Not one, but three cheating scandals have come to light over the past few weeks at three Taipei universities. Reactions have ranged from threats to shrugs, with some students writing online that it is a “common occurrence.” A trend this clear is indeed indicative of a greater problem, but much of the commentary swirling in its wake has missed the point.
In the most hotly discussed case, an anonymous student at National Taiwan University on Nov. 26 posted a photograph on the popular online forum Dcard showing a group of students. The poster said the image, which has since been deleted, shows classmates sharing answers during a midterm exam, and promised to report them to the school if the teacher did not punish them. Some commenters responded with threats of violence or claims that they were only going along with their friends, with one even offering up to NT$1 million (US$36,048) in “hush money.”
A case at Taipei Medical University on Nov. 19 similarly involved allegations of students sharing answers during a midterm. As the large class was reportedly separated into four rooms to take the exam, the teacher was only monitoring one room, while student teaching assistants supervised the other three.
The case at the University of Taipei was the most absurd. While taking a midterm exam, a student posted a video on Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok, showing students steaming a bowl of instant noodles and classmates around them using their cellphones. They even joked that the “closed-book exam” instructions written on the chalkboard said nothing about using cellphones.
Considering the details of each of the incidents, it is disingenuous to simply blame the students by calling them “cheating scandals.” It might instead be more accurate to call them “educational failures,” as teachers and universities deserve equal responsibility.
The solution is not ethics education, as some have suggested. The students were fully aware that they were cheating, as the comments on Dcard showed. One obvious question is: Where were the teachers? Just as students are expected to maintain exam integrity for the sake of their peers, so are teachers expected to ensure fairness for their students. If this type of cheating is as commonplace as some have suggested, it hints at a deeper problem, and moving beyond the blame game might provide far more instructive takeaways.
There are a number of reasons students might resort to cheating, necessitating different solutions. If students do not understand the material, yet their grade rests on one or two exams, they would naturally seek other solutions to pass. Instead of expecting these students to reach out for help, which could be embarrassing or intimidating, teachers and schools should attempt to identify struggling students and offer help before it is too late.
Course grading also needs to be revamped. Not everyone performs well on tests for a variety of reasons, nor do exams necessarily reflect understanding of a subject, only the ability to memorize information and perform well under pressure. Grading should instead be based on different class activities, reducing the weight placed on exams. Tests themselves should be more open-ended, requiring higher-level thinking that integrates knowledge learned in a course rather than rote memorization.
Although the circumstances were inappropriate, the students’ choice to cheat together is also telling. Educators could adapt this inclination as an educational tactic and arrange more opportunities for students to collaborate, even on tests. This would have the dual benefit of allowing students to teach each other — a highly effective teaching tactic — while also preparing them for the workplace.
The problems run deep, but there are solutions that can be adopted immediately and even improve the overall education system — as long as teachers and schools are also willing to accept responsibility.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry