Midterms were take home, honorable closed-book; final was in person.
Of the 89 students who did the midterm exam, only 59 showed up for the final one. And of the 27 who did not show up, 22 had scored a perfect 100 in the midterm exam.
It seems to me that it’s important for those 22 to be expelled permanently for academic dishonesty. The president of Harvard was kicked out of the position when it came to light that she had “plagiarized” herself. This is far more egregious.
Who is actually surprised that Economists cheat using LLMs? They are in the same cheater class as lawyers, who have been caught cheating in court using LLMs.
Note: I’m not talking about researchers or people who go through to the doctoral level.
I work at a prestigious university with a notable business school and manage large teams of students. I hire students from all over and in all sorts of different programs. In my experience, business students talk a good talk and have a good interview but then never actually want to do the work. They aren’t in it for the learning, the growing, the doing. They are in it for the networking and to stage themselves for future opportunities.
So: no shock whatsoever. I agree with your point.
I can confirm that we take exams on 80-people classrooms in my uni, and that most people sitting towards back just whip out their phone to ask chatgpt; and the people brag about how they got away with cheating on class discord server.
Anti-intellectualism so severe it’s a merit to not learn.
Serrano did not void the midterm exam, but warned students that the final one, which counted for 50% of the final grade, would be held in-person. He also said that if the grade distribution was not similar to the midterm, only the final exam would be taken into account. The average score dropped to 48 out of 100. Of the 89 students who did the midterm exam, only 59 showed up for the final one. And of the 27 who did not show up, 22 had scored a perfect 100 in the midterm exam.
“The empirical evidence of fraud is overwhelming,” says the professor, who has decided to make changes for the coming academic year. First, the weekly exercises will not count towards the final grade, as these could be done with AI. Second, no more take-home exams, no matter how appropriate they would be.
Bruh…
Long before chatbots people were 100% cheating on “closed book, take him tests” there is no fucking way they weren’t.
If you had told a class 30 years ago the same thing, the same result would have happened.
Saying if you don’t match you only get the worse score, is going to discourage a shit ton of students.
The real problem is “closed book take home”. And professors expecting students to not open the book. It’s nothing about them, it’s the current culture. If you don’t cheat you can’t compete. Elite places like Ivy League schools will always be full of cheaters in this climate, because they’ll out compete people with ethics.
Cheating was widespread even before LLMs! I can’t imagine what it’s like now!
Came here to say: Academic Integrity has been on shaky ground ever since Universities started charging for courses…
don’t worry, academic integrity has been destroyed by now
Tney handed out ChatGPT accounts to all California State University students and actively encouraged them to use it.
Surely NOBODY would imagine students would use it to cheat?
Seems like the solution is: don’t do exams this way
This year, the economist decided that both the midterm and the final exams for his course would be of the take-home, closed-book type (there is a certain tradition of this at Ivy League schools). “It’s a very nice kind of exam, because as you’re giving students practically unlimited time to complete it, it lets you make it harder than normal, to see how far they can go.” In this case, Serrano changed some of the model assumptions they had seen in class, and asked students to demonstrate whether certain statements were true or false under the new assumptions.
I’ve grappled with this before, and even before people were using AI, take home exams were always open-book by default because of course people will look things up. The irony is, since AI, I’ve had a lot worse essay submissions-- they simply get shit wrong a lot more relying on AI (especially in my statistics class).
And my stats class only needs to do basic stuff to show work; I let them use excel/sheets to check work. They can’t even type in “=correl()” properly and would rather take a photo of the data and send it to ChatGPT. AI gives them wildly wrong steps and it’s so obviously wrong…
Funny: I’m a doctoral student in a statistical program and I have thought, since I started, that you can’t really use AI to cheat at stats. They can’t even get the math right much of the time. I wouldn’t even want to imagine what an essay would look like.
ChatGPT is good for ensuring that you understand a concept or, perhaps, help setting up a table or a specific formula. Not so good at actually doing STAT homework, though. (Note: I’ve never tried to cheat, but have seen how bad some of the responses are.)
take home
closed book
Pick one.
As the professor said,"If you did this, if you just press a button to ask an AI agent to do this for you, you’re showing to be completely irrelevant. So my question to you is, why are you here? Why are you at a university if you refuse to learn, you refuse to work hard, if you refuse to put in the necessary effort to develop critical thinking?”
