After 133 Years, Princeton Is Going Back to Proctoring Exams

I’m writing to express opposition and concern. Because cheating is easier should be no rationale for proctoring exams. The implication is “we expect Princeton students to cheat and perjure themselves when they sign the pledge.” Back in olden times (1960s) some departments had open book exams as memorizing the formula or the table was not expected but knowing which tool to employ was the test. By analogy, Princeton should consider some exams where access to the internet is expected. While others would be blue books and number 2 pencils — and cell phones checked at the door. Anyone caught cheating would be expelled. That’s what happened in the old ages.

I grieve that the honor system is now defunct.

I grieve that the University found ample evidence to support this change.

I grieve that students destined to become leaders in our society cannot be trusted to act honorably.

Pledge and honor are apparently old fashioned attributes that have no place in modern society.

Alas.

I was raised in a southern U.S. culture in which honor mattered. It should still matter at Princeton regardless of how learning is evaluated. It strikes me that deciding to proctor exams confronts the wrong problem. If F. Scott Fitzgerald eventually learned that some of his classmates cheated, then cheating is not really about AI or small electronic devices.

Assuming every Princeton undergraduate is academically capable, why cheat? I submit the issue is stress. Nearly all of us were near the top of secondary school classes but very quickly discovered that all of our college classmates are as smart or smarter than we are. I had to apply myself as hard as I could just to keep up with peers who were doing likewise. I don’t think I was unique. Peer pressure was relentless, and each of us dealt with it in our own way. I was relieved to achieve at least the median.

I learned during 40 years teaching at public universities that the demand to excel created by classmates is a factor that sets Princeton and institutions like it apart. If the objective is to achieve the highest standards of learning and reducing motivation to take short cuts, then the solution lies in the design of assessments, not proctoring.

I also noticed that students have become increasingly concerned with grades themselves rather than the learning they allege to represent. Perhaps, the faculty could invest some attention helping undergraduates understand the difference between education and training? It might also help to get rid of grades of A to F and return to the inscrutable 1 to 7 grade system that existed decades ago. Undergraduates are sure they know what an “A” is, but what on Earth is a “1”?

My reaction to the decision to begin proctoring exams is one of resignation and sadness. The Honor Code bound us together in shared trust for more than a century. During my undergraduate days, I felt a tiny surge of pride each time I “signed the pledge” on an exam or assignment. Abandoning the central role of the pledge will diminish that trust and that pride. Technological advance almost always comes with a price. I imagine that the Honor Code will not be the last valued institution that AI will be responsible for demolishing.

Count me as one of many horrified old alumni when I read the article in The Wall Street Journal about Princeton abandoning its century-old honor code. While it is actually the case that unproctored exams were effectively proctored by the students themselves, this was true as long as the students reported violations. Now it appears that a culture of fear of social ostracism has developed, akin to self-censuring in classroom discussions. AI has certainly contributed new methods of cheating, but one would have expected that our astute faculty could provide clever countermeasures on a course-by-course basis, rather than broadly dispensing with a well-regarded tradition. When I was a professor of aerospace engineering, for large classes I used to give exams as open book/open note. Students with a better memory for complicated formulas no longer had an advantage, and surreptitious access no longer mattered. I would imagine that history courses, for example, do not depend on rote recall of dates. Demonstration of mastery of material in problem solving or learned essays in exams may be replaced by AI. Has this reduced students to stenographers? Is repeating what a professor said different from transcribing from a chatbot? The challenge is faced now by faculty to teach beyond AI, and should not require a loss of honor by students.

About time! Wait until you see how overall grades drop!