Think she cheated on her SAT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she cheated and not because of the score increase. That happens pretty frequently. I think that her test is EXACTLY like another test (probably from the internet) The one she copied and the computer caught it. There are many ways this can be done ( and doing it is not that hard) But most people don’t get caught. She did. She is also acting guilty by not retaking the test, or simply taking tha ACT instead. I suspect the evidence rather strong.

+1 . Between the $100k Gofundme campaign (which is going great BTW), hiring the civil rights lawyer and the ensuing media blitz she certainly is doing everything she can to look guilty and somewhat idiotic. If she were truly concerned with getting into college she would retake the test and get on with her life.

Of course there is always the CRAZY possibility that she is innocent and fighting for what she thinks is right, and maybe she is "truly concerned" about that.

Not everyone likes to bend over the sink when power is abused. If you enjoy that go ahead. She's exercising her rights and she'll live with the results of her choices.

Yes of courss, it's always an "abuse of power" when perpetrators are caught. And try to communicate without using vulgar analogies, if at all possible.

I am not saying she's innocent -- I am saying I don't know and neither do you, since neither of us have seen any evidence -- and in fact we don't even know what the evidence is. I am open minded to the possibility and not judging, and in favor of people who use due process in support of their rights. Why are you against that?

I know of many stories -- some repeated in this thread -- where kids were accused of cheating and retook the test to prove they didn't. Should they have been forced to do that?

Of course i"m all for due process and you're correct, I have no idea if she is innocent or guilty. My comment was directed at her behavior since she was accused and it certainly isn't consistent with somebody that is out to clear their name and prove their innocence. A serious student would immediately do what you've suggested and re-take the test....a comparable score would only support her claims. She can always pursue legal recourse at a later date but with the time pressure to get applications in I wouldn't see that as the immediate priority.

I agree with this. I think it is fine for her to seek legal counsel, however, she should also take steps to demonstrate that the score was legit. Why would she shy away from that. That behavior alone is suspicious. In the case mentioned earlier with the suit against ACT (score went from 21-26) at least the student retook the test and got a 23, and therefore the 26 was allowed. All that girl has to do is take another test. I think she is guilty and that is why she is not retaking.

So what you're saying is "I agree with this except I don't".

Can't have it both ways man.

Let the process play out. If they truly have evidence, it will come out and she will pay the price.

I will point out that taking the test again is the easy way out if she is GUILTY of cheating.

Lol...how so? If she cheated then her performance on a re-test will be on par with her original 900 score and she will have confirmed she is in fact a cheater. If she was guilty she would avoid a re-test at all cots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she cheated and not because of the score increase. That happens pretty frequently. I think that her test is EXACTLY like another test (probably from the internet) The one she copied and the computer caught it. There are many ways this can be done ( and doing it is not that hard) But most people don’t get caught. She did. She is also acting guilty by not retaking the test, or simply taking tha ACT instead. I suspect the evidence rather strong.

+1 . Between the $100k Gofundme campaign (which is going great BTW), hiring the civil rights lawyer and the ensuing media blitz she certainly is doing everything she can to look guilty and somewhat idiotic. If she were truly concerned with getting into college she would retake the test and get on with her life.

Of course there is always the CRAZY possibility that she is innocent and fighting for what she thinks is right, and maybe she is "truly concerned" about that.

Not everyone likes to bend over the sink when power is abused. If you enjoy that go ahead. She's exercising her rights and she'll live with the results of her choices.

Yes of courss, it's always an "abuse of power" when perpetrators are caught. And try to communicate without using vulgar analogies, if at all possible.

I am not saying she's innocent -- I am saying I don't know and neither do you, since neither of us have seen any evidence -- and in fact we don't even know what the evidence is. I am open minded to the possibility and not judging, and in favor of people who use due process in support of their rights. Why are you against that?

I know of many stories -- some repeated in this thread -- where kids were accused of cheating and retook the test to prove they didn't. Should they have been forced to do that?

Of course i"m all for due process and you're correct, I have no idea if she is innocent or guilty. My comment was directed at her behavior since she was accused and it certainly isn't consistent with somebody that is out to clear their name and prove their innocence. A serious student would immediately do what you've suggested and re-take the test....a comparable score would only support her claims. She can always pursue legal recourse at a later date but with the time pressure to get applications in I wouldn't see that as the immediate priority.

I agree with this. I think it is fine for her to seek legal counsel, however, she should also take steps to demonstrate that the score was legit. Why would she shy away from that. That behavior alone is suspicious. In the case mentioned earlier with the suit against ACT (score went from 21-26) at least the student retook the test and got a 23, and therefore the 26 was allowed. All that girl has to do is take another test. I think she is guilty and that is why she is not retaking.

