China catches 1,000 cheaters during state exams

[china]

China catches 1,000 cheaters during state exams

1/18/2009, 11:57 p.m. ESTBy CHI-CHI ZHANG
The Associated Press
BEIJING (AP) — Nearly 1,000 people have been caught cheating on China's notoriously competitive civil service entrance exams, some with high-tech listening devices in their ears, state media reported Monday.
The official China Daily newspaper said in an editorial the number caught cheating was the largest ever for the exam.
Cheating during tests is common in the country of 1.3 billion people, where pressure to pass competitive national exams for entrance to universities and civil service jobs is intense. About 9.5 million young people take college entrance exams each year, but only one in four are eligible for college enrollment.

The cheaters had people feeding them information through wireless mini earplugs, and bought standard answers for the exams from outside companies, the official Xinhua News Agency cited the State Administration of Civil Service as saying. About 775,000 people took the competitive civil servant exam last year to fill just 13,500 available positions. In some cases thousands were competing for more coveted positions, such as a ministry or a department with travel prospects, Xinhua reported.
Calls to the State Administration of Civil Service rang unanswered Monday.
There are no specific rules in dealing with cheaters in regards to civil servant exams, but they should face the harshest punishment, the China Daily said.
"Those who cheat in examinations for civil servants fall into the category of worst offenders and deserve the severest punishment," the editorial said. It said civil servants should be role models in moral integrity.
An earlier Xinhua report warning the public not to buy exam answers, said exam papers were state secrets and those caught leaking them faced three to seven years in prison.
China's civil service exam has been in place from imperial times and has long been seen as a stepping stone to social status and financial stability.

 

[In Between Man]

"Those who cheat in examinations for civil servants fall into the category of worst offenders and deserve the severest punishment,"

worst offenders?

severest punishment?

8O

Is it just me, or is China a messed up nation?

 

[Scott Free]

I don't understand the idea that cheating is bad and I never have understood it. Why shouldn't I cheat?

Isn't it really that by doing so I am striving for something perhaps out of my position in society (if I'm not just being lazy); that to cheat is to take a short cut which thereby robs some more worthy person? Is it not the purpose of the educated class to ferret out cheaters to protect us from unworthy lower forms of humans reaching the same level as more enlightened and developed people? It harkens back to the Elizabethan notion that one could be ruined by going above or below ones position in life - are you not then "ruined" if you gain a higher position from cheating?

So who does this rob? I am certainly served better by cheating. There is no evidence society is harmed by my cheating. Someone may be harmed if I gain a position above by my deception but surely, if the test meant anything at all, my inadequacy will reveal me for what I am. HA! And herein lies the truth: the only reason to prevent my cheating is that it protects the scholastic class from certain undesirable elements. That the tests can be designed to weed them out, in my experience, is a certainty. So the moral against cheating is intended only to protect a class of people that are in reality no better than those they seek to keep out. The only purpose then is to preserve the importance of education above ability. That a person educated for a job should earn more than a person that can do the job is thus preserved and the distinction isn't in the doing but in the being sanctioned to do.

 

[In Between Man]

But society is robbed, because the most qualified candidate didn't get the position. The person who cheated did, and when push comes to shove, can he remember those answers he used to cheat from?

Surely the more qualified candidate would have the experience of actually learning the material, and therefore could make a more concise decision the position or occupation requires.

 

[Scott Free]

But society is robbed, because the most qualified candidate didn't get the position. The person who cheated did, and when push comes to shove, can he remember those answers he used to cheat from?

Only if you value education above ability is this the case. The cheater will likely simply look up the information they are lacking - have you ever noticed all the books in a doctors office? I have often suspected my doctor of being a cheater not that that makes any kind of difference to me; the test of a good doctor is always in whether he can make me better and what others may say of them. As evidence I will submit this site and call your attention to its invention out of necessity: rateMDs

Surely the more qualified candidate would have the experience of actually learning the material, and therefore could make a more concise decision the position or occupation requires.

A test only ever determines who is better at writing tests.

 

[In Between Man]

Only if you value education above ability is this the case. The cheater will likely simply look up the information they are lacking - have you ever noticed all the books in a doctors office? I have often suspected my doctor of being a cheater not that that makes any kind of difference to me; the test of a good doctor is always in whether he can make me better and what others may say of them.

I guess it could work, but I know that the one time I attempted to fake an ability, I was able to fool everyone, but I felt crummy inside. I was only cheating myself and I had that monkey on my back the whole time.

I could have learned the material, but instead I winged it, and I lacked the confidence in myself. So when a real opportunity came along to showcase my "abilities", I ended up passing it up. From there I realized I better quit altogether, namely because I was now going nowhere.

 

[Scott Free]

I guess it could work, but I know that the one time I attempted to fake an ability, I was able to fool everyone, but I felt crummy inside. I was only cheating myself and I had that monkey on my back the whole time.

Sure, we're our own worst enemies sometimes.

The ability to do something comes from within us not from the approval of other people. When you start to learn something you know you can learn it when you fake something you know you can fake it. Most people (99.9%) rely on you're judgement of yourself when assessing you - so tell them what you want them to hear. If you couldn't fake the thing you wouldn't have tried.

I could have learned the material, but instead I winged it, and I lacked the confidence in myself. So when a real opportunity came along to showcase my "abilities", I ended up passing it up. From there I realized I better quit altogether, namely because I was now going nowhere.

