How to cheat in exams using mobile phones and calculators

thought this would make a good utility on cellphones -

http://www.getjar.com/products/1007/StudyME


Or easier still, you could just take photos of pages from books using
your cell-phone.



You could also put in formulas using graphical calculators.

Any recommendations anyone ? Which is better - CASIO or Texas
instruments?

Could English people recommend anywhere that sell these.. argos don't
seem to stock these caclulators.




ps - cheating is WRONG, IMMORAL and you will get caught. Do not cheat.
I am just curious.

---

› See More: How to cheat in exams using mobile phones and calculators

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> thought this would make a good utility on cellphones -
>
> http://www.getjar.com/products/1007/StudyME
>
>
> Or easier still, you could just take photos of pages from books using
> your cell-phone.
>
>
>
> You could also put in formulas using graphical calculators.
>
> Any recommendations anyone ? Which is better - CASIO or Texas
> instruments?
>
> Could English people recommend anywhere that sell these.. argos don't
> seem to stock these caclulators.
>
>
>
>
> ps - cheating is WRONG, IMMORAL and you will get caught. Do not cheat.
> I am just curious.

It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it,
and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR.

Al

>
> It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it,
> and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR.
>
> Al

I'm talking about 'tests' / 'mocks' not real exams.

[email protected] wrote:
> thought this would make a good utility on cellphones -
>
> http://www.getjar.com/products/1007/StudyME
>
>
> Or easier still, you could just take photos of pages from books using
> your cell-phone.
>
>
>
> You could also put in formulas using graphical calculators.
>
> Any recommendations anyone ? Which is better - CASIO or Texas
> instruments?
>
> Could English people recommend anywhere that sell these.. argos don't
> seem to stock these caclulators.
>
>
>
>
> ps - cheating is WRONG, IMMORAL and you will get caught. Do not cheat.
> I am just curious.

I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught
that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture
cell phones anyway.

On 8 Dec 2005 15:34:01 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>>
>> It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it,
>> and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR.
>>
>> Al
>
>I'm talking about 'tests' / 'mocks' not real exams.


If your to stupid not to be able to do a GCSE then you shouldn't have
a mobile phone
--

http://Borg.no-ip.com

XJ900 Trike GS850 Trike
DIAABTCOD#29
DAMICRWIM

Some people are like slinkys....
no real use but it makes you smile when they fall down stairs!

<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it,
>> and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR.
>>
>> Al
>
> I'm talking about 'tests' / 'mocks' not real exams.
>

You've obviously overestimated their importance then.
There are much easier ways to cheat in non-public exams.

Al

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > thought this would make a good utility on cellphones -
> >
> > http://www.getjar.com/products/1007/StudyME
> >
> >
> > Or easier still, you could just take photos of pages from books using
> > your cell-phone.
> >
> >
> >
> > You could also put in formulas using graphical calculators.
> >
> > Any recommendations anyone ? Which is better - CASIO or Texas
> > instruments?
> >
> > Could English people recommend anywhere that sell these.. argos don't
> > seem to stock these caclulators.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ps - cheating is WRONG, IMMORAL and you will get caught. Do not cheat.
> > I am just curious.
>
> I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught
> that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture
> cell phones anyway.

A bunch of people cheated in my final exams using personal stereos.
They recorded their notes onto tape and played them back during the
exam.

One of them got the highest mark in the year!

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught
>that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture
>cell phones anyway.

I'd recommend understanding the material. It has all the
advantages of memorising plus: you don't need to do the memorising
and it's a better foundation for more advanced work. Of course, it
won't work if you're stupid; but in that case neither will cheating
or memorising. Sadly, it seems to be out of fashion, and also to be
somewhat downplayed by the revision guides.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
[email protected]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 11:28:39 UTC, [email protected] (Dr A. N.
Walker) wrote:

: Sadly, it seems to be out of fashion, and also to be
: somewhat downplayed by the revision guides.

Welcome to the insane world of Outcomes Based Education.

