@dokisame - they didn’t say that. They said they’d been told by sources that it would be, that it was “purported” to be. That’s an extremely important distinction, especially to you, as you’re so interested in journalistic ethics.
First, they said that “they were told” that it was June 2014 U.S. Test <- a rumor spread by some Korean students that reached CC.
Now, in this recent article, they instead said, and I quote “…and a week in advance of the exam, a U.S. nonprofit organization known as FairTest (lol) received a PDF of one of the SAT test forms… +++The sources say+++ that it appears that the test used in Hong Kong and Singapore last Saturday had previously been given in Asia in June 2014 and in North America in June 2013, while students in South Korea appear to have been given a test last Saturday that had been used at international sites in October 2012 and in November 2010 in North America.” <- Wth didn’t you just said.
…
Well, I guess you are right that my accusation is too early. You can see the egregious inconsistency. It was obvious that she doesn’t know jack, and just check posts on CC.
@dokisame - Schaeffer definitely does more than check posts on CC, as does Strauss. I know people in real life who are not on CC who have been in contact with both of them. And if we’re pointing out inconsistencies, how’s this “I guess you are right that my accusation is too early” vs. “You can see the egregious inconsistency. It was obvious that she doesn’t know jack, and just check posts on CC,” huh?
The horrid, falsified reporting (if you can even call it reporting) continues, even in Korea. There is a blog I have seen (and you wonder why these idiotic bloggers are restricted only to posting on blogs), where the individual states that it was revealed by the College Board and ETS that the January SAT was once again leaked in Korea. On January 24th, he further continues, the domestic U.S. SAT was the same as November 2010 and in Korea, November 2012 was recycled! On top of that, he asserts that these two exams were leaked well in advance of the exam by two academies he names below!
Funny thing is that one of these academies called him out on a public forum, and the guy immediately takes offense and threatens a lawsuit if anyone dares to call him an “idiot” publicly again. And then he demands that the poster come to his office and confront him directly “like a man!” When asked where the proof was coming, the man then asserts that the Washington Post reported it and the College Board acknowledged it!
My guess is that Schaeffer, Strauss and Mr. Joseph Lee are smoking some really good stuff together; otherwise, it is as clear as day and night that they are simply making stuff up and expecting nobody to notice.
@marvin100
I responded at some length in the other thread.
I will concede that my “claims that Schaeffer and Strauss are lying are not the only valid interpretations,” if by “valid” you simply mean something like “logically possible.” But “it’s logically possible they’re not lying” isn’t much of an endorsement, is it? As long as Strauss is publishing articles based entirely on a second party’s (i.e., Schaeffer’s) supposed anonymous sources–who always seem to be saying exactly the right thing at exactly the right time–without offering any further proof, I don’t think she or Schaeffer is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
By the way, the Washington Post is one of the papers that broke the Snowden story back in 2013. It can publish full documents stolen from the NSA but not a single page from an unreleased SAT?
@dokisame
Well, sadly, this blogger is an individual in his late 50s with two teenage children whom he feels were slighted and cheated by “the cheaters.” So, at every opportunity that presents itself, he loves to creates all types of pernicious rumors, no matter how ludicrous, in some sort of personal vendetta that defies all logic and reason.
When asked to explain why he had stated November 2012 was what came out in Korea on the January 24th exam, although we know that it most certainly did not, the man simply refuses to offer a reasonable explanation and contends that he will “put to shame every single one of you young punks who challenge me.”
I have much respect for my elders, but really?
@marvin100
I find it particularly intriguing that you seem to find every sort of excuse to come to the defense of Schaeffer and Strauss and the need to quote the College Board on its acknowledgment of the existence of cheating. Surely, nobody is naive enough to deny the rampant cheating that has occurred all over Asia in the past decade, but why do you fail to acknowledge the issue at hand for what it really is: grossly distorted and falsified reporting that undermines the credibility of all innocent Korean test-takers?
You keep saying there is no harm in a rumor and that the only people who hurt others are the cheaters, yet your claims are beginning to sound outright preposterous.
I mean, surely it’s okay to say all the Koreans are cheating again, even if it’s only a bogus claim that has no credibility, as has been unequivocally proven this time, yet it harms nobody, right?
The strategy of shooting the messenger doesn’t change the underlying issue. Its quite possible that TCB intended to recycle the June 2014 test but changed it at the last minute in the face of evidence that it had been stolen or copied and distributed.
@jym626
Well, if that was the case, then one must indeed commend the College Board for its due vigilance and alertness in thwarting the cheaters. But if that were really the case, then you’re saying Schaeffer also knew about the last-minute change and somehow received copies of the 2012 October international and 2014 June international exams that TCB decided to use at the last minute? Sounds a bit far-fetched, doesn’t it?
We dont know what the authors did or did not know , or how much time elapsed between when they wrote their article and when it was published. It seems pretty clear that the goal is to try at all costs to discredit them , which IMO is thwarting the real issue. Carry on, as you will.
Tests cannot be switched at the last minute, at least not on the scale you are envisioning. These are big, heavy, international shipments (subject to customs clearance) to hundreds (if not thousands) of different locations in dozens of countries.
All the more reason to go electronic, like the GMAT.
I think we care about different things. Since this is a forum for the SAT, I’m interested in bringing attention to the ways in which ETS leaves the door open to cheating. On this, I find myself aligned with Strauss and Schaeffer (neither of whom I care about in any other context or on any other issue). I believe one reason the test recycling policy has gone on so long internationally is that the media in the US hasn’t been aware of it–at least not enough to put any public opinion pressure on ETS–and that this wave of attention is good for test-takers as it may pressure ETS enough to cease or abbreviate the process once the new, revised exam comes out in spring of 2016.
@napat98 and @AflredoKim seem to care more about the specific details of the reporting on this issue (and the actions of test watchdogs, as Schaeffer is not a reporter). While I see that as a trees/forest problem, and one orthogonal to the issues of interest to participants on this site, I’m at least willing to accept that they view it that way, I guess. I will say that I suspect most SAT preparers when given the information and presented with the three parties–ETS, cheaters, and Schaeffer/Strauss–would quickly identify Schaeffer/Strauss as the ones least worth of blame here, and I still have a hard time understanding why anyone who cares about the SAT, academic honesty, and the credibility of a test that so many spend so much time and effort preparing for, would choose to focus their energies on attacking people like Schaeffer and Strauss, neither of whom carries any particular clout or ability to dictate or enact policies of any kind.
@AlfredoKim “I mean, surely it’s okay to say all the Koreans are cheating again, even if it’s only a bogus claim that has no credibility, as has been unequivocally proven this time, yet it harms nobody, right?”
Nobody has said this. Not Schaeffer, not Strauss, and not me. I would vehemently disagree with anyone who did so.