So what you're saying is "I agree with this except I don't".

Can't have it both ways man.

Let the process play out. If they truly have evidence, it will come out and she will pay the price.

I will point out that taking the test again is the easy way out if she is GUILTY of cheating.

The bold makes absolutely no sense at all. Retaking the test is the easy way to make face and prove she knows the material at that level. Why go through all the stress of hiring an attorney and grand standing the issue, when all she has to do is take a test and be done. Obviously, she knows she cannot come close to that score again...otherwise, she would retest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she cheated and not because of the score increase. That happens pretty frequently. I think that her test is EXACTLY like another test (probably from the internet) The one she copied and the computer caught it. There are many ways this can be done ( and doing it is not that hard) But most people don’t get caught. She did. She is also acting guilty by not retaking the test, or simply taking tha ACT instead. I suspect the evidence rather strong.

+1 . Between the $100k Gofundme campaign (which is going great BTW), hiring the civil rights lawyer and the ensuing media blitz she certainly is doing everything she can to look guilty and somewhat idiotic. If she were truly concerned with getting into college she would retake the test and get on with her life.

Of course there is always the CRAZY possibility that she is innocent and fighting for what she thinks is right, and maybe she is "truly concerned" about that.

Not everyone likes to bend over the sink when power is abused. If you enjoy that go ahead. She's exercising her rights and she'll live with the results of her choices.

Yes of courss, it's always an "abuse of power" when perpetrators are caught. And try to communicate without using vulgar analogies, if at all possible.

I am not saying she's innocent -- I am saying I don't know and neither do you, since neither of us have seen any evidence -- and in fact we don't even know what the evidence is. I am open minded to the possibility and not judging, and in favor of people who use due process in support of their rights. Why are you against that?

I know of many stories -- some repeated in this thread -- where kids were accused of cheating and retook the test to prove they didn't. Should they have been forced to do that?

Of course i"m all for due process and you're correct, I have no idea if she is innocent or guilty. My comment was directed at her behavior since she was accused and it certainly isn't consistent with somebody that is out to clear their name and prove their innocence. A serious student would immediately do what you've suggested and re-take the test....a comparable score would only support her claims. She can always pursue legal recourse at a later date but with the time pressure to get applications in I wouldn't see that as the immediate priority.

I agree with this. I think it is fine for her to seek legal counsel, however, she should also take steps to demonstrate that the score was legit. Why would she shy away from that. That behavior alone is suspicious. In the case mentioned earlier with the suit against ACT (score went from 21-26) at least the student retook the test and got a 23, and therefore the 26 was allowed. All that girl has to do is take another test. I think she is guilty and that is why she is not retaking.

So what you're saying is "I agree with this except I don't".

Can't have it both ways man.

Let the process play out. If they truly have evidence, it will come out and she will pay the price.

I will point out that taking the test again is the easy way out if she is GUILTY of cheating.

The bold makes absolutely no sense at all. Retaking the test is the easy way to make face and prove she knows the material at that level. Why go through all the stress of hiring an attorney and grand standing the issue, when all she has to do is take a test and be done. Obviously, she knows she cannot come close to that score again...otherwise, she would retest.

I'll explain since you claim to fail to understand.

Lets assume someone DOES cheat and is caught

Do you think it is easier to

1) Study hard, retest and essentially wipe away your cheating (especially when you only need to make up less than 50% of the difference in scores)

or

2) Retain a lawyer, pay big money for that, and expose your cheating for the world so you are never admitted anywhere?

Seriously, you understand that. Don't try and claim you don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she cheated and not because of the score increase. That happens pretty frequently. I think that her test is EXACTLY like another test (probably from the internet) The one she copied and the computer caught it. There are many ways this can be done ( and doing it is not that hard) But most people don’t get caught. She did. She is also acting guilty by not retaking the test, or simply taking tha ACT instead. I suspect the evidence rather strong.

+1 . Between the $100k Gofundme campaign (which is going great BTW), hiring the civil rights lawyer and the ensuing media blitz she certainly is doing everything she can to look guilty and somewhat idiotic. If she were truly concerned with getting into college she would retake the test and get on with her life.

Of course there is always the CRAZY possibility that she is innocent and fighting for what she thinks is right, and maybe she is "truly concerned" about that.

Not everyone likes to bend over the sink when power is abused. If you enjoy that go ahead. She's exercising her rights and she'll live with the results of her choices.