Ian
:


--

Dr A. N. Walker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught
> >that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture
> >cell phones anyway.
>
> I'd recommend understanding the material. It has all the
> advantages of memorising plus: you don't need to do the memorising
> and it's a better foundation for more advanced work. Of course, it
> won't work if you're stupid; but in that case neither will cheating
> or memorising. Sadly, it seems to be out of fashion, and also to be
> somewhat downplayed by the revision guides.
>
> --
> Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
> [email protected]

Although this is a widely held believe, I consider it false.
Understanding is not enough especially in more advanced courses where
new definitions and theorems are introduced at a blistering pace. It's
unrealistic to expect understanding without a clearly memorized
definition especially in a test enviorment. You might argue that closed
book testing isn't of value, but for those of us who have to
participate in them memorization cannot be replaced by meer
understanding.

"Dr A. N. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught
>>that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture
>>cell phones anyway.
>
> I'd recommend understanding the material.

Sadly, this is a bad idea.
Our education system is geared towards memorising things, rather
understanding and thinking for yourself.
I guess it's easier to test memory than it is to test understanding.

Alun Harford

In sci.math [email protected] wrote:

: A bunch of people cheated in my final exams using personal stereos.
: They recorded their notes onto tape and played them back during the
: exam.

(1) They were allowed to listen to stereos during the exam?!

(2) This doesn't seem particularly helpful. Was the exam merely the
regurgitating of notes? If not then how could you search through the
notes for the relevent material? Rewind-Fast Forward?!

Justin

In article <[email protected]>, Dr A. N. Walker
<[email protected]> writes

> I'd recommend understanding the material. It has all the
>advantages of memorising plus: you don't need to do the memorising
>and it's a better foundation for more advanced work.

So far as it goes, I agree - particularly with understanding being "a
better foundation for more advanced work." in which case I would have
thought it was axiomatic.

This isn't necessarily the case where there is no aim for more advanced
work. Knowing a particular thing might be useful but its understanding
might be so difficult that it detracts from other, more appropriate
learning. I never understood the "least squares" (?) calculation for the
best fit of a straight line through a set of points but I've used the
formula several times. Sadly, I've used it so rarely that I never
memorised it either so I have to look it up (or use Excel!) but if I
needed it regularly, it would be remembered easily enough. For me, it's
enough to know it exists and what it does.
--
Peter

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 [email protected] wrote:
> Dr A. N. Walker wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught
>>> that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey
>>> picture cell phones anyway.

>> I'd recommend understanding the material. It has all the
>> advantages of memorising plus: you don't need to do the memorising
>> and it's a better foundation for more advanced work.

> Although this is a widely held believe, I consider it false.
> Understanding is not enough especially in more advanced courses where
> new definitions and theorems are introduced at a blistering pace. It's
> unrealistic to expect understanding without a clearly memorized
> definition especially in a test enviorment.

You are wrong. I have 16 years of university level teaching, and
in my experience the belief that learning==memorisation is the
second most common cause of student failure (behind only laziness).

I teach computer programming, and I suspect the same applies to
the sort of stuff Andy teaches. The number of actual facts we have
to teach is fairly small, but the concepts are quite abstract.
If you understand the concepts, you can build up detailed examples
as required to solve problems given to you. Examples are given in
teaching to explain the concepts. But there is a significant proportion
of the class whose approach is to memorise the examples while failing
to understand what they were given to illustrate. Sometimes they put
an immense amount of effort into memorisation - every year I have
students who randomly regurgitate examples I've shown in the class,
sometimes down to typing errors I forgot to remove, and they almost
always fail because what they regurgitate bears little relationship
to the question, which is asking them to apply a technique, not
to reproduce an example of that technique applied to some other
situation (and that's when they get as far as understanding the
question enough to give an example of the right technique).

There is plenty of evidence that memorising patterns without
understanding the structure of patterns is a hugely more difficult
task than getting to understand the structure then viewing those
patterns in terms of those structures.

Matthew Huntbach

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 16:36:57 UTC, Matthew Huntbach <[email protected]>
wrote:

: There is plenty of evidence that memorising patterns without
: understanding the structure of patterns is a hugely more difficult
: task than getting to understand the structure then viewing those
: patterns in terms of those structures.

Hear hear. Anyone who claims that memorisation is to be preferred to
"mere understanding" simply hasn't a clue.

Ian

--