and hate Africans or Haitians. Why is that?

The tables have indeed turned and I am loving it. I'm in an interracial marriage and have a mixed kid that couldn't exist if your ilk still ruled the US.

This just goes to show how little integrity you have. I really couldn't care less what sort of marriage you're in (although the fact that you're in a marriage at all goes pretty far to show how unintelligent you really are). As far I'm aware, there is hardly any such thing as a pure bloodline in the current human genetic population. We've had 40,000 generations of interbreedings of the various "races" or what might be construed as a race to someone so inclined to wish the existence of races.

I think that this is entirely contradictory with your original sentiment that you don't care who's who or what's what in regards to race. You quite clearly are insistent on flaunting the nature of your relationship with another person based solely on the tone of their skin. I don't think that constitutes racism, but I'm wondering if it might not by your own line of fallacious reasoning; being philosophically consistent is hard, but someone has to do it, and that's where I come in. You seem to acknowledge that your "mixed kid" might have some properties that any other kid of a "normal" union may either possess or lack. I would have thought it just a lower or higher melanin count. What is it, this thing that your kid has or doesn't have? How old is your child? Is it aware of the way that you think about it? Has it been taught (misinformed) in the same way that you have? Taught that you have the right to not be offended, that some ideas are more or less detestable than others and shouldn't be heard while the others should be heard more?

Isn't the central idea behind all of these lines of thinking -- those such as yours -- that people ought to be more open and accepting of new ideas and information? Barring any political or personal agenda, I think that's what the intent is in the minds of a lot of people. And racism itself is just such an idea. The fact that it may be somehow arguably "wrong" (it can't be morally wrong, unless I'm meeting my first philosophically-argued moral objectivist on the internets [perhaps you are religious -- Jewish? {whoops that was race-ist!!}]) or incorrect doesn't mean that the idea itself doesn't merit discussion, let alone that it somehow automatically warrants detesting and dismissal. That doesn't mean that you have to respect or even entertain said idea, much the same as any idea, but it does mean that the idea itself isn't somehow magically removed from existence and cannot ever be held by any rational, intelligent person (or, if you prefer, [otherwise] rational or intelligent person), and nor does it mean that idea can not be justified, and nor does it mean that the idea should be ignored outright on any basis, up to and including the political and social culture you've assimilated (been indoctrinated with).

Do you honestly judge things by whatever the sociological zeitgeist is at the particular time when you're judging things? Using religiosity as an example, for instance: Is not religion as logically erroneous as you may imagine the concept of racism to be? Yet this is a widely practiced and widely accepted thing, and is even culturally "protected" from criticism, in the same way t

Re:Real problem

[MightyYar]

Well, hating Jews wouldn't have much to do with racism

Still the same trash. I don't care if you want to be called prejudiced instead of racist - your still an ignorant asshole.

All the same, you seem to be forgetting that I could be a Pakistani and hate Pakistanis or be white and hate Caucasians or be black and hate Africans or Haitians. Why is that?

What the fuck are you talking about? No wonder you are a racist - you clearly have a problem with logical thought - or at least reading comprehension. Where did I "seem to forget" anything? What a straw man you are building up.

This just goes to show how little integrity you have.

My integrity is compromised because I can looked past color when I chose my mate? Oh, you are too much! Your integrity was shot to all hell as soon as you said you wouldn't vote for a nigger.

We've had 40,000 generations of interbreedings of the various "races" or what might be construed as a race to someone so inclined to wish the existence of races.

And yet, in the face of this scientific fact, you choose to make decisions about people based on the color of their skin? Amazing.

You quite clearly are insistent on flaunting the nature of your relationship with another person based solely on the tone of their skin.

[sarcasm]Well, you have me pegged. I went out and chose a black girl to fall in love with just so I could make a point to some (thinks he's anonymous) racist on slashdot 10 years later.[/sarcasm] I have to admit, though, one of the perks of being interracial is seeing how mad it makes racists.

You seem to acknowledge that your "mixed kid" might have some properties that any other kid of a "normal" union may either possess or lack. I would have thought it just a lower or higher melanin count.

I acknowledged nothing of the sort - don't try to twist this around. You wouldn't vote for her if she ran for president because of that melanin - said so yourself. That is so insanely stupid that I don't even know where to begin.

Taught that you have the right to not be offended

Who the fuck said that? Honestly, you need to get your eyes examined. I'm a huge proponent of free speech - even for people who really should shut the hell up like yourself. Let you stupid fucking Nazi types have your little hate marches... one big plus is then we know who you are.

perhaps you are religious

No. And I'm not Jewish either, and asking me if I am Jewish (or even suggesting that I am) is not racist.

Is not religion as logically erroneous as you may imagine the concept of racism to be?

It certainly can be, yes. But it isn't automatically so.

and in the same way that a lot of mis-guided and/or evil people are trying to make 'anti-racism' protected today.

No, you are evil. Funny that you lecture me on where I base my morality and then you call other people evil.

And what about drug use, sexually promiscuity, sodomy, non-traditional sexuality?

I happen to support all of those things, so long as they do not infringe on other people's rights.

despised without a hint of argumentative reasoning or critical scrutiny

Maybe that's how it is down South in your neck of the woods, but in the Northeast and out in CA, these issues are constantly discussed. And even if they weren't, persecution would still be wrong no matter what society said.

brought back to your original post

Which was directed at an anonymous coward throwing around racial slurs, not someone interested in a real discussion.

Who is the person really living their life with hate?

You. I don't hate people automatically.

Mwo?

[davidsyes]

"World Campus, the online arm of the Pennsylvania State University system, is testing another system called Webassessor. It uses proctors, Web cameras, and software that recognizes students' typing styles, such as their speed and whether they pause between certain letters. Students purchase the cameras for $50 to $80 apiece. They allow proctors to view a student's face, keyboard, and workspace.