Too bad. Everything you ever wanted to know is in a book somewhere. Even a quick skim will allow you to know more than most people who studied it could remember after a year.

 

[In Between Man]

Sure, we're our own worst enemies sometimes.

The ability to do something comes from within us not from the approval of other people. When you start to learn something you know you can learn it when you fake something you know you can fake it. Most people (99.9%) rely on you're judgement of yourself when assessing you - so tell them what you want them to hear. If you couldn't fake the thing you wouldn't have tried.

Hmmm. Good pt.

Too bad. Everything you ever wanted to know is in a book somewhere. Even a quick skim will allow you to know more than most people who studied it could remember after a year.

Oh well. The thing I passed up was no big deal. I'm pretty happy where I'm at now.

 

[Spade]

A survey of American high-school students reported that 64% admitted cheating on examinations. Makes you wonder about the honesty of the other 36%! results would be no different in Canada.

 

[nettoffee]

I think it is a small percentge

 

[hermanntrude]

I don't understand the idea that cheating is bad and I never have understood it. Why shouldn't I cheat?

because it's dishonest. It's getting something for a lie. You are correct that in many situations it might not harm you. However to say that it doesnt harm society forgets an important part... basically if cheating is allowed then lying is rewarded. if lying is rewarded it becomes a more common human activity.

Do you want to live in a world with more lies?

 

[Scott Free]

because it's dishonest. It's getting something for a lie. You are correct that in many situations it might not harm you. However to say that it doesnt harm society forgets an important part... basically if cheating is allowed then lying is rewarded. if lying is rewarded it becomes a more common human activity.

Do you want to live in a world with more lies?

The only man more foolish than one who thinks he knows the truth is the man that is certain he knows it - yet to know peace a man must lie to himself.

 

[hermanntrude]

yes a very germane quote. It's also true to some extent. However it still doesnt seem to make the case for encouraging systematic, large-scale lying to examiners, employers and potential employers.

 

[Unforgiven]

You can become anything you want by cheating but you will always lack integrity. To some, integrity is an important issue as it puts doing the job right above personal gain.

 

[Nuggler]

because it's dishonest. It's getting something for a lie. You are correct that in many situations it might not harm you. However to say that it doesnt harm society forgets an important part... basically if cheating is allowed then lying is rewarded. if lying is rewarded it becomes a more common human activity.

Do you want to live in a world with more lies?

------------------
Think "George Bush". Then don't cheat. Basically because it's wrong.

1000 people in one room, cheating. Wouldn't that smell good! All nervous and sweaty, with things stuck in their ears.

Imagine if the little receivers started with feedback. 1000 Chinamen jumping up and down yelling "oww", or whatever it is they yell.

Aw China, don't ever leave CC. Your bull**** stories are good for an early morning laugh if nothing else.

 

[lone wolf]

I had a rotten little cousin who cheated at everything. Now he's a successful banker. Go figure....

 

[L Gilbert]

Then he's still a cheater. Interesting.

 

[Scott Free]

yes a very germane quote. It's also true to some extent. However it still doesnt seem to make the case for encouraging systematic, large-scale lying to examiners, employers and potential employers.

It wasn't a quote.

Like anything else cheating requires judicious use. If one were to cheat constantly then they would know nothing and be found out, however, if they cheat at precise moments to dodge prejudice then they will be much more successful.

 

[In Between Man]

Everything you ever wanted to know is in a book somewhere. Even a quick skim will allow you to know more than most people who studied it could remember after a year.

Hey Scott,

I was thinking a little more today about this thread and the points you made. I'm still not convinced that the "cheater" would be more capable that someone learned, the majority of the time.

The "cheater" can easily look up "item A", but will he know its relation to variable "B" or variable "C"? Or how many variables there are? The ability to fake an ability or trade may be simple for many occupations, but isn't that just another ability: "quick learning". In the case of an ability like being a doctor, the material is far more vast than other trades.

I would suspect that your doc may have to look things up like many others, but he/she at least has the basic fundamentals down.

All in all, I guess learning/striving/achieving will earn you early confidence, while cheating will get you confidence eventually if you can pull it off. Plus you save time + money. Bonus :headbang:

 

[Scott Free]

My point was that even a well educated man must deceive himself into believing as he does that he is qualified. This is a point of psychology. Confidence comes from self deception, Imagine a light switch and if every time you tried to turn it on you worried the bulb might flare up - perhaps you would carry a spare bulb on you? At any rate it is much easier and sensible to just think the light will turn on, i.e., to deceive, that is lie to yourself about it. The doctor must do the same thing and needs his book precisely because he knows he isn't the best man for the job. The cheater will, if he is honest to himself, know he couldn’t be so qualified and so will turn to a book – perhaps sooner and thereby saving a life. If overconfidence is a problem in a particular field (which it surely is in medicine) then the cheater may be better than someone confident. That being said, the kind of cheating I have meant all along is a sensible metered out sort which is employed rarely and only to ensure you’re not passed up for a position simply because you’re not so good at tests or don’t remember details you probably wouldn’t remember in a year anyhow. I certainly don’t mean cheating in and of itself is superior to education, but that it does itself have merits and benefits, which shouldn’t be overlooked and therefore our normative strong dislike of it is unwarranted; that that norm is intended to secure a class not protect society and thereby may actually cause harm is, in my mind, a truism.