Slashdot Log In
Online Colleges Could Spy On Students – By Law
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Jul 24, 2008 02:15 PM
from the pay-for-your-papers-please dept.
from the pay-for-your-papers-please dept.
skeazer writes "Tucked away in a 1,200-page bill now in Congress is a small paragraph that could lead distance-education institutions to require spy cameras in their students' homes. It sounds Orwellian, but the paragraph — part of legislation renewing the Higher Education Act — is all but assured of becoming law by the fall. No one in Congress objects to it."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks (Score:5, Funny)
Will they watch that too?
Re:I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, you can either buy back the footage for a minimal cost or cease activity when watched by administrators.
In all seriousness, isn't this why we have proctors, so that someone can watch you while you perform tasks required for your grade?
Parent
Re:I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks (Score:5, Interesting)
In all seriousness, isn't this why we have proctors, so that someone can watch you while you perform tasks required for your grade?
Simple answer: cost. I work at a community college, and although we do have an academic testing centre -- the priority is to provide an alternate testing environment for students with disabilities. The secondary priority is students who miss tests for legitimate reasons (medical, weather, etc.).
There simply isn't capacity to allow every student in every online course to come onto campus to complete their assessments. It isn't built into the costing/tuition.
Parent
Re:I tend to masturbate at home during work breaks (Score:5, Informative)
I did a whole master's degree through a distance program. When I had to take tests, I did need a proctor. Basically, you have someone who meets certain requirements fill out some paperwork, and then they manage the test administration stuff for the school.
For most of that, I used the testing center at the local community college, which did charge. Of course it could have been free, if I found some other impartial person willing to do it, but I liked the isolated independent environment.
Parent
And to think. . . (Score:4, Funny)
I thought school was for learning things rather than getting a fancy piece of paper.
Re:And to think. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
rather than getting a fancy piece of paper
While it may be true for you that school is for learning things, it really depends upon which school and program you mean. The majority of the training/education industry (as far as the government is concerned) is about meeting industry's HR needs, and has nothing to do with the lofty goals of education for the benefit of the individual.
Parent
Re:And to think. . . (Score:5, Funny)
Bah, speak for yourself. I majored in Anthroplogy with a concentration in Feminist studies. I would comment more on this but I have to get back to waiting tables.
Parent
Re:And to think. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
"Won't that day of reckoning come when you show up to your first job and the boss asks you to modify a Java program and you give him a blank stare?"
No, when it get known that universities are putting out students that can't do the job, they are penalized for this.
Students don't sign up for the universities -- they would if they could because they think it is an easy degree, but parents generally pay the bills and they research this stuff.
Beyond this, a lot of post-graduation research goes into assessing a program. How much is the average student making? How quickly do they find jobs? Are they still holding a job in their field at 1 year, 5 years, 10 years?
The gov't gets involved because they back student loans. Lots of defaults on student loans. If a university has a default rate of say 50% (I'm making up this number), they stop getting loans sent to them. A good friend wanted to go to an experimental psychological program this fall -- only to find that he can't get a loan. Not going to happen.
My day job is in student testing...I get to hear all of this every day...we get all the blame if students are doing poorly, but never any of the credit. I don't like what the law is doing, but it is a start. It is the start of accountability. Beyond that, I really don't think anyone lives anywhere that is all that inconvenient to get to some place that can proctor an exam with the exception of those whom are disabled. Heck, I gave a few exams with a web cam for a student in Iraq this year (I also had a ranking officer present to make certain that what I couldn't see was still legit!)
So lots of reasons for the gov't to get involved. As a tax payer, I hope they are only propping up universities that are churning out students that are qualified...and you should expect the same.
Parent
Re:And to think. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should the government create a law that requires that schools enforce no-cheating?
It's so some politician can brag, "I worked with congress to pass a law that eliminated cheating in American universities!"
Parent
Re:Real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't believe me? Look at the economy in India.