The Phoenix-based provider of the system, Kryterion Inc., employs proctors who remotely observe and listen to as many as 50 students at a time. If the keystroke pattern of a student who is taking an exam does not match the one he or she provided at registration, or if the image of a student taking an exam does not match a digital photograph that the student provided at enrollment, then the student cannot start the exam. A proctor can also stop a student who is acting suspiciously from completing an exam. Students must have a broadband connection to use the service."

I almost NEVER type at the same speed unless I am on a ROLL, and I rarely hit my max of 60+ wpm anymore, especially since I was last connected to FRED, that east-coast-based computer that tracked our Radioman Teletype testing performance in RM "A" School at the (now former) NTC/SSC, San Diego, back in early 1986.

So, how are these proctor exam software expecting to dupe schools, donors, and tax payers into believing that a supposedly critical component -- typing speed/pattern matching -- is realistic. All it takes is pondering, realizing - worrying, being distracted in many and any kinds of ways - to variously and non-deterministically disrupt the pattern-matching algorithm.

Re:Mwo?

[cdrguru]

So how about coming up with a better way? Trusting people isn't going to cut it - would you go to a doctor that was 100% educated online? With no indication that he or she was the same person as the one taking exams? Besides, as many have said, people will try to find a way around this to cheat anyway.

How about the attitude that not only is cheating wrong but that cheating to get ahead results in problems later. Online education is today unproven and unreliable. Sure, for an MBA or an English degree is probably doesn't matter and nobody cares what sort of program you went through. Would you want a lawyer from University of Phoenix? No? Why not? Could it be that their program might not be all that great?

There is a simpler solution to this - forget online education. If it makes cheating easier and any measures implemented gotten around, then the whole concept is dead, at least for anything important.

How about people here actually think for a change and come up with a foolproof, reliable way to ensure the exam-taker is the enrolled person?

Re:Mwo?

[mdmkolbe]

Typing rhythm (not speed) over short letter sequences should be reliable. For example, the rhythm for "T-H-E" and other common short words should not be effected by thinking pauses since most people type in word length bursts though there may need to be a scaling factor (i.e. I'm guessing the rhythm of "T-H-E" will be the same whether it is typed slowly or quickly).

Re:Mwo?

[DragonWriter]

Trusting people isn't going to cut it - would you go to a doctor that was 100% educated online?

No, because essential pieces of medical education require in person training, practice, and direct supervision.

This has nothing to do with trust issues, though.

Sure, for an MBA or an English degree is probably doesn't matter and nobody cares what sort of program you went through.

Yeah, actually, for an MBA it matters a lot, though "distance" vs. "brick-and-mortar" isn't the main thing, the particular institution is.

And I suspect if you want, say, a professorial posting at a top school, where you get your graduate degree in English probably matters, too.

Would you want a lawyer from University of Phoenix? No? Why not?

I personally would be suspicious of a University of Phoenix lawyer, because the University of Phoenix doesn't have a law school.

OTOH, Kaplan's Concord Law School, well, I go there, so I'm not really an unbiased observer.

How about people here actually think for a change and come up with a foolproof, reliable way to ensure the exam-taker is the enrolled person?

Given that people cheat on in person exams, I'll just say there is no such thing as "foolproof, reliable way" to do that; nor is one necessary for most purposes in education, which is many physical institutions don't do much in this regard, either. For particularly high-stakes exams, like licensing exams, you require people to register in advance, be physically present, present multiple forms of ID, etc., etc.

A way to make money, not stop cheating

[skinfaxi]

It looks like it will make some money for the companies that are peddling the systems, from cameras and fingerprint readers, to life-history-scrapes that ask you questions, to systems that purport to recognize your typing style.

Enterprising cheaters will find ways around all of that and create an industry unto itself. One person quoted points out, "How do professors know that a student enrolled in a large lecture class is the same one handing in an assignment or test?" The answer is, of course, they don't. I knew a dude years ago that cheated SAT/GRE type tests by physically going in and taking them for someone else.
If someone is really concerned though, I am sure you can unplug the camera set-up while you aren't taking a test.

Re:A way to make money, not stop cheating

[fredrated]

"It looks like it will make some money for the companies that are peddling the systems"

I will bet you dollars to donuts that these people paid "the best representatives money can buy" to put this into the bill.

Definitely FUD

[TheMCP]

The article says that the law would require institutions to verify that the person who did the work is the person who gets the degree. It does NOT in fact say that the law would require cameras in people's homes. That is merely one potential method which is presented, along with fingerprints and other techniques.

Having the person show up live to do their work and tests at a local institution would also presumably count.

I call shenanigans on this article.

its simple protectionism

[circletimessquare]

everyone has a lobby in washington. the brick and mortar institutions of higher learning don't want to see potential students go online instead. it is the same reason the usa has such strong laws against online gaming. its not for moral reasons, even though it is worded and implied that way. in reality, the gambling concerns like real world casinos in las vegas and atlantic city, they don't want potential customers sitting at home instead

these laws are caged in indirect requirements, but the message is the same: i will lobby to protect and fight for my turf

Re:its simple protectionism

[BitHive]

I can guarantee you that real institutions of higher learning don't give a shit about online "distance" learning, or cheating. My alma mater is among the top in terms of number of graduates who go on to get doctorates in their fields, but does not proctor exams. All exams are take-home, with the obvious exception of your oral thesis defense (if you can call that an exam).

Any institution providing a real education won't care if you cheat on tests because the faculty have more important things to do and it would be insulting to assume you'd cheat yourself out of all the time and money you invested to take the class in the first place.

Re:its simple protectionism

[cdrguru]

Sadly, there are some things that people will do to "get ahead". Now cheating on an English exam to pass so you can get an Engineering degree is probably somewhat meaningless. However, there are some classes that are pretty important and a degree is certainly a certification to lots of folks that you did indeed pass.

