How Proctored Exams Harm The Public

[George A. H. Luck]

OK NICK. LET 'ER RIP!

[Nick Gromicko]

OK. Work with me on this George and we'll go slow. What is the purpose of proctoring an exam?

Once you answer this, I'll continue.

[Nick Gromicko]

Also note that I was talking about home inspector organizations using proctored exams, not all proctored exams. See context in following thread and particularly my post #302: http://www.nachi.org/forum/showthrea...=30604&page=21 Home inspection organization harm, and may even kill consumers by using proctored exams.

[Nick Gromicko]

I can't wait, I'm going...

The purpose of proctoring an exam is to try to catch the small portion of those who would have passed by cheating out of the small portion of those who wouldn't have passed anyway.

Does anyone disagree?

[Nick Gromicko]

We have to take these one at a time.

[Nick Gromicko]

Maybe Brian M will answer these?

Here is another question.... Does anyone disagree with this one:

Could some of the cheaters pass without cheating?

[Claude Lawrenson]

What percentage of people cheat on an exam?

What number of cheaters would publicly declare that they cheated, even after signing an honour pledge?

What defines cheating?

[George A. H. Luck]

Hey, Nick! You asked someone to start this thread, so I did. Don't jump to either the conclusion that I agree with you or that I don't. I thought you wanted the venue that's all.

[Greg Bell]

A proctored exam ensures that the person taking the test is the one credited with the results.

With a unproctored exam we have no idea who took the test or what aids they had when taking the test.

It is a lot like a inspector that performs a inspection with payment being made at closing. It gives the appearance of a inspector having a financial incentive to insure that it is a clean inspection.

It doesn't matter if the inspector is influenced by the payment or not. There is always the appearance of there being some doubt.

The same holds true for anyone taking an unproctored exam. While most don't cheat there is the possibility that they can. A proctored exam removes much of that doubt and adds creditability to the exam.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Or perhaps this from Wikipedia on "academic dishonesty".

Academic dishonesty is endemic in all levels of education. In the United States, studies show that 20% of students started cheating in the first grade[5] Similarly, other studies reveal that currently in the U.S., 56% of middle school students and 70% of high school students have cheated.[6]
Students are not the only ones to cheat in an academic setting. A study among North Carolina school teachers found that some 35 percent of respondents said they had witnessed their colleagues cheating in one form or another. The rise of high-stakes testing and the consequences of the results on the teacher is cited as a reason why a teacher might want to inflate the results of their students.[7]

The first scholarly studies in the 1960s of academic dishonesty in higher education found that nationally in the U.S., somewhere between 50%-70% of college students had cheated at least once.[8] While nationally, these rates of cheating in the U.S. remain stable today, there are large disparities between different schools, depending on the size, selectivity, and anti-cheating policies of the school. Generally, the smaller and more selective the college, the less cheating occurs there. For instance, the number of students who have engaged in academic dishonesty at small elite liberal arts colleges can be as low as 15%-20%, while cheating at large public universities can be as high as 75%.[9] Moreover, researchers have found that students who attend a school with an honor code are less likely to cheat than students at schools with other ways of enforcing academic integrity.[10] As for graduate education, a recent study found that 56% of MBA students admitted cheating, along with 54% of graduate students in engineering, 48% in education, and 45% in law.[11]

[Greg Bell]

Originally Posted by gromicko

I can't wait, I'm going...

The purpose of proctoring an exam is to try to catch the small portion of those who would have passed by cheating out of the small portion of those who wouldn't have passed anyway.

Does anyone disagree?

Yes I disagree.

One of the purposes of a proctored exam is to remove the appearance of there being a conflict.

Another purpose of a proctored exam is to make money for the one proctoring it.

[Nick Gromicko]

Greg is warm.

Hang in there with me guys, I'm going to put this all together.

Another question. What is the purpose of testing at all?

To determine minimum competence?

[Nick Gromicko]

And anther question. Hang in there, it will all sew up nicely in the end.

Do you agree that an incompetant inspector can inadvertently cause great property damage and bodily injury, even death?

[Greg Bell]

Originally Posted by gromicko

And anther question. Hang in there, it will all sew up nicely in the end.

Do you agree that an incompetent inspector can inadvertently cause great property damage and bodily injury, even death?

I don't think that the inspector is the cause of it, but he can help people understand that the potential is there and inadvertently prevent it.

[Greg Bell]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Greg is warm.

Hang in there with me guys, I'm going to put this all together.

Another question. What is the purpose of testing at all?

To determine minimum competence?

Yes that is one of the purposes.

It is also a revenue source for the person providing the test.