<p>Today during the SATs someone's phone went off with 5 minutes left in the whole test. No one confessed and everyone just left when the test was done. The proctor told us that since no one confessed, all of our scores could be cancelled. Does anyone know if this is true because that's completely not far for those of us who did nothing wrong.</p>
<p>My proctor took our phones and stashed them in a drawer. 
</p>
<p>Do the students know who it is?
If your scores really get canceled (I’ve never really heard of anything like this happening), egg his/her house. 
and harass his/her facebook. </p>
<p>That’s beef though. Like serious beef.</p>
<p>I highly doubt that all scores will be cancelled.</p>
<p>we all know who did it (idk the name though because the kid doesn’t go to my school) but it’s really the proctors fault because she didn’t really put in an effort to find out whose phone it was. ):</p>
<p>Wow, that sucks. I’m sure your scores should be fine, but next time remind the proctor to collect everyone’s cell phones.</p>
<p>ughh i really hope my scores are fine =/</p>
<p>Students are told over and over again that if the phone goes off or they are seen using it, their scores “may” be cancelled and the phone may be confiscated. Our test supervisor goes a bit further and says if we see or hear it, he will automatically dismiss them. The room supervisor should have sent a proctor or contacted the test supervisor and should have gone to the area where it rang…I would have let the kids finish the section, and then held up the entire class and refused to let them leave, separated out the kids in the area where it rang and then used the peer pressure of the entire group to make the person confess. At that point they all would have been badly wanting to leave and they would have been irritated at whoever wasn’t confessing. I would have asked if anyone knew who it was to point them out or risk their own scores being cancelled. Or make them all empty their pockets & prove they don’t have the phone, then they are free to go etc. If you are able to turn the group peer pressure onto them, the group will usually be much more effective than one proctor.</p>
<p>That’s exactly what I thought the supervisor would do, but she just let everyone leave, which makes me nervous</p>
<p>It blows my mind to hear some of the stories people tell here. Our test center supervisor runs things strictly by the book, and his associate supervisors and proctors are expected to do the same - and he’s the same with the students… cell phone rings? they’re out. No photo ID? they’re out. Honestly, that’s how it should be done, and if the staff can’t deal with it, they should be replaced. The pay is certainly worth doing the job right.</p>
<p>Yesterday when I took the SAT the lady called time for the essay and this kid I know in the front row kept writing and she was like what and he said “Hold on I’m on the last sentence.” She scolded him but did not cancel his scores. I honestly thought she was going to.</p>
<p>I think you should be fine…
The proctor was probably just kidding…</p>
<p>BreadBasket, i 100% agree.</p>
<p>From a reasoned perspective, a phone ringing is a horribly insignificant event. Those who believe a person whose phone rang should be dismissed—and especially considering that the event was almost certainly an accident—are so loyal to the College Board that it seems their consciences lack proper formation and they themselves lack a decent respect for students in general. It’s almost as if they genuinely do not care about students’ futures.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t you think that sounds manipulative and, if I may say so, cowardly? Especially in this situation, when the phone rang a whopping five minutes before the test ended. There are rules, yes, but the primary purpose they exist is to promote certain ends, fairness being among them. In all honesty, I doubt that in this scenario canceling scores for an offense so infinitesimally minor would be justified by any reasonable standard. A phone going off is hardly cheating, difficult as it may seem to believe. And holding the kids in, trying to get one of them turn against each other—that sounds wrong. Each of the test-takers write the SAT to benefit their future, and getting one to point someone out, as it were, and potentially cause another human being great lasting damage would seem almost an offense to rationality itself.</p>
<p>No, I don’t think it is manipulative or wrong at all, particularly since the phone in this situation rang so close to the end of the test. The students are told multiple times to shut their cell phones off. This person ignored at <em>least</em> 3 instructions and did not shut their cell phone off. The instructions say very clearly - power them off. </p>
<p>The issue is not the phone ringing and causing a disturbance. The issue is the phone being on during the entire test and the student having had the opportunity to do all the things with it that cell phones do these days, such as record audio, take photos of test pages, text or call people in the bathroom, etc. </p>
<p>Whether the person in question cheated or did something wrong with the phone is irrelevant. The point is that they COULD have, and at that point the room supervisor would have been within her rights to confiscate the phone until it could be investigated. The student chose to ignore the rule. </p>
<p>It isn’t blind loyalty to CB, it is a moral duty to follow CB’s rules and ensure a fair test for EVERYONE, not just the kids who think they’re above the rules and should get away with breaking them.</p>