Many online institutions and certification exams require physical presence for tests. You have to go to a testing facility and pay their fees.

Wait until we have some major engineering failure or medical screwup where the person "responsible" came from an online institution. If there is even the slightest hint that some kind of fraud occurred this would be a death blow to online education, at least for anything serious. You want to avoid that and make online learning have the same credibility as physical campuses? Get behind this kind of thing with ways to prove who is behind the keyboard.

Are there ways to do this less intrusively? Sure. Let's hear about them.

Re:its simple protectionism

[retchdog]

I'm in a doctoral program in a technical field at an Ivy League university. My department stopped doing take-home exams for the quals because students were cheating (by the way, the cheaters show a strong and significant trend toward a certain nationality; you may speculate at will). It's still common to cheat on the homework and, well, any other exam where you can possibly get away with it.

I agree that the faculty don't care, but really the only people who are insulted by this are honest people like me. And yeah, I'm pretty fucking disappointed and disillusioned that this is purportedly the creme de la creme of the future. Equally, to be honest, I'm afraid for my future to a certain extent since I refuse to lie - what happens when it becomes a cultural norm and paramount to progress? The further I get ahead in life, the more wretched and petty everyone seems to be. I was in industry before this, and I still marvel at how much more honest it was back then.

Typing Styles?

[Anonymous Coward]

software that recognizes students' typing styles

I'm more worried about false positives from this.

Nude Test Taking?

[Wiarumas]

So... no more taking online tests in the nude?

Re:Nude Test Taking?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a matter of fact, if you're even the slightest bit of an exhibitionist, I'd encourage it.

As a form of protest.

Especially if you're young, female, and attractive.

I... know someone...

[mdm-adph]

...who was going to take distance classes at Troy.

Fuck that.

Easily Defeated

[kellyb9]

Start attending online class in your birthday suit, and they'll quickly do away with this restriction.

Re:Easily Defeated

[xnt_hehe]

just messup the software and tell them to send out a tech to fix it....see how long the support budget lasts!

Re:Easily Defeated

[magus_melchior]

Encourage the implementation of Smell-o-vision first, then take the tests in your birthday suit after a few days of skunk wrestling with no showers.

It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Why does this need to be a law? Can't employers simply choose to reject someone who graduates from an institution that makes no effort to verify who is taking their students' tests?

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[Qzukk]

Can't employers simply choose to reject someone who graduates from an institution that makes no effort to verify who is taking their students' tests?

Sure they can. Just as soon as someone gets around to inventing that perfect lie detector.

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

I'm not sure you read my post. Who are you suggesting would be doing the lying? The student? Or the institution? If the student, then that is precisely my point - the institution should state that they are verifying student identities; or else the employer should not hire the student, or have an independent organization confirm this. If the institution is doing the lying, then then that is fraud, either being committed by the verifying organization, or by the institution themselves. Either way, they can be held responsible either criminally or in a civil court.

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[ClassMyAss]

For the moment, yes, at least mostly - I suspect most employers do discriminate quite heavily against online degrees. But in the future, this just won't be possible, especially as real world physical schools start to grant full, unasterisked degrees to students that have done at least a portion of their coursework online and remotely. This is inevitable: it's pretty much the only way to further grow a business that was up until now not scalable due to physical resources. Even the higher level colleges would be foolish not to offer these sorts of programs - exclusivity is great and all, but quite frankly, most top tier schools could admit up to four or five times as many students as they currently do without degrading the quality of the class in any significant manner, and as long as most schools start to offer online courses, the relative rankings will not be much affected by the decision to do so. So I think the concern is not so much that the University of Phoenix might have less rigorous standards than real life schools, but that eventually employers are going to see Yale, Harvard, and Princeton degrees coming across their desks with no way of determining whether the coursework was completed on site or over the Internet.

Of course, I'm not saying that I think there should be a law (I don't!), I'm just noting that eventually online schooling will be a lot more ubiquitous, and harder for an employer to check, so there is a real quality control concern that employers will have. These proposed measures will do little to stop a resourceful cheater, just like real life proctors do little to stop cheaters in person. Personally I would think the responsibility for evaluating this type of thing and putting restrictions on it should rightly be in the hands of the accreditation boards (some of which, last time I checked, still have physical attendance requirements in place, though I think that's getting relaxed more and more lately), not the government, but you know how those effing politicians are...

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[PacketShaper]

Yes, they could. If every company had the time, desire and resources to do background research for every hole in the wall online school (there will only be more of them as time goes on).

Or, it could be made a law so businesses can assume any person graduating from an accredited school (online or otherwise) did not have some guy in India acing all tests for him at a rate of $10 / hour.

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Yes, they could. If every company had the time, desire and resources to do background research for every hole in the wall online school (there will only be more of them as time goes on)."

Why would they have to research anything? The school would be required to show evidence of research. This research can be done by an independent organization that specifically does this sort of thing. The employer wouldn't have to do anything but verify that the a trusted independent organization has confirmed the school verifies student identity.

"Or, it could be made a law so businesses can assume any person graduating from an accredited school..."

And a failing business they would be for assuming such a thing. To assume that their employee actually took their tests is to also assume that the school has not found a loophole in the law, or has not - through some other middleman - paid off the right politicians to make a special exception for them. Even if there were such a law, any rational employer would still want independent verification - independent of the school and the government. As such the law is redundant, except to those employers willing to hand over their brains to the government, willing to turn off their rational minds in favor of convenience - which ultimately makes no sense, because under the alternative scenario, the school would be compelled via competition to make verification as convenient as possible to the employer anyways.

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

That is why I suggested an independent verifier, of the same kind as VeriSign, for example. They would do all the work, at the expense of the school, to verify students are actually taking their tests, if they want their reputations to remain high among employers.