Yes, I'd hate to have the second largest rate of economic growth since 1980 (behind China). Sounds awful.
Parent
Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't read TFA, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that by "spy cameras in their homes" they mean a camera attached to the computer while school work (or at least tests) is being done in an effort to make sure the degree goes to the person doing the work?
As long as it isn't required to be on except while the student is doing work that would take place under the eyes of a professor or TA in a "real" college and as long as enrollment is voluntary I can't imagine it's really that objectionable.
Re:Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right - If you read TFA it says:
Tucked away in a 1,200-page bill now in Congress is a small paragraph that could lead distance-education institutions to require spy cameras in their students' homes.
It sounds Orwellian, but the paragraph â" part of legislation renewing the Higher Education Act â" is all but assured of becoming law by the fall. No one in Congress objects to it.
The paragraph is actually about clamping down on cheating. It says that an institution that offers an online program must prove that an enrolled student is the same person who does the work.
In other words the law says distance learning institutions must make an effort to verify work is done by the right person - and one technology those institutions are experimenting with is webcams.
It's typical slashdot to quote just enough of the article to give completely the wrong impression.
Parent
Re:Right. (Score:5, Interesting)
For any "online" institution I've known, the tests need to be done at an approved institute under supervision, and after presenting proper ID, etc.
Well, that's the thing... they're trying to break that restriction.
Parent
Re:Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
What guarantee is there that the camera can't be used for other purposes?
Because you've unplugged it?
Parent
They can't stop it in person (Score:5, Insightful)
So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
FUD spreads better than butter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FUD spreads better than butter (Score:5, Informative)
Well I did read the article, and it is a clear cut case of FUD. The law says only that these schools must be able to prove that the person enrolled is the person doing the work.
All that crap about requiring them to put cameras in students homes is just some disingenuous person trying to claim that that is what it would take, because they don't think colleges have that verification responsibility.
What this really comes down to is that most distance learning institutions require students to take their exams at a testing center, where they provide identification and are under the observation of a proctor. And those that don't are raising a fuss because they would prefer not to pay for that.
FUD is exactly what it is -- the are proposing the most ridiculous solution that they can think of to bring them into compliance with such a law, because they would prefer not to have to comply at all.
Parent
Mod parent down! Oops, it's the story! (Score:5, Informative)
Spy camera? Not quite. They're basically just posing a "Hold up a picture of yourself with today's local newspaper so we know you are where you say you are." type challenge to prove that when you sit down for a high-stakes college exam, you are who you say you are.
It's not like they're requiring your iSight camera be on 24/7. So this sensational headline doesn't match the story. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Verify who is doing the work (Score:5, Informative)
Easily Defeated (Score:5, Funny)
Here's how to end it (Score:5, Funny)
1. Be under 18 years old
2. Perform a sex act on the camera.
3. Compel discovery against the university for possession of child pornography.
4. ???
5. Profit!!!
Re:More needless government intervention (Score:5, Insightful)
The real issue, I believe, is that the government seems to think it has the right to require that these devices be used.
So long as the government continues to pay out tuition subsidies, it should have the authority to specify the requirements for academic credibility. No doubt some "elite" institutions could forego government funding and avoid the regulation.
This is pretty similar to drunk driving laws vs. federal highway subsidies, and AT&T vs. wiring subsidies.
Parent
Re:At what cost? (Score:5, Funny)
So how will all that bandwidth hurt my p2p downloads?
Extra points if your ethics exam is what's killing your download rate.
Parent
Re:So, just what was your room number in college? (Score:5, Interesting)
>Everyone and his uncle demands to know my mother's maiden name.
This is culturally insensitive also. It is quite common for one's name and one's mother's maiden name to be the same name.
It's taken for granted as an assumption in the question, that you had married parents, and that your mother changed her name to your father's name, and that your parents gave you your father's name.
Not everybody does that.
Parent