<p>Does anyone but me ever wonder why these top achieving kids are constantly harrassed and accused? It just seems to me that the majority of high school kids sort of do what they do and no one bothers them. Then you have this top 10% or so who are taking all the AP classes and tests and SAT IIs and in return they get rules shoved down their throats, threatened with accusations of cheating and basically told they are dumbasses for bringing a cell phone to an AP test. It just irks me that the OP's friend apparently on top of all this achievement also takes responsibility for her younger brother and somehow this idiot proctor feels that warrants an accusation of cheating. These are the kids who try, who succeed, who go the extra mile. Yet instead of being treated with the respect that they earned, they are harrassed for meaningless crap and rules that have no consequences for anyone except the kids who try.</p>
<p>It will be up to the college. If the college considers rescinding her admisison , they'd probably ask her to explain what happened. If the college accepts her explanation, then she'd be OK.</p>
<p>The fact that cell phnes were collected and students were warned to me indicates that she really doesn't have a good excuse for having had her cell phone. That may make things very difficult for her if the college asks her about the situation.</p>
<p>In response to Mcdeb's comments: I don't view the student as being unfairly treated by being expected to follow rules that were instituted because a lot of bright students have used cell phones to cheat. One can have responsibilities for a sibling and still follow rules about things like not having a cell phone during a test.</p>
<p>That is sometimes true, mcdeb. On occasion I have asked myself WHY the school administrators spend time harassing their best students with punitive rules. One notable example is that our kids who travelled to represent the school at competitions were charged with an absence. While they were technically absent, this was counted against them and resulted in the eventual revocation of priveleges when absences reached a certain level. Granted, this is not the same as the testing situation, but it goes to show that for some people rules supercede common sense! While I can see the point of the cell phone ban....come on! It must have been clear that the student was not receiving information!</p>
<p>OTOH, it has also been our experience that excellent students were sometimes cut some slack in trivial issues. This more often happens with a teacher, counselor or administrator who knows the student personally, though.</p>
<p><<one notable="" example="" is="" that="" our="" kids="" who="" travelled="" to="" represent="" the="" school="" at="" competitions="" were="" charged="" with="" an="" absence.="">></one></p>
<p>That is the sort of thing I am talking about. The more a child is involved in, the more the administration has to hold over his or her head. It's sick.</p>
<p><<one can="" have="" responsibilities="" for="" a="" sibling="" and="" still="" follow="" rules="" about="" things="" like="" not="" having="" cell="" phone="" during="" test.="">></one></p>
<p>That sort of attitude - that no matter how hard a student tries, one little mistake and she is pounced on - is just despicable. The message I get from such treatment is "the more you try, the more we are going to try to trip you up." The solution was simple - the proctor should do her job so that the students don't suffer. </p>
<p>Zero tolerance is administratively sanctioned child abuse instituted so that state employees can revel in their laziness and incompetence without ever having to form a coherent thought or exercise discretion.</p>
<p>For another example of administrative stupidity - <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/06/call.suspension.ap/index.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/06/call.suspension.ap/index.html</a></p>
<p>Zero tolerance is just an excuse to abandon the thought process. How else can my son be reprimanded for bringing a tiny (like 1/4 inch long) manual screwdriver bit and handle to assemble his science fair project. Nonsense!</p>
<p><<zero tolerance="" is="" just="" an="" excuse="" to="" abandon="" the="" thought="" process.="" how="" else="" can="" my="" son="" be="" reprimanded="" for="" bringing="" a="" tiny="" (like="" 1="" 4="" inch="" long)="" manual="" screwdriver="" bit="" and="" handle="" assemble="" his="" science="" fair="" project.="" nonsense!="">></zero></p>
<p>Another example of a high achieving child being punished for trying and school administrators not understanding that zero tolerance does not mean zero thinking. It is nonsense.</p>
<p>"That sort of attitude - that no matter how hard a student tries, one little mistake and she is pounced on - is just despicable."</p>
<p>I disagree. I don't see bringing in a cell phone to a test -- when the rules are clearly posted, students also were reminded about them and the cell phone can be used to cheat -- as being a "little mistake."</p>
<p>To me, it's like bringing a can of Mace on a plane despite seeing the various reminder signs. Sure, one might need the Mace where one is going, but one certainly had plenty of opportunity to not bring it in one's purse.</p>
<p>And considering the potential dangers, bringing something like that on a plane would not be a "little mistake."</p>
<p>Similarly, considering the potential for cheating, having a cell phone during the AP is not a little mistake that should be forgiven. In addition, if the proctors did forgive that kind of error, that would put the integrity of the test center at risk.</p>
<p>The student broke a rule sure. I took a few AP tests this year and it clearly said in the directions (as written in the booklet and read by the proctor) that all cell phones, pagers, etc should be placed in a box, with an AP number label attached. Of course no one put them in the box, but at least a student should make sure the phone is off after hearing those directions.</p>
<p>The issue here is a possible punishment--colleges being notified of a lack of integrity--that is disproportionate to the crime--forgetfulness and not paying attention.</p>
<p>And while employees of the school are proctoring a test, they are considered employees of ETS. Therefore their conduct is the responsibility of ETS.</p>
<p>That being said, someone should sue ETS on the basis of antitrust laws. $90 for poor service and an unenjoyable experience?!?!?</p>