Yes of courss, it's always an "abuse of power" when perpetrators are caught. And try to communicate without using vulgar analogies, if at all possible.

I am not saying she's innocent -- I am saying I don't know and neither do you, since neither of us have seen any evidence -- and in fact we don't even know what the evidence is. I am open minded to the possibility and not judging, and in favor of people who use due process in support of their rights. Why are you against that?

I know of many stories -- some repeated in this thread -- where kids were accused of cheating and retook the test to prove they didn't. Should they have been forced to do that?

Of course i"m all for due process and you're correct, I have no idea if she is innocent or guilty. My comment was directed at her behavior since she was accused and it certainly isn't consistent with somebody that is out to clear their name and prove their innocence. A serious student would immediately do what you've suggested and re-take the test....a comparable score would only support her claims. She can always pursue legal recourse at a later date but with the time pressure to get applications in I wouldn't see that as the immediate priority.

I agree with this. I think it is fine for her to seek legal counsel, however, she should also take steps to demonstrate that the score was legit. Why would she shy away from that. That behavior alone is suspicious. In the case mentioned earlier with the suit against ACT (score went from 21-26) at least the student retook the test and got a 23, and therefore the 26 was allowed. All that girl has to do is take another test. I think she is guilty and that is why she is not retaking.

So what you're saying is "I agree with this except I don't".

Can't have it both ways man.

Let the process play out. If they truly have evidence, it will come out and she will pay the price.

I will point out that taking the test again is the easy way out if she is GUILTY of cheating.

The bold makes absolutely no sense at all. Retaking the test is the easy way to make face and prove she knows the material at that level. Why go through all the stress of hiring an attorney and grand standing the issue, when all she has to do is take a test and be done. Obviously, she knows she cannot come close to that score again...otherwise, she would retest.

I'll explain since you claim to fail to understand.

Lets assume someone DOES cheat and is caught

Do you think it is easier to

1) Study hard, retest and essentially wipe away your cheating (especially when you only need to make up less than 50% of the difference in scores)

or

2) Retain a lawyer, pay big money for that, and expose your cheating for the world so you are never admitted anywhere?

Seriously, you understand that. Don't try and claim you don't.

Some village is obviously missing it's idiot. Find your way home please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll explain since you claim to fail to understand.

Lets assume someone DOES cheat and is caught

Do you think it is easier to

1) Study hard, retest and essentially wipe away your cheating (especially when you only need to make up less than 50% of the difference in scores)

or

2) Retain a lawyer, pay big money for that, and expose your cheating for the world so you are never admitted anywhere?

Seriously, you understand that. Don't try and claim you don't.

Some village is obviously missing it's idiot. Find your way home please.

Ahh the personal attack! No problem, I'll wait until you think of something substantive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll explain since you claim to fail to understand.

Lets assume someone DOES cheat and is caught

Do you think it is easier to

1) Study hard, retest and essentially wipe away your cheating (especially when you only need to make up less than 50% of the difference in scores)

or

2) Retain a lawyer, pay big money for that, and expose your cheating for the world so you are never admitted anywhere?

Seriously, you understand that. Don't try and claim you don't.

Some village is obviously missing it's idiot. Find your way home please.

Ahh the personal attack! No problem, I'll wait until you think of something substantive.

I've tried but you're a classic presentation of the Dunning-Kruger effect and you can't process basic logic so why bother?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll explain since you claim to fail to understand.

Lets assume someone DOES cheat and is caught

Do you think it is easier to

1) Study hard, retest and essentially wipe away your cheating (especially when you only need to make up less than 50% of the difference in scores)

or

2) Retain a lawyer, pay big money for that, and expose your cheating for the world so you are never admitted anywhere?

Seriously, you understand that. Don't try and claim you don't.

Some village is obviously missing it's idiot. Find your way home please.

Ahh the personal attack! No problem, I'll wait until you think of something substantive.

I've tried but you're a classic presentation of the Dunning-Kruger effect and you can't process basic logic so why bother?

Just to prove you're capable of it, if nothing else.

[Anonymous]

I'll explain since you claim to fail to understand.

Lets assume someone DOES cheat and is caught

Do you think it is easier to

1) Study hard, retest and essentially wipe away your cheating (especially when you only need to make up less than 50% of the difference in scores)

or

2) Retain a lawyer, pay big money for that, and expose your cheating for the world so you are never admitted anywhere?

Seriously, you understand that. Don't try and claim you don't.

This makes no sense at all. Someone who cheated would not likely be able to get a close enough score to the first one. And if the student takes the test under the retake conditions, there is no chance that cheating can occur, so replicating, or just getting close enough to the first score shows that the student can get a good score without cheating.