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[rnswebx]

I suppose it doesn't have to be a law, but I'd venture to guess (since I haven't RTFA) that congress is getting involved due to the backing of so many student loans.

I really don't mind if people cheat on their own dime. I, however, do find it a bit unnerving knowing that so many students (in both traditional an online institutions) are cheating with my tax dollars.

Again, I like the fact that some of my tax money goes to fund students who would otherwise likely not have a chance for formal education. I don't have much of a problem with the feds making sure some of those students are properly using the money.

That said, webcams in the home as a solution? Seems a little much, but what are the low-cost alternatives?

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Again, I like the fact that some of my tax money goes to fund students who would otherwise likely not have a chance for formal education."

Then you should be free to choose to assign those tax dollars - your earnings - as you see fit, donating them to an organization that offers loans to such students. But you have no choice. Just because a portion of your tax dollars happen to currently fund an action that you support does not mean that they always will. All it means is that you have no choice over the matter, and that you are tricking yourself into believing that this lack of choice is justifiable.

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Why bother? Plenty of graduates of accredited programs are idiots anyway - better to test their ability to do the job.

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[Tranzistors]

Yes, they can, and they do. If I have a grade from institution called "Get Your Diploma and Pr0n Today Only for 59.99$!!1!", no one in they sane mind would think I am educated.

However, universities, collages etc. are a different matter. Government says (so it must be true) that certain quality is met, and they require that this is true. Otherwise this institution doesn't get accreditation.

The case with tele-learning - government makes sure those programs meet these standards. If you have a better idea how to take exam in your home without an official, share your idea with us.

I don't see a problem so long as this is not the only option.

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Also a smart solution for the employer.

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Otherwise this institution doesn't get accreditation."

Again, why must the government handle such a thing? It only permits the possibility of enforceable corruption.

"If you have a better idea how to take exam in your home without an official, share your idea with us."

A private organization offers to verify that a student is taking a test, and the employer bases his decision on his trust of that organization. We do the same thing with website security certificates. VeriSign has built up a name that people trust, and is not a branch of the government.

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"I don't see a problem so long as this is not the only option."

The problem is that it forces a private organization to do with its property other than it wishes. That is my primary concern. As for a secondary problem: the false sense of security that comes with such a law, as is apparent in another reply to my original post - employers will accept the government's stamp of approval without questioning whether the organization got its accreditation through some loophole or through political pull.

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[Tuoqui]

Because apparently employers place more value on a piece of paper than they do the actual knowledge someone may have.

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[SvnLyrBrto]

> employers are going to see Yale, Harvard, and Princeton degrees coming
> across their desks with no way of determining whether the coursework
> was completed on site or over the Internet.

Employers already have to deal with Yale, Harvard, and Princeton degrees coming across their desks with no way of determining wether the applicant was actually a top-tier student who earned his way in and aced the coursework; or the spoilt child of an alumnus, whose daddy paid their way into the student body and settled for "gentlemen's C's" across the board.

If an applicant's degree is your sole, or even primary, criteria; then you're a fool.

cya,
john

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[SeaFox]

Can't employers simply choose to reject someone who graduates from an institution that makes no effort to verify who is taking their students' tests?

That would require employers to spend time and money keeping track of universities' efforts to prevent cheating. Having your leased politician pass a law pushing the responsibility back onto the college is much easier.

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[bws111]

It is a law because the government is putting up money (student loans). If the employers just reject the graduates the loans don't get repaid. This is an effort to make sure that the employers DON'T reject the graduates. Seems prudent to me.

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[tehcyder]

Employers already have to deal with Yale, Harvard, and Princeton degrees coming across their desks with no way of determining wether the applicant was actually a top-tier student who earned his way in and aced the coursework; or the spoilt child of an alumnus, whose daddy paid their way into the student body and settled for "gentlemen's C's" across the board.

Don't US universities grade degrees then?

In the UK, it doesn't matter how rich your daddy is, you're not going to get a First from Oxford/Cambridge/any decent university unless you have earned it.

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"That would require employers to spend time and money keeping track of universities' efforts to prevent cheating. Having your leased politician pass a law pushing the responsibility back onto the college is much easier."

Read my other replies to other people who have said the same thing. Employers wouldn't have to do anything. Schools would willingly pay independent examiners to verify that their students are taking their tests, in order to get a stamp of approval that the employer can see and trust (provided the approving firm is trusted, like VeriSign is online).

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"It is a law because the government is putting up money (student loans)."

And it should not be. Offering student loans is entirely outside the realm of "upholding the rights of the citizenry". You're using the status quo in an argument for the status quo.

"If the employers just reject the graduates the loans don't get repaid."

That's quite a ridiculous position to support. Laughably ridiculous. Wouldn't the government then have an incentive to throw a stamp of approval on every institution they can, just so they can get their money back? It is exactly that sort of corruption we could avoid through private competition.

Re:It is entirely objectionable and wrong

[WNight]

If they can handle such seamless outsourcing you should just give them an MBA. They've shown the ability to arrange foreign labor to be ready at odd hours, for rapid-turnaround work, to be consistent in its output, etc... That's not easy.

And as for research, maybe they could do what anyone else would do and google for the institution. If it's not on any top-500 lists they'll weigh it appropriately. And the student will likely have paid appropriately - I think the U of Phoenix's distance course are cheaper than Yale, and slightly less prestigious.

Bad Title

[kellyb9]

Online Colleges Could Spy On Students - By Law

Bad title, Spying implies that you have no knowledge that it's happening. In this case, it would seem you have full knowledge you are being "spied" on.

Re:How will they work it for Dialup and sat intern

[denzacar]

They won't.
Students with dialup will either have to upgrade the connection or come to the college to do the exam if better connection is unavailable in their area.

