<p>I did not say that this was the most likely answer (please quote entire replies), but it was possible. I say this from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.</p>
<p>As I mentioned earlier, I took a class this term with a coworker. We sat together, took notes together, and most importantly SHARED NOTES AFTER CLASS. We synchronized our collective understanding of certain critical steps in a process. When it came lab time (worked upon independently), both of us screwed up our labs in the identical way. WHY? Because we both studied the SAME INCORRECT NOTES and as a result GOT THE SAME WRONG RESULTS on the labs. The good news is that as a result of the labs, we corrected our notes and did much better on the tests.</p>
<p>I’m telling you that 2 students studying together CAN get the same wrong answers WITHOUT CHEATING. The fact that 2 other people in the same class (who also worked together both in class and on the job) had the same thing happen to them (screwed up lab in the same way as each other - but different from us) tells me that this is more common than you might think.</p>
<p>Once again, the statistical study of incorrect answer correlation was flawed because it didn’t examine possible outside dependencies that could cause the same result. Bad Science.</p>
<p>I’ve dealt with cheating cases at two different universities. In one, the policy was that the prof referred the case to the honor court which then held a hearing. In the other, it was allowed, on a first offense, for the professor to determine a penalty (which typically would be failing the assignment or the course) and if the student admitted guilt and took that penalty, no record of cheating would go on the student’s transcript (although records were kept in the dean’s office so that it could be determined if an incident was a first offense). If the student did not want to do that, then the case went to the honor court for a hearing. </p>
<p>So which situation is better for students? Clearly, they have more options in the second. Yet posters here seem to think that offering the OPs son an option is sloppy, irresponsible, trying to avoid doing due diligance, bullying, threatening, abuse of power, etc. </p>
<p>If the OPs son is innocent, it is unfortunate that he has to deal with this situation. But lots of things posted here are completely uninformed and will be counterproductive if the OP takes them to heart.</p>
<p>Eric, aka the OJ defense. Shift the focus to someone else, proctor, prof, etc. </p>
<p>I really have no idea whether the OP’s son is complicit or not. What I do think is
that there is very strong evidence to conclude that cheating occurred. The difficulty
that I see is that the more plausible explanation is that there was collusion … not
that this is what occurred, but that it’s much easier to explain. </p>
<p>It will probably be a rough road if OP decides to pursue, but I would have a heart-to-heart with son first, to make sure he understands the risks of going out on that limb together. The thing that worries me is the possibility of losing even if he’s innocent, because of the circumstantial evidence. The statistics are obviously not on the OP’s side, but I kind of like the idea of a lawyer contacting the other family threatening legal action. Might just flush out the truth.</p>
<p>This is simple. The OP’s son should offer to take a polygraph. There are private services that offer them. it may be cheaper than the lawyer. I believe that a successful polygraph would reduce the perceived likelihood of his guilt.</p>
<p>Yes, I would still conclude that cheating occurred, the statistical evidence is that compelling. The question of whether one of the parties was an innocent bystander is still an open one. Then we would go to the Universities policies to determine how does this factor into things. Does one of the parties have an opportunity to make a convincing case that they were not knowingly involved, that they were the one who knew the answers and were copied from. I don’t know what the University’s policy is, I would hope they would make accomodations for this type of situation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If a statistician wants to talk I’m all ears. Maybe the evidence isn’t as compelling as I think. The possibility that the professor has made these accusations before and the student has been exonerated would be something that I kept in the back of my mind but it wouldn’t cause me to dismiss his new accusations outright. I’d follow the evidence presented in this particular case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think so. I think the professor sees an open and shut case of cheating and he sees no reason to delay the course he is going to take. I’ve seen this in other cases, the professor has the evidence of cheating and where else is he going to go? Here is the evidence and these are the ramifications.</p>