If someone did cheat and then retakes the test and gets a close enough score, well, then, good on them, they can now move on. There is no actual punishment for the cheating, other than ETS won't allow a score obtained by cheating to be sent to colleges. So getting a close enough score, or getting any score at all where the test is given in a one on one situation gives the student a score they are able to send out to colleges and they can then move forward. In a retest situation, colleges will never be informed that there was a cheating allegation.

Hiring a lawyer and going public, on the other hand, lets the whole world, including the colleges the student wants to apply to, know that there is an allegation that the student cheated. Plus, the student doesn't have a score that can be sent out. It is much easier, and a more efficient use of time, to prove that one did not cheat to simply retake the test under the conditions set out by the testing organization.

If someone didn't cheat, there is no useful reason to hire a lawyer and go public, and every reason to simply accept the offer of a free retake of the test to show that they earned the initial score fairly, and move forward in the application process with now two sets of scores which could possibly be super scored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'll explain since you claim to fail to understand.

Lets assume someone DOES cheat and is caught

Do you think it is easier to

1) Study hard, retest and essentially wipe away your cheating (especially when you only need to make up less than 50% of the difference in scores)

or

2) Retain a lawyer, pay big money for that, and expose your cheating for the world so you are never admitted anywhere?

Seriously, you understand that. Don't try and claim you don't.

This makes no sense at all. Someone who cheated would not likely be able to get a close enough score to the first one. And if the student takes the test under the retake conditions, there is no chance that cheating can occur, so replicating, or just getting close enough to the first score shows that the student can get a good score without cheating.

If someone did cheat and then retakes the test and gets a close enough score, well, then, good on them, they can now move on. There is no actual punishment for the cheating, other than ETS won't allow a score obtained by cheating to be sent to colleges. So getting a close enough score, or getting any score at all where the test is given in a one on one situation gives the student a score they are able to send out to colleges and they can then move forward. In a retest situation, colleges will never be informed that there was a cheating allegation.

Hiring a lawyer and going public, on the other hand, lets the whole world, including the colleges the student wants to apply to, know that there is an allegation that the student cheated. Plus, the student doesn't have a score that can be sent out. It is much easier, and a more efficient use of time, to prove that one did not cheat to simply retake the test under the conditions set out by the testing organization.

If someone didn't cheat, there is no useful reason to hire a lawyer and go public, and every reason to simply accept the offer of a free retake of the test to show that they earned the initial score fairly, and move forward in the application process with now two sets of scores which could possibly be super scored.

Sorry, I disagree and in fact think the logic you espouse makes no sense.

You are essentially saying "If you are innocent then do what they ask, if you are guilty then fight".

A corollary is "If you are guilty take the plea deal". Most do.

The innocent fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll explain since you claim to fail to understand.

Lets assume someone DOES cheat and is caught

Do you think it is easier to

1) Study hard, retest and essentially wipe away your cheating (especially when you only need to make up less than 50% of the difference in scores)

or

2) Retain a lawyer, pay big money for that, and expose your cheating for the world so you are never admitted anywhere?

Seriously, you understand that. Don't try and claim you don't.

This makes no sense at all. Someone who cheated would not likely be able to get a close enough score to the first one. And if the student takes the test under the retake conditions, there is no chance that cheating can occur, so replicating, or just getting close enough to the first score shows that the student can get a good score without cheating.

If someone did cheat and then retakes the test and gets a close enough score, well, then, good on them, they can now move on. There is no actual punishment for the cheating, other than ETS won't allow a score obtained by cheating to be sent to colleges. So getting a close enough score, or getting any score at all where the test is given in a one on one situation gives the student a score they are able to send out to colleges and they can then move forward. In a retest situation, colleges will never be informed that there was a cheating allegation.

Hiring a lawyer and going public, on the other hand, lets the whole world, including the colleges the student wants to apply to, know that there is an allegation that the student cheated. Plus, the student doesn't have a score that can be sent out. It is much easier, and a more efficient use of time, to prove that one did not cheat to simply retake the test under the conditions set out by the testing organization.

If someone didn't cheat, there is no useful reason to hire a lawyer and go public, and every reason to simply accept the offer of a free retake of the test to show that they earned the initial score fairly, and move forward in the application process with now two sets of scores which could possibly be super scored.

Sorry, I disagree and in fact think the logic you espouse makes no sense.

You are essentially saying "If you are innocent then do what they ask, if you are guilty then fight".

A corollary is "If you are guilty take the plea deal". Most do.