That is one of the reasons my college is still against implementing some kind of a video link during a test.
It is not connection heavy just on the student - imagine maintaining couple of thousands of simultaneous video links with resolution high enough to spot possible cheat sheets?
Like... 4pt text printed cheat sheets stickers on your monitor.

There is a MUCH simpler solution that they implement.

Online tests that can be done from home constitute only a part of the grade. For those to be valid - you have to pass the final exam AT the college.
Many exams require you to write a seminary work and later "defend it" in person in front of the professor.

Here - students are the ones demanding something like that since some of us (like me) have to travel for 6 hours to get to an exam.
Which can be quite ironic when some of your tests take around 20-30 minutes.
Get up at 3 to catch a 5 AM bus, 6 hours one way, do a test, wait for the next bus home, 6 hours back.
Roads here suck. No highway. We might get one in about 10 years or so...

There is also a simple solution to that problem too.
Since most of the tests are done by logging into the college's system with your ID and password - it could be also done over the internet.
Like I said... we do it for the "lesser" tests. Only reason we are not allowed to do that for the final tests is cheating.
Now... my town has a university as well... A good one... only not with such a study program.
Why my college can't or won't contact the faculty of the university here and arrange for us to take the exam from the facilities of the university here (despite students suggesting and demanding that for years now), under the supervision of the local staff - well... I'd rather think its the old incompetence again instead of malice and money.

Bad article, no treat

[DaveV1.0]

The law does not allow or require spy cameras.

The law requires that the on-line schools validate that the student is the one actually doing the work. The law does not specify any means of doing so.

The person who wrote the article should be fired for using an outrageous misleading headline and first paragraph to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

This is so dishonest that it doesn't qualify as journalism.

Re:Bad article, no treat

[4e617474]

The law does not allow or require spy cameras. The law requires that the on-line schools validate that the student is the one actually doing the work. The law does not specify any means of doing so. The person who wrote the article should be fired for using an outrageous misleading headline and first paragraph to make a mountain out of a mole hill. This is so dishonest that it doesn't qualify as journalism.

Well-said, but permit me a little nitpicking. On careful reading, you see that what they say is "a small paragraph that could lead distance-education institutions to require spy cameras". The rest of the article is about how institutions are researching different ways of complying with student ID verification requirements, "spy" cameras most definitely included. The real problem is that they don't tell us anything about the bill besides what they say the gist of it is. I really wanted to either raise an objection with my representatives if the language of the bill was specific enough to require the kinds of measures that they were speculating about, or make my feelings clear to my school if they had enough wiggle room to decide how this went down. I mean, if I have to choose between my future and paying $150 for the privilege of having my fingerprint, name, and picture broadcast by I. fuckin' E. I want to know who to scream at. But no, all they want to tell me is that it's before Congress and it's a shoo-in to pass, no need to worry about the bill number, what house it's in, when a vote's scheduled if it is. I tried, but the last bill I could find is S.3180 which extended the HEA to the end of July 2008. Thanks, fuckwads. Next time you write about pending legislation in scary, ominous terms keep in mind that some of us will have a reaction other than to bend over and spread 'em.

Re:Bad article, no treat

[DaveV1.0]

Well, they wrote about it in scary, ominous terms, and then promptly said that it didn't really say anything like the scary, ominous terms but rather put a requirement on the schools to verify who is actually doing the work and taking the tests.

And, you are right, they don't actually give any information as to the actual content of the bill or the number of the bill.

I hate dumbass reporters like this one.

Bah

[Arthur B.]

Having universities do the teaching and the certification sucks anyway, it's not such a natural bundle.

You should go to school because you want to learn something, exams telling you how well you're doing.

Getting a diploma is about proving to other people that you know something, it should be handled entirely separately. It also means autodidacts don't have to pay for useless lessons just to get the certification.

Re:As a non-American your system of laws seems bro

[xnt_hehe]

item 1 on bill: save distressed orphan puppies from torture.
item 2 on bill : give 10 trillion dollars to the military and surrender your right to vote.

Why would you vote against a omnibus bill that wants to stop puppy torture?! Are you some kind of sicko!!

Re:How will they work it for Dialup and sat intern

[prelelat]

well you could have two computer, have the camera point at the second computer while you browse the internet with the camera on you, your PHD friend goes and writes your test on the other side with the camera hooked up(i mean it can stay attached to the existing computer and point at another one.

Think of the children!

[icebrain]

It's so some politician can brag

That's it right there.

Cameras aren't the same as people

[eric434]

These designers need to get a clue. Cameras will not replace human proctors any time soon.

Instant distance learning cheat:
1) Plug magic 360-degree anti-cheating fingerprint camera into laptop.
2) Sit down at desk with other laptop.
3) Bring your buddy the anthropology-whiz-for-hire into the room. Hand him the laptop from step 1.
4) Buddy gets under desk and takes test. You spend an hour on IRC basking in the epic lulz.

It is not a spy camera.

[blair1q]

If you want the course credit, you have to agree to let the proctor watch you take the test.

That isn't spying. It's school.

Re:It is not a spy camera.

[DragonWriter]

If you want the course credit, you have to agree to let the proctor watch you take the test.

That isn't spying. It's school.

At Caltech, at least in 1990, pretty much everything, including finals, was taken home, drop off, and on the honor system. Apparently, Caltech is not a "school" by your standard.

It's simpler than that...

[icebrain]

It's more like the government wants its slice of the pie (ie, tax revenue). Online/overseas gambling is harder to collect taxes on... so they ban it instead.

Why do you think making your own liquor (moonshine) is generally illegal? It's certainly not morality concerns...

Honour system

[wikinerd]

If real this violates the honour system and makes it impossible for a university to enact a honour system.

Re:Honour system

[TheSync]

If real this violates the honour system and makes it impossible for a university to enact a honour system

And is there any scientific evidence that the "honor system" works or is it really pseudo-scientific-philosophical BS?

