Stuyvesant High School caught in cheating scandal on Regents exams

Parents Forum
121

<p>I probably wouldn’t have expelled them. But I definitely would have flunked them. These students will be competing with hundreds of their classmates for places at the nation’s finest colleges and universities - and for many of them, being allowed to retake the exam may be a change for them to UP their scores. (And i know from personal experience that they ARE competing against each other.) Let them rack up a C or a D or even an F, and put it in their GPA, together with a cheating note in their counseling files for the colleges to see.</p>

<p>Crustified Stuy guy here.</p>

122

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually IIRC, the building is open but Stuyvesant doesn’t even hold it’s own summer school in the building. The building is used by Art and Design and a couple of other high schools, where summer school is centrally funded vs being self funded, which stuyvesant would have to do if they held summer school only for Stuy students. I think Stuyvesant’s summer school program is held at Bklyn Tech.</p>

<p>I agree with Xiggi, that the student in question has gotten off light considering the severity of what he did. Student would have to serve suspension during the next school year because classes were technically over when the cheating occurred. </p>

<p>Student will go to a Superintendent’s hearing in the fall (where it would be in his best interest to plead no contest and take the suspension), get either a 30/60 day suspension, where he would have to show up at the suspension site, take classes, then return to school when the suspension is over.</p>

123

<p>I am curious as to how admissions offices at many school will look at applications from this class at Stuy…will there be an unspoken assumption that any and all applicants from Stuy are tainted? And I only wish we could see Ahsan’s application list and results after this…and, of course, his GC’s recommendation letter.</p>

124

<p>I am wondering if they will leave the invalid regents grade on transcript (I hope that they do). This would raise a big red flag if the look under exams and see something like</p>

<p>2011/2 MXRTE (code for algebraII/trig) with INV ( as a grade)</p>

<p>Then
2011/7 (August regents) with a grade.</p>

<p>When they see this discrepancy in comparison to other Stuyvesant students it even other NYS students who have taken the regents I wonder also if the admissions counselors will seek clarification from Stuyvesant.</p>

125

<p>And do you think Ahsan realizes that every admissions officer in the country has seen his name in print?</p>

126

<p>Frankly I’m not too concerned with what happens to Ahsan…as my mother used to say “he made his bed now let him lie in it.” I have a very low tolerance for cheaters and think the expulsion and the retake for the others is fair and equitable and perhaps will be a deterrent for other kids who either think they are “too good” for the Regents or are looking for an easy way out. There is really no excuse for any of these kids.</p>

127

<p>I don’t see why the retake is fair and equitable.</p>

128

<p>I think the problem is that it may not be possible to PROVE that each kid on the recipient list actually cheated. The kid who got caught with his cell phone open during the exam with a scan of his answer sheet on it is a different case; the principal’s testimony will nail him. However, I don’t see how you could prove that kids who simply received the message cheated. Even if they opened the message during the test, it may be difficult to prove that they were aware of what it was when they opened it and actually used his answers.</p>

129

<p>^Mind you if there is any way to prove that you opened a message during a test, I think some sort of punishment is probably appropriate, kids need to learn that there are times you simply have to ignore the phone, especially since cellphones aren’t allowed in city schools at all. That said, I agree it’s conceivable that kids might have been on that email list who did not want to be cheaters.</p>

130

<p>I agree with Jonri and mathmom that it would be unfair to punish a recipient of the cell phone snapshot if he didn’t turn on the cell phone during the exam; the snapshot may have been unsolicited. I also agree with mathmom that if the student did turn on the cell phone, then he should be punished by more than just a retake. There is no excuse for turning on a cell phone during an exam.</p>

<p>According to this</p>

<p><a href=“70 Students at Stuyvesant to Retake Exams After Cheating Case - The New York Times”>70 Students at Stuyvesant to Retake Exams After Cheating Case - The New York Times;

<p>evidently some of the snapshot recipients not only turned on their cell phones, but even responded with messages. For those students, a retake is too light a punishment!</p>

<p>It also makes you wonder: what in the world were the proctors doing?</p>

131

<p>How, exactly, would you prove that the student was the one who opened the message? What if mom or sis is the one who looked at the message at home (or is willing to say that she did)? This may seem far-fetched, but proof problems can be difficult. Thus the retake.</p>

132

<p>Oh the retake is clearly necessary for everyone who might be involved - I don’t consider a retake a punishment, that’s just ensuring you get honest results. That happens if there is a glitch with the exams too.</p>

133

<p>Good point, Hunt, regarding those whose cell phones were merely turned on during the exam.</p>

<p>And then there are those who responded with messages that pertained to the exam – that would seem to go beyond reasonable doubt?</p>

134

<p>

I’d think so. But surely these kids were not carrying on extensive text conversations during the test? It boggles the mind.</p>

135

<p>Hunt, it’s not really surprising. The Regents exams just aren’t taken seriously in a lot of circles. The higher on the academic food chain, the less respect they are given.</p>

<p>Kids who are praying to pass so they can graduate take them very seriously.</p>

136

<p>I think Hunt meant: what in the world were the proctors doing?</p>

137

<p>Right–and I have to say, if the cheating was that widespread, they should make all the kids retake, since they all must have known about it.</p>

138

<p>The kids don’t take the tests seriously at places like Stuyvesant because the adults don’t take them seriously.</p>

139

<p>ZM, I heartily agree. The NYS Regents occur in June, a month after the AP exams. For top students, they should be a very light reminder of subject matter polished a month before.</p>

<p>Best description I heard of NYS Math Regents was from a brrrrrilliant, dedicated, Harvard-educated math Ph.D, lifelong h.s. teacher, who in late career taught only the gifted and remedial students at a rural, poverty H.S. where we were posted and my older 2 graduated. (I’m trying to establish his credibility here). Ahem. </p>

<p>He said the Regents added motivation only to the “gray area” students near the middle of the bell curve of student population. It did raise the bar on their achievement. For bright students, he said, Regents are too easy (“a cakewalk”); for bottom students, they only serve to discourage/fail/increase drop-out rates. As he said, “After students fail some Regents in Grade 11, go to summer school, fail at the end of summer school, repeat Grade 11, fail at the end of THAT year…do you think we’re going to get them to enrol in GRADE 12, for another chance to fail?” </p>

<p>And, that said, he said he (as an amazing Math teacher) could coach some of his lowest students to pass a Math Regents; but the one that broke them was the Social Studies Regents because it required the integration of reading and quantitative thinking (graphs, maps, etc.) </p>

<p>So, shame on any Stuy kid who doesn’t count upon his own abilities for the NYS Math Regents! For goodness sake. </p>

<p>On cellphone use during a test, I have a different anecdote to offer. A pal of mine still tears up remembering the day she phoned her 3rd-tier college student during an exam, for some trivial household question. That kid left his cellphone on (a very foolish, careless thing to do!). When it beeped in class, he failed the exam, the course, and lost his scholarship. He has since regrouped at a new college and will turn out just fine.</p>

<p>So…shame on a Stuy kid who keeps his cellphone on during any exam. And didn’t a proctor remind the class to turn them off at the start of exam-taking session (or is that now assumed)?</p>

140

<p>

The proctor was probably hanging out and socializing. That’s what happens in the top classes/schools. They’re all just killing time.</p>

<p>As for the social studies regents, I’ve heard that the global studies exam is the most likely to be failed for the reasons you stated and because the amount of material that could be covered is so large.</p>