<p>I think there is likely more cheating at Stuy than when I was there (I think that’s true of society as well), and I imagine Stuy is even more of a pressure cooker today.</p>
<p>But I have no method of comparing. (I’ll bet we smoked more dope, and used more hallucinogens though. It was the edge of the East Village in the mid to late 60s.) Probably spent more time protestin’ too.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Now, THAT is a revelation! :)</p>
<p>
That is the truth! My daughter was accepted six years ago. We went to the admitted students open house and the parents were recruiting selected families for student or parent organizations based on ethnicity. My D found that so off putting that she ultimately decided not to attend and, thankfully, she had another option she was very happy with.</p>
<p>A few quick observations on the NYS Regents exams. Those exams that are now required of ALL graduating NYS public high school students have been heavily watered down compared to what they were 10 years ago let alone when I took them in the 1960s. Those exams include integrated algebra, global history, US history and earth science or living environment. (Not surprisingly, Stuyvesant HS students overwhelmingly score at a “mastery” level on these exams (defined as 85 or above).</p>
<p>Those exams not required in order to earn a basic NYS Regents diploma have not been watered down as severely as the lower level exams. Chemistry, Physics and Trigonometry, for example, can challenge even some Stuyvesant students, as evidenced in the New York State Report Card for Stuyvesant HS found here: <a href=“https://reportcards.nysed.gov/files/2010-11/CIR-2011-310200011475.pdf[/url]”>https://reportcards.nysed.gov/files/2010-11/CIR-2011-310200011475.pdf</a></p>
<p>The amount of cheating that takes place today in all schools – public, private, educationally elite, bottom of the barrel, urban, rural and suburban – is mind-boggling. My cohort had its vices (as Mini has noted), but I don’t recall cheating as being a particularly common occurance. And when it was discovered the ramifications were swift and decisive, with no room for second chances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cheating did go on when I was there. However, I only got wind of it when I noticed several classmates getting expelled for it and either hearing about it from them or their friends right before/after they left permanently. The ones in my incoming class ended up being one of the few involuntary cases within our overall 28% attrition rate.</p>
<p>Much more visible forms of cheating other than academic was the rampant EC padding many elite college or bust classmates went on. It was funny to see how many clubs were started solely for the sake of EC padding. I only took part in 4 ECs as opposed to the supposed 9-15 most classmates were in. With the latter…half or more consisted of them popping in, signing the attendance sheet, and leaving to rinse and repeat at another “EC”. </p>
<p>More of a pressure cooker nowadays…probably. Especially considering I read and heard from the alum association that they now admit around 800/year as opposed to around 900 in the '90s while the number of candidates has more than doubled. </p>
<p><a href=“I’ll%20bet%20we%20smoked%20more%20dope,%20and%20used%20more%20hallucinogens%20though.%20It%20was%20the%20edge%20of%20the%20East%20Village%20in%20the%20mid%20to%20late%2060s.”>quote</a> Probably spent more time protestin’ too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>With the exception of a few stoners who also happened to do very well academically in Stuy and/or undergrad, I didn’t notice much drug activity beyond coffee and some sketchy stimulants in the '90s. </p>
<p>Then again, the students in my day were much more conservative socially and politically than the ones in your time. Most HS classmates leaned center-right and had libertarian sympathies, only a tiny section of politically active conservatives/libertarians and progressive liberals protested…most students were interested in the “elite college or bust” race, hippies/neo-hippies were looked down upon as “too idealistic” and even “childish”, and had ambitions of being the next Silicon Valley entrepreneur, nobel prize winning doctor/scientist, superengineer, Wall Street tycoon, business consultant, bigshot lawyer, etc. </p>
<p>Some aspects of the '80s “Gordon Gekko” was still with us in terms of the average classmate’s career aspirations. </p>
<p>The HS friends and I were considered the freaks for not only not uncritically following them and viewing the rampant EC padding as BS, but also making sarcastic replies of “We’re hoping to be California Beach Bums” when they ask us about our ambitions/college plans.</p>
<p>^^^ EC padding? How about just plain EC inventing, claiming activities and/or titles that don’t even exist! (This is not a comment just about Stuyvesant …)</p>
<p>Anyway, this incident reminds me of another large-scale cheating ring, 6 years ago, in another state. What do people think about how that was handled?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/world/americas/19iht-19cheating.7571274.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/world/americas/19iht-19cheating.7571274.html</a></p>
<p>^ ^ ^ ^</p>
<p>The few classmates I knew who attempted it were caught out by the GC and/or the admissions offices of colleges they were applying to. </p>
<p>All ended up having their admissions to their top choice colleges rescinded and/or ended up forced to take an unforeseen gap year.</p>
<p>Cobrat, if you think about, rewarding EC padding makes sense on a lot of levels.</p>
<p>Creating and overvaluing entities is great preparation for Wall Street and shows an alignment with the corrupt culture of the finance world in general. This ‘alignment’ is likely to result in career success in finance and naturally greater income. Importantly for the college that admits them, this would be expected to result in greater revenue flow back to the college. It’s a self-propelling BS machine.</p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>The thing about this case is that students broke into the school to steal exams. The situation was turned over to the Hanover PD. The out come was as follows:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So far student from stuyvesant is still on their roster as he will not be moved off of the roster until he attends a new school, either in or outside of the DOE in the fall.</p>
<p>Thanks, Sybbie, for the update.</p>
<p>So after six years, of the 50 or so involved, only definitive outcomes were for two who were acquitted, and four who settled.</p>