On the other hand, the free market works, and anything which interferes with the ability of on-line education to be effective (such as laws against webcamming you while taking an exam) is just going to hurt humanity by cutting off reliable on-line education.

Nobody but yourself?

[phorm]

Ummm... actually you'd be hurting your future employer, the college, and your co-workers.

a) Future employer: for spending time+money advertising for and interviewing somebody who turns out to be wholly unqualified because they cheated their way through class

b) College: For the loss of reputation due to the above (however, I'd say that this to a good extent is their own damn fault if they don't have at least some level of monitored testing).

c) Co-Workers: For having to compensate for a useless cheater who can't do the job properly.

In the end,. having a cheater who passes the course but can't cut it at work is going to cause problems for a lot of people.

Re:Nobody but yourself?

[Anonymous Coward]

a) Not necessarily. Most jobs that supposedly require a degree --- don't. Even those that do probably don't require a lot of the required courses that do not exist for educational, but political reasons.

b) Not possible. Axia would pass a turd if it could sign a check.

c) Are you kidding? Cheaters are management material!

Re:So, why make a silly law?

[QuantumRiff]

Actually, there are several laws, (or i guess rules would be a better word). Many federal exams, like one you fill out during the process of getting hired at Homeland Security require a "proctored test" with so many requirements on the room, quietness, the people watching and the stuff on the computers, that its almost silly. When they last asked our community college to be a proctor site for TSA exams, we looked at the requirements that stated that we had to use MS Java, which is no longer available or supported, with IE 5, we could download both from their secure FTP site, and no other browsers or plugins or versions of java could be installed (or any other software).. We declined..

Re:How will they work it for Dialup and sat intern

[ckthorp]

Also, just consider the extent to which users manage to bypass the anti-cheating systems in WoW. And that's just a game instead of a real-world degree. (Though one could argue that getting a degree is just a 4-year long game, too. Heh.)

Cheating

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the heck does the government need to get involved? If a school churns out incompetent cheaters, their reputation goes down and people quite hiring people from that school. Either the school changes or it dies. Problem solved.

Anyway, web cams really seem like an ineffective way to stop cheating. For all they know, the person taking the test for me is just pointing the web cam at me surfing the web for a few hours on another computer.

studentwebcams.com

[dontmakemethink]

Teachers, why leave your dirty chicken-hawk fantasies to your imagination when you can wank off to a live feed of that cute sophomore getting undressed in the comfort of your own home!

Here's how to end it

[fishbowl]

1. Be under 18 years old
2. Perform a sex act on the camera.
3. Compel discovery against the university for possession of child pornography.
4. ???
5. Profit!!!

Re:Here's how to end it

[Tycho]

These steps could also be performed in a similar way that would make life difficult for the corporate management of a big box retail corportation as well. New Years Day or Easter are perhaps the best days as there is less chance of any employees being at the store, assuming the store is closed those days. In any case on one of those two days, perform a set of mutually agreed upon sex acts while positioned in front of the cameras at the main entrance of the chosen big box store. Make sure to be inside the line of concrete barrier posts for best exposure to the security cameras. Compel discovery against the corporate officies for the requred times and skip to profit.

When did government get involved in accreditation?

[BitterOak]

I thought in the U.S., unlike many other countries, accreditation of colleges was done by private organizations. Shouldn't it be these organizations that institute these requirements? If I want to start up a college in my basement and issue Ph.D.'s, isn't it up to me to set the requirements? In fact, don't I have a First Amendment right to do so? Now, if I issue degrees, and claim to be accredited by a certain board, when if fact, I am not, then I am committing fraud, and that's already a crime. But what right does the government have to be setting standards on college requirements? Or this attached to some kind of federal funding? The article doesn't seem to make this clear. Does anyone have more information on this?

Oh come on.

[Digestromath]

You're telling me you would rather travel to a brick and mortar school, sit in an uncomfortable institutional chair, comply with thier schedule, stifle your yawns while listening to Professor Curmudgeon and not look at online porn while doing calculus etc... all instead of being involved in the filming of College Girls Taking Tests III: Dirty Dirty Math? Well someone clearly has thier priorities wrong.

No, not Orwellian Just the fundamentals of the

[vorlich]

School Prison System. I have said it a few times now, on slash dot. School is a prison where young people are held hostage and counted, frequently. These cameras will make that even more efficient.
John Gatto has said it all already http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/prologue2.htm

So the one company is based out of Cambridge...

[mr_mischief]

They're based out of Cambridge and they sell products to help universities. So MIT, Harvard, Boston College, and Boston University are the first schools they should approach. Yet their first customer isn't even in a nearby state. Alabama? Seriously? Harvard, MIT, BC, BU, Pitt, Georgetown, Maryland, Carnegie Mellon, Yale, and New York University all pass, but we're supposed to think it's a good product/service package?

Next non-story

[stewbacca]

What a non-story. Who says you have to take a test to attend online classes? I've gotten my entire grad degree online without ever taking a single test. Maybe this is more of a problem for undergrad work, but as far as I can tell, all those freaking hundreds of papers I wrote and hundreds of electronic briefings I've compiled suffice quite nicely as a measurement of how much I've learned.

Re:Moderators: Please note

[chris_mahan]

This is an Anonymous Coward. Please ignore.

Bit of a twist

[tecknoh]

I am still undecided on what to make of the cameras and the possibility of spying, as I am thinking of a list of valid arguments for both sides of the debate.

What seems to have taken over my attention is the reliance on Microsoft based products to utilize the software. First, you have to buy a new hardware device just to consider using the system, and at $150, not so price friendly.

And, if you are a Mac or Open Source user, bow you need to shell out at least another $150 I would imagine (not sure, stopped using windows years age) for an operating system.