<p>Regarding statistics and other students: my guess is that the professor or school has a program that does a scan on differing sized sets of all students in the course. This would require trivial computing power.</p>
<p>The program probably kicks out probabilities of cheating between pairs and all of the other supporting statistics. There may have been other pairs that weren’t discussed with the OP.</p>
<p>That is actually a really good idea. It’d cost a lot less than the attorney, and would be highly credible. In fact, that would just about guarantee that the student would not get nailed by the academic integrity committee, especially if he could have a plausible explanation for how the cheating occured.</p>
<p>Of course, it’d have to be a successful polygraph test.</p>
<p>gd,
You do not understand statistical analysis. It calculates the null hypothesis, that randomness explains the found results. </p>
<p>Here it is 1:umpteem billion or so. Deal with it.</p>
<p>The facts of the two students being different levels, and student #2 faring much worse when student #1 was not in the room, make your ‘reasonable alternative explanation’ of common studying leading to identical tests laughable.</p>
<p>This is part of the problem. Student #2 got the answers before student #1. Student #1 then did well on the test. And we know they studied together.</p>
<p>Did Student #2 give answers to student #1? Maybe, maybe not. Mom says no. Kid isn’t talking. Other student isn’t talking. </p>
<p>For me, the issue is the time frame. Giving a student two days to make such an important decision is not reasonable and it smacks of trying to force a decision out of fear. If the professor had said one week, I’d feel very differently about it.</p>
<p>As bigtree says, we <em>know</em> that cheating occurred. We don’t know whether the OP’s son was wittingly involved, or was the victim of the cheating friend. I note, though, that OP’s son probably knows more than he is saying.</p>
<p>Look at the claim. OP’s son says he is blameless; he did not cheat, and he knew nothing of his friend cheating. Yet when the identical scores on the three tests were revealed, if he really had not cheated he would then have just learned that his friend was a cheater who had used him without his knowledge or permission. I would expect a normal reaction in such cases would be fury, and an immediate search for an explanation of how his friend took advantage of him. Instead, the OP’s son is protecting the other kid. Not dispositive, but certainly suspicious.</p>
<p>We don’t know why the professor said 2 days. It might have been due to an upcoming arbitrary drop deadline. When the parents protested, the school administration was able to extend the drop deadline.</p>
<p>In the absense of a drop deadline, a week would have been more fair.</p>
<p>Here is your plausable explanation: OP’s son missed the original test date because of a conflict. Perhaps that conflict also interefered with the two students studying (and comparing notes) together. All this says then is that OP’s son does a much better job of preparing for a test independently than the other student.</p>
<p>Your lack of aplying alternative common student behaviors to statistical results makes me laugh. You convict on probability. I convict after examining possibilities. I would say that your approach is more efficient, mine is more effective.</p>
<p>Polygraphs are unreliable in both directions, both making innocent people appear guilty and making guilty people appear innocent. The OP should not resort to that unreliable method.</p>
<p>since your s is willing to fight and since the school now is adding sanctions on top of the WF by not allowing him to participate in certain extra curricular activities, I think your best shot now is to take it back to your school administration.</p>
<p>Is the proctor, who says he did not observe any cheating by your son, willing to go on the record. Is the high school principal willing to go on the record to support the proctor he assigned. Has the principal also ordered extra sanctions to the senior student, i.e. not allowed to walk in graduation - and if not, why not. The exam was performed at the high school - the principal should have at least one meeting with both students, their parents and the proctor to see what light can be shed on this situation. And if at ll possible have the professor there too. If, as the principal seems to say, he does not have to put the WF on your son’s transcript, he obviously has a choice in this matter. Is the only one who can change the WF to a W the professor?</p>
<p>The bigger problem is of course that everything our kids do in high school reflect on the rest of their careers. a WF might be the reason why your s will not be admitted to a school he wants to go to. If nothing else, document, document and document - so that if it ever becomes a problem later on, you can show exactly what happened, who did what and at what time.</p>
<p>It still is not clear to me where your s sat in the class and where the other kid sat. where they in each other’s neighborhood?</p>