> can offload the responsibilities related to any cheating
Maybe we can reframe the issue. Why is it the administration's problem? When I went to college, I went there to learn engineering. I didn't really care about the degree. I was paying to have the prof teach me, not check me for cheating.
Me, I'd make no effort to detect cheaters. If they want to pay $$$$$ to attend university, not bother doing any work, and cheat, I'll take their money.
Make it like guitar lessons. People pay to learn how to play. There's just no percentage in cheating, because you can't play.
The cheaters will see their jobs outsourced, and my salary will be higher.
P.S. In college, lots of students were always doing engineering projects on their own and with their own money. For example, a couple of EEs designed and built a pirate radio station. I wanted to learn how to do that stuff. Cheating is just no fun. And if you don't learn anything, the other students will notice that, and will have nothing but contempt for you.
You don’t actually need to know most of a college curriculum to perform well in most jobs. For a lot of jobs the degree is just to get hired, or even just to get an interview. I think that is the problem.
For example, a doctor doesn’t need to know history very well to be a good doctor. Yet it’s probably part of the undergrad curriculum. So cheating on the test has no consequences if they don’t get caught.
Additionally a lot of jobs are really taught via OJT, and whatever was learned from a degree is mostly unused.
I understand that point of view. However, the non-cheating, conscientious students are often very angry with professors and administrators that take this approach. Your best customers feel like their earned credentials are devalued. They are competing with the cheaters for their first job after graduation. Maybe their investment will pay off in the long run, but they are pissed off right now.
Suppressing cheating is work on behalf of the good faith students. Miserable work it is.
That's a reasonable concern. On the other hand, by not checking for cheating, one changes the culture in the classroom.
For example, in universities that aggressively go after cheaters, an adversarial relationship develops between the students and the faculty. The students collaborate on cheating, and get social credibility for cheating. Students will brag about successfully cheating to their peers.
On the other hand, at Caltech, we had an Honor System. Exams were not proctored, and students could take the exams whenever and wherever they wanted. The students were on their honor not to cheat. And an interesting thing happened. The students developed a collaborative relationship with the professors. Cheaters were despised and ostracized. If you were cheating, you'd better keep it to yourself - the other students would turn you in, and at that point you might as well leave the university.
Maybe we can reframe the issue. Why is it the administration's problem? When I went to college, I went there to learn engineering. I didn't really care about the degree. I was paying to have the prof teach me, not check me for cheating.
Me, I'd make no effort to detect cheaters. If they want to pay $$$$$ to attend university, not bother doing any work, and cheat, I'll take their money.
Make it like guitar lessons. People pay to learn how to play. There's just no percentage in cheating, because you can't play.
The cheaters will see their jobs outsourced, and my salary will be higher.
P.S. In college, lots of students were always doing engineering projects on their own and with their own money. For example, a couple of EEs designed and built a pirate radio station. I wanted to learn how to do that stuff. Cheating is just no fun. And if you don't learn anything, the other students will notice that, and will have nothing but contempt for you.