<p>I actually disagree about closed-book tests. After the past few core exams, I think that they could write better exams if they were closed-book. OTOH, there's the danger that there are too many equations to be able to derive all the necessary ones in time (or there are simply too many to memorize). Anyways, the main benefit is that then the exams can ask for derivations/proofs which you might simply look up if the exam were open book.</p>
<p>So I think the policy in ACM95 might be the best compromise--anything in your own hand is allowed during the test (ie. closed book, open notes and your own homework sets).</p>
<p>I think whether using a specific "test aid" should be considered cheating (and hence not permitted) depends a lot on what is being tested.</p>
<p>As a simple example, if a student is being tested on his ability to multiply numbers, then a calculator should be banned. On the other hand, if a student is being tested on his ability to solve the angles of an SSS triangle, then a calculator should probably not be banned, though the law of cosines probably should. Without consideration of what is being tested, a blanket discussion on whether calculators should be banned is, patently, silly.</p>
<p>The same is true about books, notes, formula tables, laptops, and Internet access. I can certainly think of tests where using such aids should be perfectly OK, but it would take a great deal of care and thought to design such a test; it has to test for such high-order types of intellectual faculties as synthesis and creativity. Caltech can do this, but I doubt that many of the high schools described in the Wall Street Journal have designed such tests. In the absence of such intellectual separation between test and test aid, it looks to me like many schools are just condoning outright cheating.</p>
<p>webhappy, I feel like my profs have proved to me that you can always find something to ask a student to derive, whether or not you can use a book on the test. :)</p>
<p>My AP Physics class has open book tests. I just learn the chapter on test day and play bridge, scrabble, poker, and chess for the preceeding week. :)</p>
<p>"Given the sorts of cheating you see [Stand-ins are rumored to have been common in some areas overseas for the SATs or TOEFL.] with respect to essays and term papers in the US, I was always curious why one didn't see this sort of thing more often."</p>
<p>I object to this statement in the strongest terms. Your speculation is based on no personal experience -- and the rumor besmirches the reputation of test centers and test takers overseas.</p>
<p>My kids took SATs and SAT IIs overseas (and got their good scores the old fashioned way). In the testing centers, the Test Administrators adhered to the rules and standards of the College Board. Every kid's photo ID was checked -- even if the Test Administrators personally knew them. They had to bring their test tickets for entry, and all pencils, calculators, etc. had to be carried into the test room in a clear plastic bag.</p>
<p>Anyway, your speculation is illogical: most American college testing is done at DoDDS or International Schools. The testing administrators are usually teachers or admin types who know most of the students. At Intl. Schools, a relatively small number of students takes American college boards. The likelihood of a "stand in" taking a test for someone else is very low indeed. Test Admins that I have seen adhere to a very high standard of integrity.</p>
<p>I don't know why you take such offense at this, but when I was director of graduate admission of our PhD program some time ago, there was ONE case of cheating investigated for the TOEFL in a foreign country. There were many allegations of others that were plausible but it was hard to get solid evidence. Given that we could not verify how widescale this was, other measures were put into place to minimize this problem. I also heard but cannot be certain that steps were taken abroad to minimize even the appearance of a problem. Nonetheless it was a real concern at one time.</p>
<p>And as I noted, as an undergrad I was approached to take someone's test at another u.</p>
<p>So in both cases I had personal experience/additional information. I had no idea how widespread this might be hence the speculation in this thread.</p>
<p>Also, this isn't a court of law, so I am freely speculating without hard evidence. I couldn't prove that any cheating occurred nor did we ever accuse anyone of having done so. But we had enough concern that we thought about what we could do to verify that the people we admitted had performance commensurate wth their scores. </p>
<p>We implemented checks which satisfied us that the high scorers we admitted had the characteristics we were looking for.</p>
<p>Grad students are expected to follow the honor code as well. They have their own body (called the Graduate Review Board) which handles all reported cases of cheating amongst grad students.</p>
<p>Cheating amongst grad students is a controversial thing. Most undergrads think that there is rampant cheating amongst the grad students. However, none of the undergrads I've heard this kind of talk from have any anecdotal evidence. It's really just speculation based on the fact that we feel the grad students are less intelligent than we are, and we feel that without the close knit society we have, the honor code won't be nearly as well respected. How much truth there is to this is hard to say.</p>
<p>I can say that there are much fewer reported cases of cheating amongst grad students than undergrads -- probably on the order of 1/6. This isn't conclusive though -- professors are much more likely to report undergrad cheating than grad cheating. The latter they prefer to handle themselves.</p>
<p>So there you go -- no evidence either way, just lots of speculation. I tried to keep my views out of this as much as possible, but for the record, I am an undergrad.</p>
<p>I know of someone who, a long time ago, accepted money to take a standardized test for someone else, guaranteeing a 99th percentile score. He did it, but subsequently got caught, with bad repercussions.</p>