Is this cheating?

Wstfgl

Okay, it's high school examination period in Western Australia, and I've recently finished one of them.

There are, obviously, strict rules that apply to all examinations, as one would expect. The relevant one here is that candidates are not permitted to write in their answer booklets outside of the allocated writing time of three hours.

So, during an examination, I noticed one candidate who had been placed in a seat that was out of view of the supervisors (the venue was a line of classrooms with removable walls and he was behind one of the wallpoints, so the column of desks that he was in wasn't visible from the front of the room).

Shortly before the writing time started, he looked around him, started writing, looked around again, didn't see anyone watching him (all other candidates were presumably reading - I was watching the clock when I noticed him) and kept writing. I guess he gained about two to three minutes extra time this way.


My question is: was what that candidate did "cheating"? I think so - he seems to have knowingly broken a rule of the exam in order to gain some advantage, and as small as that advantage is, it's more the principle of the thing that I'm concerned about.

But I'm not 100% sure - so you be the jury, is it cheating?
 
Unless all he was writing was the stuff you have to write on the front (basically his name), then yes he was. I would argue that he might have been allowed extra time, but if that were the case, he would either have been in a different room to everyone else or he would have had more than two or three minutes extra time.
 
it's technically cheating because he broke the rules but if your exams are anything like ours extra time is completely unnecessary.
 
Er, yes? There's really no fine line being toed here. That's blatant cheating. Useless blatant cheating probably as using the full 3 hours is very rare, but cheating nonetheless.
 
i see no problem with what he was doing as he didn't get caught by any examination official
if anything he should be rewarded for using his initiative
 
It's okay to steal if the person you're stealing from doesn't know it's missing.
It's okay to murder if nobody knows the person is dead.
It's okay to ... as long as nobody finds out!

Great sense of values to grow up on.
 
Objection said:
Unless all he was writing was the stuff you have to write on the front (basically his name), then yes he was. I would argue that he might have been allowed extra time, but if that were the case, he would either have been in a different room to everyone else or he would have had more than two or three minutes extra time.
Click to expand...


I've had extra time before, and I've only ever used as much as I need. Sometimes that's the full amount, sometimes that's less than a minute to keep scribbling my thought at the time.
 
Well, lets be fair here...you don't know all of the situation.

In my school, if people have things like dyslexia which literally prevent them from taking timed tests effectively, they can be given extra time so that they can actually perform well. Maybe something like that was the case?

I'm not trying to justify what he did. Cheating is cheating. But, you shouldn't always be so quick to judge.
 
Gay Dolphin said:
Well, lets be fair here...you don't know all of the situation.

In my school, if people have things like dyslexia which literally prevent them from taking timed tests effectively, they can be given extra time so that they can actually perform well. Maybe something like that was the case?

I'm not trying to justify what he did. Cheating is cheating. But, you shouldn't always be so quick to judge.
Click to expand...

According to the OP's description, he was "looking around" in what I'd assume a suspicious way. I'm not exactly sure whether or not the OP poster thought he looked particularly suspicious (other than writing before time started), but I'd think he'd be able to tell whether or not the dude was mentally handicapped or looking around in fear of being caught.
 
Assigning morality to cheating is silly--the two have no connection, other than the one we've mostly been indoctrinated into believing exists. Cheating is a calculated risk, as I said before. I can cheat, but the consequences of getting caught might be tremendous and the benefits may not be worthwhile. So, to those who cheat, they aren't really going outside the borders of the game, as the game necessarily entails the possibility of cheating. Test taking and academics, which really just amounts to institutionalized gaming (with serious importance), is no different. Just because it is not trivial (say, playing a video game on your 360) does not mean that it is not a game in many ways.

Take baseball, for example. Say you use steroids, or even just put pine tar on pitches during games to give it extra movement (to pitch more effectively). Cheating, yes, but also a calculated risk, since you can get fined, suspended, alienated by your fan base and badgered by upity media types if you fail, but if you succeed, you can bring your numbers up, and your value as a player up, too. It's a strategic decision and nothing else. What sucks about cheating sometimes is when the cheating system is broken (i.e. cheating is too easy with too many benefits); otherwise, it adds an interesting element of risk management to any game. Shame and a "poor set of values" are added to the consequences of cheating (even if you don't get caught, too).

Cheating is not wrong, even if you do get caught. You're just playing the game (of life, monopoly or whatever other games tickle your fancy), using whatever tactical moves you have at your disposal. It's kind of like gambling for a living: you take the easy way of getting rich (i.e. cheat I guess, instead of getting a salary job), but you increase the consequences of failing.

It just annoys me when people say stuff like "well, cheating is obviously wrong" and "well, this is wrong because I personally disapprove of it and an overwhelming majority agrees with me". Yeah, yeah, suck my nuts. I mean, if you feel that something about cheating is unpleasant, fine, but don't pass judgment of "wrongness" to those willing to take that chance. Unless you're using the fear of that judgment as a strategic move to prevent others from cheating, in which case you are very clever and quite ruthless (not that I'm accusing anyone).

It's best not to cheat in school, though. Terrible decision regarding risk management and you'll probably need that knowledge for later (say, your job, where it might be difficult to keep cheating and cheating). The safest decision is to not cheat in school, at any point in time. The OPs fellow exam taker made a stupid decision; the pay-off (an extra three minutes of test-taking) was done at the expense of possibly getting a zero on the exam for getting caught.
 