<p>"Of course no one put them in the box, but at least a student should make sure the phone is off after hearing those directions."</p>
<p>I have helped proctor IB exams, and I have seen students put their cell phones in a designated place just as they were asked to do. I honestly don't know why students would insist on keeping cell phones on their person when they know that their exams would be voided if the phones were found. It's not unthinkable that a phone could, for instance, drop out of a student's pocket while the student was getting up or reaching for a pencil.</p>
<p>More private high schools (Crossroads in Santa Monica, CA recently did this) are moving away from AP programs and replacing it with their own, intensive programs. Crossroads interviewed the nations' top universities and 90% said that its students would not be negatively affected by the cutting of the AP program for more in-depth, analytical courses.</p>
<p>Why? I for one didn't feel like prying a sticker off of my cell phone after the test. The risk of the cell phone being found was infinitesimal. (Proctors don't pat down test-takers.)</p>
<p><<i disagree.="" i="" don't="" see="" bringing="" in="" a="" cell="" phone="" to="" test="" --="" when="" the="" rules="" are="" clearly="" posted,="" students="" also="" were="" reminded="" about="" them="" and="" can="" be="" used="" cheat="" as="" being="" "little="" mistake."="">></i></p><i disagree.="" i="" don't="" see="" bringing="" in="" a="" cell="" phone="" to="" test="" --="" when="" the="" rules="" are="" clearly="" posted,="" students="" also="" were="" reminded="" about="" them="" and="" can="" be="" used="" cheat="" as="" being="" "little="" mistake."="">
<p>It is a little mistake. That's indisputable. </p>
<p><<to me,="" it's="" like="" bringing="" a="" can="" of="" mace="" on="" plane="" despite="" seeing="" the="" various="" reminder="" signs.="">></to></p>
<p>Well, no. It's not at all like that. See, that's the danger of zero tolerance. The average American loses the ability to discern the difference between an actionable offense and a little mistake. Thank you for illustrating that so aptly with your example.</p>
<p><<and considering="" the="" potential="" dangers,="" bringing="" something="" like="" that="" on="" a="" plane="" would="" not="" be="" "little="" mistake."="">></and></p>
<p>sigh. Cell phones are not weapons. It is not illegal to bring a cell phone into a test. You're confusing rules with laws, weapons with cell phones, issues of public safety with testing protocol. </p>
<p><<similarly, considering="" the="" potential="" for="" cheating,="" having="" a="" cell="" phone="" during="" ap="" is="" not="" little="" mistake="" that="" should="" be="" forgiven.="">></similarly,></p>
<p>Sure it is. So long as there is an explanation, which she should be permitted to offer. </p>
<p><< In addition, if the proctors did forgive that kind of error, that would put the integrity of the test center at risk.>></p>
<p>Nah. All the proctor had to do was confiscate the cell phone. She chose to make it an issue of cheating which to me is actionable defamation of character. Breaking a rule does not open a student up to an accusation of cheating with no factual basis whatsoever.</p>
</i>
<p>Defamation of character! In print it's called libel, whats the term for vocal defamation again? LAWSUIT!</p>
<p><<defamation of="" character!="" in="" print="" it's="" called="" libel,="" whats="" the="" term="" for="" vocal="" defamation="" again?="" lawsuit!="">></defamation></p>
<p>Slander. I have to say that if someone accused my son of cheating b/c his cell phone rang, it would be straightened out immediately or I would take it through every level of administrative recourse and up through the courts. No way, no how should a student suffer any sort of actual harm to her reputation b/c her cell phone rang. Has everyone gone CRAZY?</p>
<p>Just because "everyone does it" does not make ignoring the rules correct. If the rules say no cellphones and you retain your cellphone, you must be prepared to take the consequences if caught. Students at the top of the class don't have special privileges to disregard rules just because they have a 4.0 average (or whatever).</p>
<p>The "everyone does it" attitude has risen several times on CC with regard to cheating. Many students on this forum have admitted cheating. "But it was only a little." A little counts. You can either be an honest person or you can be a dishonest person. You can't be a semi-honest person, for no one knows when you will be honest or dishonest. A reputation as an honest person is one that is quickly lost and can take a very long time to regain.</p>
<p>Yes, completely nuts! I have observed that obsession with such minutia provides the authorities with the feeling that they are effective. Never mind that students are cutting classes and drugs are being exchanged in the hallways and restrooms. There may be gangs and vandalism. Children are graduating without being able to read. Those things are difficult to tackle, so I think <em>some</em> (not all) satisfy their consciences by correcting minor infractions.</p>
<p>Since when was retaining a cell phone designated as cheating? Especially when its not used? I fully acknowledge the fact that I broke ETS's rules. So what? It doesn't make me a "dishonest" person.</p>
<p>I think one concern about cell phones now is that photos of the tests can be taken by those little digital cameras within them. It is not unheard of for students to pass information to those who have not yet tested in other parts of the country/world.</p>
<p>Not dishonest. But, they have very specific rules. Imagine, if the proctor did nothing regarding the cell phone. What would the other test takers say</p>
<p>As far as getting days off for participating in a "school" event, if you know ahead of time the consequences, then the student was making an informed decision. You do this, this is how we deal with it. Remember, schools get money (public anyway) based on enrollment each day. Teachers have to give tests and make accomadations for missing kids. </p>
<p>As for the cell phone, its not forgetfulness. There is plenty of warning. Okay all cell phones up here. Oh, let me look in my bag and see if I brought it. How can it be forgetfulness? That doesn't fly. Not paying attention? For such a big exam with such strict rules, not paying attention is no excuse either. Its more of, well, I don;t need to follow this dumb rule, so I won't.</p>
<p>Oppsydoopsy</p>