Now of course you cannot mandate that software and hardware manufacturers must make all of their products cross platform. However, anything that is required by law from the government should not present a silver lining to a proprietary company such as microsoft.

If I must use this new equipment and OS, the developer should be required to make it available for any PC commonly used by a home user, be it Windows, Mac, or one of the many flavors of Nix.

And what really peeves me. I was just looking at some distance learning institutions to continue my education. I am not so sure now. Anyone else out there having second thoughts on online education?

"No one in congress objects to it"

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess Ron Paul must have sold out.

Not the Big Issue...yet.

[Hercules Peanut]

While I am disappointed, I am not surprised. The more important issue will be whether or not the Supreme Court objects.

Think of it this way. Our congress is a collection of lawmakers. That's what we call them. Most of the good laws have already been thought up and enacted. After over 200 years, they still feel the need to make laws and since the good ones are taken, they start passing bad ones.

By this definition, it's only going to get worse.

Sadly, we complain when they take really long paid vacations but I say let them. The longer they are away, the less damage they can do. I'd happily elect and pay a lawmaker to congress who promised not to pass anything and would be ecstatic if one promised to start repealing a few.

Useless idea anyways.

[Anonymous Coward]

It may mean well, but the idea is easily defeated anyways. Putting it into law is just cluelessness on some legislators behalf. It's meant to show that the person getting the online degree is actually the one taking the test. But, since webcams aren't all that great quality anyways - it's too easily defeated. Basically one can take a video of themself typing away and moving the mouse around, put that on a screen in front of the webcam, have someone else take the test - and they'll be none the wiser. The webcam just doesn't cut it. And it's not that hard to unplug or anything at other times, so it's exactly great for general spying anyways - unless the person who has the webcam doesn't care to much.

  If online colleges really want a reliable way of accredation, perhaps they should institute a program with community colleges or other community centers to monitor tests when they come up.

This is about collecting information for the gvmnt

[whoever57]

This process will effectivly create a new database of information. Initially, it won't be in governement (FBI, CIA, NSA) hands, but, given the willingness to bless wiretapping without warrants, how long before the governement coerces the educational institiutions to hand it over?

What then, trolling through fingerprint data? Trolling through pictures of faces with face recognition software? Looking at other activity on the computer? This is closed source software, what if the demands that the software maker modifies it to troll through files, history, emails, etc. on the user's PC?

Think of the children: the software could look for the presence of kiddie porn, etc..

Comfort

[oneal13rru]

What about the comfort level of the students who prefer distance learning for the surroundings it allows? Seems it would cut down on the comfort and privacy a bit.

Re:Moderators: Please note

[Kalriath]

Why? He's not going on an anti-Microsoft campaign. Until he does that or uses more than one of his accounts in the same thread, his opinion should be treated much like anyone else's. Though I wouldn't mod him up either.

Huh?

[zenasprime]

Can someone please explain to me why the government feels that this needs to be a Law? Let the colleges/universities police their own students and govern their own institutions. Who sponsors such a bill in congress?

Re:How will they work it for Dialup and sat intern

[DragonWriter]

How will they work it for Dialup and sat internet where they don't have the bandwidth / ping times for this to work good?

Low bandwidth and high latency aren't all that good for online schools, in general, since things like streaming lectures and online audio chats (or text chats with one-way audio from the instructor) are often important tools in the curriculum.

Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, the Federal government is operating far outside of its Constitutionally prescribed limits.

Apologists will try to cite one or more such clauses as the general welfare or interstate commerce but the truth of the matter is that we would all be better off if the government minded its own business.

why not an alternative to web cams?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. Well this is definitely someones far fetched opinion and not factual as congress WOULD object to something as unethical as forcing people to use a web cam in their own home or other wise, outside of a classroom environment. However, an alternative maybe to makes students use a finger print scanner every x amount of minutes.

Won't work...

[Anonymous Coward]

None of this crap is going to work... Cameras can have their viewing spoofed. Small picture of you put up in front of the camera... If the proctor has 80 people to watch, what are the chances that they're going to notice your pic is static?

Even if you need a dynamic image - that's not a real problem either. Record, play back the loop...

Fingerprints: None of these assholes are ever going to get access to any real piece of biometric information on me. If they lose it or it's stolen, I can't get a replacement, so I have to protect myself. That means that I'm going to spoof the reader, forge some info going into it, or have a fake finger that passes the scanner checks so I can log in w/o risk to myself. And if I can do that, then so can someone who wants to cheat. So that's worthless too...

How long until someone starts selling pseudo-fingers on the Net? pseudo-iris'?

As for the whole "Axciom" check into your past thing - fuck that. That stuff is rife with errors to begin with and I'm not about to start having to prove that I really lived on Green street rather than Blue Avenue back when I was 5 yrs old... I'd never authorize that use either...

This whole thing is a complete waste of time and money... Any program which purports to make me do something that I don't want to, isn't going to get one fucking dime of mine.

The whole idea is horseshit.

[Jane Q. Public]

Before "internet" colleges, there were correspondence colleges. Still "distance learning", and still (in some cases) accredited.

The Internet doesn't change anything there at all. So where were their Orwellian rules before?

This nonsense is just another example of blaming the internet for something that has always existed, and using that as an excuse to further intrude.

What a crock.

What is your privacy worth?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article presents a very worthwhile story: somehow the institution needs to verify that the person sitting the test is in fact the person who is enrolled in the course and that they aren't cheating.

This is a standard authorisation/authentication problem. More on that below. But first...

By far the biggest problem with this solution is that it requires you to be "fingerprinted" by "someone". Well maybe it isn't such a big deal afterall, as the USA no fingerprints every foreigner who enters via an airport. Now the US Government's fingerprint database will expand to include students of distance learning. Well I guess Osama bin Laden wasn't going to enroll in studying politics and peace at the local community college anyway, was he? But what about when the US army finds a fingerprint in Iraq that matches yours?

