Aim Higher in Assessing Learning

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”?