What I don't get is why nobody seems to be willing to blame the professors.
Why is it so unreasonable to suggest that professors might create their own problem sets and tests? Solution manuals and test banks have freely existed on the internet for years. Every semester when they start their new classes, they know whether or not their students can cheat on the problem sets and tests that they plan to assign, but they throw up their hands and claim that if cheating is to occur, the students are to blame for lacking integrity.
Professors should look at the incentives for students and the stakes involved (GPA -> internship, GPA -> grad school, GPA -> future earnings) and realize that if there's an opportunity to cheat, some percentage of students are going to take it. And in fact, it's probably a wise decision. Professors like to say, "If you're cheating, you're only hurting yourself," but that's total bullshit. If you're cheating, you're hurting other people. In a world where classes are curved, it's a zero sum game, and from a game-theory perspective it might make sense to cheat even if you otherwise wouldn't. Once 20%-30% of the class is cheating, you're really just hurting yourself if you're not cheating.
I never cheated in school, and that's a nice little feather in my cap, but if I could do it again, I probably would have.
> Why is it so unreasonable to suggest that professors might create their own problem sets and tests?
Because creating a problem set or test that 1) is pedagogically useful and 2) solvable in a defined amount of time is a very difficult problem and certainly takes up a lot of time.
My solution to Chegg is to make assignments and tests that you don't need to answer every question for and put a couple REALLY difficult problems on things--technically solvable by the class by effectively not due to complexity/time. In a CS class, it's really easy to create simple looking problems that spiral out of control. I've occasionally done it even when I didn't mean to. :(
Anyone submitting a correct answer to it gets my detailed attention for cheating.
In addition, in a technical track, I do point out that not learning my class, which is a prerequisite, will absolutely kill you in the next class.
Between the fact that the universities that I have worked with will and have expelled people for cheating and the fact that my course is a prerequisite, I seem to have dissuaded the cheaters to take other professors. :)
Alternatively, they're just that good at cheating. Fortunately, the students who need to cheat are generally not smart enough to cheat well, either.
Why is it so unreasonable to suggest that professors might create their own problem sets and tests? Solution manuals and test banks have freely existed on the internet for years. Every semester when they start their new classes, they know whether or not their students can cheat on the problem sets and tests that they plan to assign, but they throw up their hands and claim that if cheating is to occur, the students are to blame for lacking integrity.
Professors should look at the incentives for students and the stakes involved (GPA -> internship, GPA -> grad school, GPA -> future earnings) and realize that if there's an opportunity to cheat, some percentage of students are going to take it. And in fact, it's probably a wise decision. Professors like to say, "If you're cheating, you're only hurting yourself," but that's total bullshit. If you're cheating, you're hurting other people. In a world where classes are curved, it's a zero sum game, and from a game-theory perspective it might make sense to cheat even if you otherwise wouldn't. Once 20%-30% of the class is cheating, you're really just hurting yourself if you're not cheating.
I never cheated in school, and that's a nice little feather in my cap, but if I could do it again, I probably would have.