College students are told the moment they step into a classroom that cheating is wrong. Academic dishonesty clauses are written into every syllabus and Code of Conduct, and anti-artificial intelligence policies are drilled into our heads. Despite this, for some college students, academic dishonesty has become a way of life and just another strategy to get ahead — or rather, just to keep up.
From AI-enabled calculators to Meta glasses, college students will always find a new and innovative way to cheat on an exam. In many courses, a closed-note, in-person, proctored and on-paper exam is not enough most of the time to prevent some students from getting an unfair advantage. As technology continues to advance, it’s time to re-evaluate how we evaluate our students.
While studies disagree on how many and how often students cheat, a 2024 Wiley study showed that both students and professors feel cheating is on the rise and will continue to increase. Over 60% of students cited pressure and a large workload as the reason for their cheating.
Grade inflation, a perceived higher cost of college and a tough job market for recent graduates all contribute to the pressure students feel to outperform. College students, especially those in highly competitive fields like medicine and law, are in direct competition with each other for internships, post-graduate jobs and doctorate programs.
As Hall of Fame quarterback Joe Montana says, “If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying.” Despite being made in a football context, this mentality is all too familiar in classrooms. It’s easy to condemn those who cheat, but it’s much harder to resist when their dishonesty puts you at a disadvantage. Among students at the University of Connecticut, I have heard many justify their cheating with the idea that if they do not cheat, someone else will. If they choose the moral high ground, they’ll take the hit on their transcript, especially if there is a curve involved.
To battle the cheating epidemic, many professors at UConn have moved toward much stricter testing policies. Some of them require backpacks and devices to be left at the front of the room, and others demand the use of video LockDown Browser monitoring while in class. Despite the great care that professors take to create an equal testing environment, students will still find a way to cheat.
Rather than continuing to increase security measures around testing, professors and departments should consider how they assess students in the first place. Well-designed open-note exams can maintain academic rigor while reducing instances of cheating. When notes and reference materials are available to the whole class, cheating is disincentivized because students no longer have the temptation to sneak in formulas and definitions to compete with their classmates. Professors can spend less time policing exam policies and more time distinguishing who really gets it and who does not.
Open-note policies do not necessarily make exams easier. While closed-book exams test students on their ability to memorize information and formulas, an application-centered open-note exam encourages students to review materials to make effective notes. Then, it tests them on the depth of their understanding and their critical thinking skills. Giving students access to basic information allows professors to ask more challenging questions that require analysis and a true understanding.
Application-heavy exams more accurately reflect the demands of life after graduation. In the workplace, professionals consult resources, collaborate with teammates and use all available information to solve problems. Instead of testing students on memorization, learning can be better reflected by their ability to find information and use it.
Ultimately, the purpose of an exam is to gauge students’ ability and knowledge level, not their willingness and methods to break the rules.
Grades are important distinguishers between students, and we should still be expected to work hard to earn an A, but the way that the testing system is currently designed does not yield the data points it’s built to measure.
If universities really want to create a fair testing environment and a meritocracy that rewards the right things, stricter testing policies will not suffice. Testing policies need to keep up with the times, and it’s time to start making changes.