The problem to solve here is real: how do you ensure the sanctity of the test environment when the student is remote?

I'm surprised that the replies above haven't mentioned that any camera, with a full view of the room, is likely to be limited to what it can see "above the horizon." How will it convey to someone if you've cheated by hiding answers on paper or in your phone or calculator or...?

Now on to the authentication...

Given that a camera is involved here, there is little point in a fingerprinting device also being used. If the camera doesn't have enough resolution to verify that the person taking the test is in fact the student enrolled then there are likely other questions to be raised about the actual usefulness of said video.

But whether it is your face or your finger, it is still only a single piece of information that attempts to verify the body present matches what is expected. At least one other factor is required to authenticate the person present and preferably two. A password or something that the individual taking the test knows (and something that *only* they should know) would also be beneficial. Better still is to have a challenge response device that is keyed with a secret that only said person should know.

Now I know this doesn't guarantee you that the correct person is present, but it is a hell of a lot better than a fingerprint plus fuzzy video.

How many of you would allow your login to be determined by a correct fingerprint on your laptop's fingerprint reader - and that alone?

public libraries end up proctoring

[shalla]

Actually, my public library ends up proctoring two to three distance education students per week. For free, of course. A reference librarian goes through the rigamarole with the student and sticks him/her at a table and the reference staff keeps an eye on him/her as we all wander around. If it's a computer-based test, we reserve a computer in the Computer Center for the student and the Computer Center staff watches him/her. Either way, you end up with multiple proctors at the same time (harder to cheat), though we have the same official person sign off on the test every time.

Hey, it's not April 1st...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop that.

Seriously though, if this passes and will be enforced, bu-bye distance ed. No one in his right mind would stand for this, a better way needs to be found, such as on-campus show-up-in-person-and-test requirements for the final exam.

I recently completed an online course, (got an A,) and have to admit, it was pretty much of a joke. The "instructor" did just about nothing, other than write the book, and make bank off every class full of 50 or more (however many there were) in the class, who were REQUIRED to buy the book. Sharing was not possible the way they have it rigged. All other aspects of the class are basically automated.

It's not the students who are cheating, it is the instructors. Maybe we should put a camera on THEM to make sure they are REALLY grading assignments, and not just glancing at them and giving grades based upon length of response, which is just as hard to prove they're doing as it is to prove they're not, and if they give everyone good grades, no one is going to complain while they're out playing golf, and raking in the bread.

Re:Moderators: Please note

[Anonymous Coward]

Because anything, right or wrong, that's anti-microsoft should be downmodded? Fuck you.

The reason laws get written

[DrDNA]

I think what people are missing is that in this day and age, private companies are lobbying for a piece of the action. I doubt some Congress-critter thought this law up themselves. Most likely, someone from some company somewhere approached a Congressperson and told them what a great idea this would be and how they'd be so happy to donate to their reelection campaign.

I remember hearing about some program (Reading First or something) to get kids to read. It mandated using specific textbooks and was a huge gift to one particular company. I think that's what's happening here.

Could use a more Commonwealth model?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I got my pre-(home)-internet degree from the University of South Africa, all papers earned credit towards a ticket to a proctored final exam. The final exam was everything.

What are universities for, again?

[fugue]

Funny--I went to a pretty expensive university, and we never had a single proctor at any exam, ever. Something called an "honor code" or something...

What's really going on here, though, is that universities no longer exist to educate, but rather to certify. It does not seem unreasonable to me that a corporation should be responsible for evaluating a prospective employee. However (perhaps unsurprisingly), corporations would love to be able to offload that little business expense onto someone else.

two words

[delvsional]

Wire Cutters.

Of course

[PPH]

How else will the professors be able to tell which students are hot looking babes in need of some one-on-one tutoring and which ones are the dogs?

I still don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still lost as to who is actually going to WATCH all of this supposed footage.

Re:Moderators: Please note

[tehcyder]

He manages to drag in the totally irrelevant sarcastic comment "we had better make sure the internet equivalent is "secure" by requiring the most rooted software in history" so if anything he should be modded as off-topic.

A nice place for it here in the microwave...

[mnemotronic]

Ah yes. Here's a good spot for it, right inside the microwave. It will have a view of the kitchen and breakfast nook/homework area. There. Perfect. TEST CONNECTION. Yep, works great. Darn, coffee's cold, I'll just warm it up here ..... dumdee dum .... beep beep beep START ..*!l&f#9n&hH?.... carrier lost ...

Eminently hackable!

[Punk CPA]

You can use the same trick as in the movie "Speed" by recording yourself looking puzzled and tapping your keyboard, meanwhile doing whatever nefarious things you need to do to pass without the webcam watching. That didn't take long, did it?

Lightspeed University has had this for years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lightspeed University has had this for years.

Re: testing costs

[BunnyMomRocks]

I teach distance learning courses at a small college. Students are required by the college to come to campus in person for their midterms and finals. Proctoring these exams is part of my duties as the course instructor. We are not allowed to give these test online.

Oh RLLY

[xmvince]

They won't do this: A) there are better ways, as discussed in the article, for example: finger print scanning B) it will lose the online education systems a lot of money, I doubt many people I know would submit to such exploitation

cisco academy does an OK job w/o Spying.

[MrDERP]

Cisco Academy is like this, open book , at home tests but if you don't *already* know the material there's no way you're going to be finishing all the questions in 1 hour. There are3 blogs were people post "answers" but cisco switches it up quickly enough that it's more effort to cheat than to just read the friggin book ! It is possible though, I have seen blog's w/ very similar questions, but never quite exactly the same. This isn't for CCNP just for the CLASS i take at the local public tech. college.

Re:Moderators: Please note

[Kalriath]

Oh sorry, I didn't notice that part. Shows how much attention I pay to Twitter posts huh?