Agreed, the lawsuit is a terrible thing to do full stop, and doesn't seem to make business sense either. Maybe they think his critiques are worse than the bad press.
I agree about the privacy concerns, and in normal circumstances I wouldn't use proctoring software, because all my students would be local (or they would have signed up as distance students knowing this kind of thing would be needed). I would also have much less issue with it if it was open source.
I see it as a currently-necessary annoyance, as the least bad option. The alternatives have greater deficiencies: human invigilators using Zoom etc. don't scale (institution experience); oral exams don't scale (my experience moderating such assessments); no invigilation leads to cheating (by few students but enough to be a real problem, especially for professional qualifications - my direct experience and institution experience); shutting down education until the pandemic's over is unfeasible.
> no invigilation leads to cheating (by few students but enough to be a real problem, especially for professional qualifications - my direct experience and institution experience);
How is it a real problem (I've never cheated but always felt I got fair grades, not affected by whatever cheaters did)? If a student memorizes everything they need for the exam today, but forget all of it tomorrow, is that useful? That's a very real thing happening every day in exams, and nobody highlights it as as big a problem as cheating (I think it's a bigger problem actually, but the solution is not necessarily in finding those who can do that, but in optimizing the material so memorization is not such a core part of it before you start specializing).
In careers where such things really matter (think medicine), people only progress by demonstrating actual knowledge and understanding while gaining real-life experience. We don't get a surgeon out of a medical school that hasn't shadowed a surgeon and been quizzed on things to do next.
It's similar with engineering: you are given smaller, simpler things when you start off, and you build up your knowledge and experience before being given the role of a lead engineer for an airplane engine.
Exam grades are never used as a measure of someone's knowledge on the topic, though a paper they authored, or their dissertation, naturally, might.
It's a problem for institution reputation, and for remaining accredited to confer professional degrees controlled by external organisations, like engineering degrees.
> I see it as a currently-necessary annoyance, as the least bad option... shutting down education until the pandemic's over is unfeasible.
Is it necessary though? Have you considered there are ways other than testing for a student to demonstrate their knowledge on a subject? Projects, presentations, and writing all come to mind as effective ways to measure knowledge on a subject and do not require treating all students like cheaters because a few choose to do so.
Yes, but my subject is maths :-). 1st and 2nd year engineering maths don't really have projects, presentations, or writing as options, as we mostly care about whether they know particular fundamental mathematical techniques and skills. All those options also have the problem of knowing who did the work.
From talking to remote students, I don't think they feel like they're being treated like cheaters. Instead, they seem happy we're making their study possible, and accepting of what they're asked to do. They know it's important that they can demonstrate unequivocally that they have particular skills.
My sister is still in school and the anti-cheating software gives her a lot of anxiety - not that she's a cheater or anything, but because it is well known that this software flags non-cheaters as cheaters. For example, she is not allowed to look around or talk to herself while working on a problem, both of which help her to demonstrate her knowledge effectively. If the goal is for testing to demonstrate a student's knowledge, then employing techniques that hinder a student's ability to do so in the hopes of catching cheaters is counter productive to the original goal. After all, you want to know if she can apply fundamental techniques and skills - not whether she can apply these fundamental techniques and skills while behaving under a very strict set of rules.
Even in early level mathematics, there are plenty of opportunities to introduce word problems that can only be solved by applying the relevant techniques. As long as the teachers are defining these word problems themselves (rather than pulling them from an online resource), they stand as a pretty good guard against cheating since they require students to first recognize the technique that needs to be applied, and then to extract the relevant variables from the word problem to apply that technique.
Furthermore, in early level mathematics, you can still have students present solutions to problems and explain why the solution works. For instance, say you were interested in whether or not a student has grasped the basics of derivatives - simply get on a call with that student, give them a random function to solve the derivative for, and then have them do so in front of you.
These are all things I've quickly thought of that would have at least be partially effective in measuring knowledge. I imagine any person with a career dedicated to instructing students could come up with many more options that could be even more effective.
> Instead, they seem happy we're making their study possible, and accepting of what they're asked to do. They know it's important that they can demonstrate unequivocally that they have particular skills.
Students are happy to be able to study and know that it's important to demonstrate their skills - but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be happier if they could demonstrate their skills without the invasive testing software. I argue this is setting up a false choice: "you can either learn nothing at all, or do so under this cheating software". But the reality of the situation is that they can still learn and demonstrate their skills without the cheating software.
I agree about the privacy concerns, and in normal circumstances I wouldn't use proctoring software, because all my students would be local (or they would have signed up as distance students knowing this kind of thing would be needed). I would also have much less issue with it if it was open source.
I see it as a currently-necessary annoyance, as the least bad option. The alternatives have greater deficiencies: human invigilators using Zoom etc. don't scale (institution experience); oral exams don't scale (my experience moderating such assessments); no invigilation leads to cheating (by few students but enough to be a real problem, especially for professional qualifications - my direct experience and institution experience); shutting down education until the pandemic's over is unfeasible.