Well its certainly cheating. He was breaking an explicit rule therefore he was cheating. Now weather or not it's a stupid rule is another matter...
 
All of that applies to robbing a bank, DaBossMan. Just saying.

I suppose you could say "cheating doesn't affect others", but you are giving yourself an advantage that is intentionally taken away in the interest of fairness. Regardless of how risky it is, you are giving yourself an edge over others that you're not "supposed" to have, and when you are all being evaluated by the results of the test, then yeah, that is affecting others.
 
Well, to be honest, does it even matter? 2 to 3 minutes of 3 hours isn't actually a huge line being crossed. Yes, he was doing something that broke the rules, but I wouldn't consider it cheating. I would consider it using time wisely.
 
DaBossMan said:
Assigning morality to cheating is silly--the two have no connection, other than the one we've mostly been indoctrinated into believing exists. Cheating is a calculated risk, as I said before. I can cheat, but the consequences of getting caught might be tremendous and the benefits may not be worthwhile. So, to those who cheat, they aren't really going outside the borders of the game, as the game necessarily entails the possibility of cheating. Test taking and academics, which really just amounts to institutionalized gaming (with serious importance), is no different. Just because it is not trivial (say, playing a video game on your 360) does not mean that it is not a game in many ways.

Take baseball, for example. Say you use steroids, or even just put pine tar on pitches during games to give it extra movement (to pitch more effectively). Cheating, yes, but also a calculated risk, since you can get fined, suspended, alienated by your fan base and badgered by upity media types if you fail, but if you succeed, you can bring your numbers up, and your value as a player up, too. It's a strategic decision and nothing else. What sucks about cheating sometimes is when the cheating system is broken (i.e. cheating is too easy with too many benefits); otherwise, it adds an interesting element of risk management to any game. Shame and a "poor set of values" are added to the consequences of cheating (even if you don't get caught, too).

Cheating is not wrong, even if you do get caught. You're just playing the game (of life, monopoly or whatever other games tickle your fancy), using whatever tactical moves you have at your disposal. It's kind of like gambling for a living: you take the easy way of getting rich (i.e. cheat I guess, instead of getting a salary job), but you increase the consequences of failing.

It just annoys me when people say stuff like "well, cheating is obviously wrong" and "well, this is wrong because I personally disapprove of it and an overwhelming majority agrees with me". Yeah, yeah, suck my nuts. I mean, if you feel that something about cheating is unpleasant, fine, but don't pass judgment of "wrongness" to those willing to take that chance. Unless you're using the fear of that judgment as a strategic move to prevent others from cheating, in which case you are very clever and quite ruthless (not that I'm accusing anyone).

It's best not to cheat in school, though. Terrible decision regarding risk management and you'll probably need that knowledge for later (say, your job, where it might be difficult to keep cheating and cheating). The safest decision is to not cheat in school, at any point in time. The OPs fellow exam taker made a stupid decision; the pay-off (an extra three minutes of test-taking) was done at the expense of possibly getting a zero on the exam for getting caught.
Click to expand...
That works for every example I gave as well. Life is one big game going by what you're saying. Want to commit fraud? Just don't get caught.
 
I should add I have absolutely no remorse for cheating shamelessly in one of my previous exams; I was left alone in the room by a shit invigilator with the exam paper and my textbook for a good 15 minutes. Took a lot more principle than I have to not use the resources at my disposal, and I'm still very glad I did.
 
Sure, it's cheating.

A separate question is whether or not it is worth reporting the guy or taking any action. I'd say no, and it seems like most would agree.
 
my question is Why are we so worried about whether this guy cheated? its his fault if he gets caught and gets in trouble. why do we need to worry about him. and how did this post get so long about such a useless argument? maybe it really isnt such a useless argument.....
 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat
1 a: to practice fraud or trickery b: to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>

It's clearly cheating, which is all the OP really asked for.

However, I don't think that this act of cheating was particularly terrible or useful. Three hours is a long time for a test, and it's rare that people ever use up the whole time for exams like this, which means that this act really didn't help him; it just puts him at risk to get caught. On the same note, it's not particularly important to report him or anything. If he had done something worse (like use notes on the exam [clearly cheating]), sure, report him, since he would be bringing your own grade down (assuming you're on some sort of curve or ranking system).
 
akuchi said:
I should add I have absolutely no remorse for cheating shamelessly in one of my previous exams; I was left alone in the room by a shit invigilator with the exam paper and my textbook for a good 15 minutes. Took a lot more principle than I have to not use the resources at my disposal, and I'm still very glad I did.
Click to expand...

You disgust me
 
I think it cheating. Although there will always be those people out there who say that "it's not cheating if you don't get caught". It still is cheating.

It's like this saying going around my school right now, "it's not rape if they enjoy it".
 
You know what sucks? When your teacher doesn't give a damn if you talk during tests or use your textbook. Then one day, you get a substitute on test day and she doesn't believe you when you tell her. So you all fail it hard. Then the teacher scales the amount that test is worth to 200% of its original weight. God. I fucking hate that man.
 
Well maybe he was bored of reading time. You always skim over it in 5 mins then have extra 5 mins of zoning out time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top