<p>^^No, this is blind loyalty to the College Board, at the expense of any kind of human decency with which to approach testing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s look at your hypothetical response. You would, you admit, sequester students and threaten to cancel the scores of innocent test-takers, simply for failing to point out whose phone rang. Then you would try to use the dynamic of the group to have one student cause potentially irreparable harm to another. That is clearly manipulation. And I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that by any standard causing someone that kind of harm would be, as it were, morally wrong, especially considering that such a person would be a fellow test-taking student.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This honestly reflects a lack of intelligence. It doesn’t even follow the basic precepts of civilized society. Is it not true that, in this society, we hold people “innocent until proven guilty”? In a situation where direct proof of cheating was lacking, then there is absolutely no substantial reason to cancel scores at all. I doubt anyone would be able to make a case in court that simply because someone possessed a knife, they must have stabbed someone. Likewise, even though this person had a cell phone that rang, it does not logically follow that he or she cheated. To say so is to create a false presumption that simply because there is the means to cheat, cheating has actually occured.</p>
<p>The likelihood is that this person simply forgot to turn off their phone. Would you not agree? We have, I’m sure, all forgotten to turn off some sort of electronic device at some point in time, but not by our own intention. Stringently following the College Board’s regulations in a situation such as this would reflect an utter lack of human emotion on behalf of the proctor.</p>
<p>I wonder what proctors feel like when they cancel someone’s scores or fill out that deplorable red form. Do they care? Do they ever consider the fact such a person is a human being, for God’s sake, and that a life could potentially be ruined? I’m sure proctors do care, but some prefer to be loyal to largely unjust and unnecessary regulations rather than act in a way that resembles decent human conduct.</p>
<p>How do you “forget” to turn off a phone when you’ve been told at least three times, including being told that if the phone makes any noise they may be dismissed and their scores cancelled? They are also told, after that, to take a moment and make sure that the cell phones are off. If the phone goes off, that isn’t forgetting, that is a CHOICE on the part of the student. </p>
<p>The regulations are not unjust nor unnecessary. You obviously are uninformed about current technology and the ways it is being used to cheat on tests, including the SAT. </p>
<p>If you disagree with the regulation, take it up with CB. And, BTW, I have worked the SAT for 15 years and only used the “red form” once, to report a disturbance (power outage). I prefer verbal warnings, close supervision, and moving someone if necessary in the hopes of not having to use the SIR form and possibly get a test cancelled. </p>
<p>Also, proctors/room supervisors don’t have the power to cancel scores. That can only be done by CB. Actually the student has the power over the situation, in that s/he has the choice to break the rules or not, knowing the consequences… and they do, whether they admit it or not.</p>
<p>I am, however, rather curious as to why this is upsetting you so much.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not like I’ve never been personally affected by a situation like this—I’m usually the type of person who’s ludicrously cautious. When I took my SAT last week, I didn’t just make sure my own phone was turned off. Just in case it somehow turned on by itself, I took out the battery and put it in my bag, far away from my phone on the floor. I’ve never cheated in high school. I’ve never skipped class or done anything of the sort. But I care a heck of a lot about the people who do.</p>
<p>I think it simply boils down to what I perceive as an unjust situation. I’m very interested in philosophy, you know. And while I think that the people who actually do cheat—and can be proven to have done so—should, yes, have their scores immediately cancelled, I also feel that asking someone to point another student out for what I still view as a minor infraction is wrong, and, not to mention, dishonorable on the part of the person who pointed the other out.</p>
<p>To the OP: I’m very, very sorry for hijacking your thread. To BreadBasket: From reading your last post, I’m sure you’re a fine proctor. But I do have a perhaps naive faith in humanity. I’m inclined to believe that most people who commit minor infractions on the SAT are not cheaters. I fail to see the immorality in bubbling in an answer or quickly completing a sentence after time is called. I fail to see why students should suffer for another’s failure to successfully power off a phone. I want the SAT conducted fairly, yes, but also ethically, considering the kind of impact it does have on the lives of students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you kidding? I’ve taken SAT or SAT IIs on three separate occasions, at three different schools. At none of the schools did they even ask for photo IDs. At two of the centers, the PROCTORS actually talked on the phone.</p>
<p>For the January test the proctor was on this crackly walky-talkie for several minutes. I got a note from ETS that there had been a “testing irregularity” and they gave me the option to retake–when I was on Spring Break, and had already made plans to go visit colleges. Besides, the distractions from the phone call would only have affected the scores from one section. Why would it be beneficial to me to retake the entire test?</p>
<p>For the June test, the proctor only talked for like 30 sec, but it was VERY near the end of the test (subject tests). Fortunately I had already finished but I could imagine it would be very distracting for someone who wasn’t done. I tried to give the proctor dirty looks but I don’t think he really noticed.</p>
<p>Sorry for the long rant but it’s so frustrating!</p>