<p>And yes, when breaking and entering is involved, it does get harder to move on.</p>
<p>There are 2 separate issues here: the breaking and entering in to the school which was handled by the courts (for the most part public record) and the cheating on the exam, which most likely was handled by the school and those decisions like most things handled in school are not released to the press.</p>
<p>Even with the cheating at Stuyvesant, someone gave the it to the news in order for it to be a story. For the most part, students who cheat on the regents, the grade is invalid and usually shows up as an invalid grade or a failing grade on the transcript and it does not make the news.</p>
<p>I am also sure that the principal has looked at the proctoring list of the class rooms involved and there have probably been meetings with the teachers involved and the UFT reps. If the teacher is getting a letter to file or some other disciplinary action, short of firing, it most likely will not appear in the papers.</p>
<p>^^^ Yes, the proctor: I’d like to know what happened to him/her!</p>
<p>What I read is that the principal caught the cell-phone caller himself, red-handed, acting on information provided by some students. What in the world was the proctor doing?</p>
<p>And what is the proper policy regarding proctors, to provide them with the right incentive and appropriate degree of authority, to prevent and catch cheating?</p>
<p>I asked my daughter if she could see this happening in any of her Regents and she said yes. Some proctors pay attention and some just sit and read and don’t look at the students at all.</p>
<p>Even if a proctor sees a student cheating, they are instructed to not make a scene and not disrupt the exam, as to startle the other students. </p>
<p>So even if the cheating happened in the classroom, it would be very rare that you would see someone come into the class room grab, the student, remove him where it causes a scene, startles the other students where they may get an attack of nerves and not finish the exam.</p>
<p>They write the incident and report it to the AP, department chair. Since we are only getting one side of the story, you don’t know if the teacher(s) wrote up anything to as to what they witnessed in the classroom.</p>
<p>I am willing to bet $$ that there are a lot of things that are supposed to be done that are not being properly done at the regents exam:</p>
<p>Here are the NYS regs for administering the regents exams
<a href=“http://www.p12.nysed.gov/apda/hsgen/2012/541-68-12.pdf[/url]”>http://www.p12.nysed.gov/apda/hsgen/2012/541-68-12.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In addition, the state regs for principals and proctors state;</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The august regents should be very interesting for these students because the building where Stuyveant is having summer school and will have to sit for the august regents , is a scan school which does not allow electronics of any kind in the building. They will distribute calculators to the students.</p>
<p>^^^ I see. So under the New York State Regents regulations, proctors can’t apprehend, for fear of startling/upsetting other students. (Didn’t seem to stop the principal, who must have caused a bigger scene …)</p>
<p>But a proctor could certainly look around the classroom, and stand right next to the kid who was taking pictures with his cell phone, so at least he couldn’t continue doing it, right?</p>
<p>Because apparently none of us were in the room, what you you would have wanted the outcome to be? The principal was notified and the student exam terminated (which he is allowed to do and is aligned with the state regs for administering the exam).</p>
<p>At the end of the day, as long as the teacher made a statement and wrote about what happened and reported the incident, they contractually did what they were supposed to do. How would you have felt, if this happened while you were in the room? Would you have been able to go on business as usual or would you wait until you saw your scores and if you were dissatisfied, said that the incident in the classroom was the reason for your performance and you should be allowed to have that grade removed from your transcript (mind you the grade would not be removed, the best you could hope for was a retake)?</p>
<p>One of the important takeaways from this is that Stuyvesant will really have to look at the electronics in the class. It would most likely be in their best interest to prohibit electronics in the building. They are certainly not benefiting from the bad press. Also innocent students are most likely being painted with the same broad strokes regarding the rampant cheating and there seeds of doubt that have been planted.</p>
<p>I remember years ago my daughter took the SAT in the building and complained about the cheating at Stuyvesant students (some she personally knew from the having attended elementary middle school with them. Like Zooser’s daughter she was happy to turn down the Stuyvesant admission).</p>
<p>Here’s a new take on the cheating scandal which I find depressing: </p>
<p>[It’s</a> a culture of cheating - NYPOST.com](<a href=“It’s a culture of cheating”>It’s a culture of cheating)</p>
<p>Unfortunately, it is not a “new” take on the issue; it is simply an expression of something many have learned by observing the culture of cheating in certain circles. </p>
<p>The author does hit many true notes. Not exactly what people in denial want to hear, but still so very true.</p>
<p>So they don’t fire the proctor, who let the cheating take place, but fire the principal, who caught the cheater …</p>
<p>[Stuyvesant</a> High School principal Stanley Teitel resigns amid high-profile cheating investigation - NY Daily News](<a href=“http://www.nydailynews.com/stuyvesant-high-school-principal-stanley-teitel-resigns-high-profile-cheating-investigation-article-1.1128568]Stuyvesant”>http://www.nydailynews.com/stuyvesant-high-school-principal-stanley-teitel-resigns-high-profile-cheating-investigation-article-1.1128568)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all he was not fired, he has resigned so that after 29 years he still gets his pension (which he would not get if he were fired). </p>
<p>At the end of the day, he is in charge and it happened on his watch, and his school was exposed. </p>
<p>It is most likely not about this one incident of cheating (maybe the culture of cheating that goes unchecked). I am sure that who ever comes in to Stuyvesant in September will come in with a whole new set of protocols, which may include upholding the Chancellors regs about electronics in school.</p>