The innocent fight.

I don't see it the way you do.

"Taking the plea deal" is not a good analogy to retaking the test. I see retaking the test as similar to "going to court to prove your innocence."

Luckily, these kids are being charged as criminals for suspected cheating however.

So the girl who took the SAT and was accused of cheating in a sense did not "go to court to prove her innocence" because she lacked the proof -- the proof being a retake of the test to demonstrate ability to score in that range. Instead she has a temper tantrum similar to what we have been observing in the oval office for the past couple of years. As DT would say "Witch Hunt!!!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll explain since you claim to fail to understand.

Lets assume someone DOES cheat and is caught

Do you think it is easier to

1) Study hard, retest and essentially wipe away your cheating (especially when you only need to make up less than 50% of the difference in scores)

or

2) Retain a lawyer, pay big money for that, and expose your cheating for the world so you are never admitted anywhere?

Seriously, you understand that. Don't try and claim you don't.

This makes no sense at all. Someone who cheated would not likely be able to get a close enough score to the first one. And if the student takes the test under the retake conditions, there is no chance that cheating can occur, so replicating, or just getting close enough to the first score shows that the student can get a good score without cheating.

If someone did cheat and then retakes the test and gets a close enough score, well, then, good on them, they can now move on. There is no actual punishment for the cheating, other than ETS won't allow a score obtained by cheating to be sent to colleges. So getting a close enough score, or getting any score at all where the test is given in a one on one situation gives the student a score they are able to send out to colleges and they can then move forward. In a retest situation, colleges will never be informed that there was a cheating allegation.

Hiring a lawyer and going public, on the other hand, lets the whole world, including the colleges the student wants to apply to, know that there is an allegation that the student cheated. Plus, the student doesn't have a score that can be sent out. It is much easier, and a more efficient use of time, to prove that one did not cheat to simply retake the test under the conditions set out by the testing organization.

If someone didn't cheat, there is no useful reason to hire a lawyer and go public, and every reason to simply accept the offer of a free retake of the test to show that they earned the initial score fairly, and move forward in the application process with now two sets of scores which could possibly be super scored.

Sorry, I disagree and in fact think the logic you espouse makes no sense.

You are essentially saying "If you are innocent then do what they ask, if you are guilty then fight".

A corollary is "If you are guilty take the plea deal". Most do.

The innocent fight.

I don't see it the way you do.

"Taking the plea deal" is not a good analogy to retaking the test. I see retaking the test as similar to "going to court to prove your innocence."

Luckily, these kids are being charged as criminals for suspected cheating however.

So the girl who took the SAT and was accused of cheating in a sense did not "go to court to prove her innocence" because she lacked the proof -- the proof being a retake of the test to demonstrate ability to score in that range. Instead she has a temper tantrum similar to what we have been observing in the oval office for the past couple of years. As DT would say "Witch Hunt!!!"

Sorry for the word ommision. Should have read "Luckily, these kids are NOT being charged as criminals for suspected cheating however."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll explain since you claim to fail to understand.

Lets assume someone DOES cheat and is caught

Do you think it is easier to

1) Study hard, retest and essentially wipe away your cheating (especially when you only need to make up less than 50% of the difference in scores)

or

2) Retain a lawyer, pay big money for that, and expose your cheating for the world so you are never admitted anywhere?

Seriously, you understand that. Don't try and claim you don't.

This makes no sense at all. Someone who cheated would not likely be able to get a close enough score to the first one. And if the student takes the test under the retake conditions, there is no chance that cheating can occur, so replicating, or just getting close enough to the first score shows that the student can get a good score without cheating.

If someone did cheat and then retakes the test and gets a close enough score, well, then, good on them, they can now move on. There is no actual punishment for the cheating, other than ETS won't allow a score obtained by cheating to be sent to colleges. So getting a close enough score, or getting any score at all where the test is given in a one on one situation gives the student a score they are able to send out to colleges and they can then move forward. In a retest situation, colleges will never be informed that there was a cheating allegation.

Hiring a lawyer and going public, on the other hand, lets the whole world, including the colleges the student wants to apply to, know that there is an allegation that the student cheated. Plus, the student doesn't have a score that can be sent out. It is much easier, and a more efficient use of time, to prove that one did not cheat to simply retake the test under the conditions set out by the testing organization.

If someone didn't cheat, there is no useful reason to hire a lawyer and go public, and every reason to simply accept the offer of a free retake of the test to show that they earned the initial score fairly, and move forward in the application process with now two sets of scores which could possibly be super scored.

Sorry, I disagree and in fact think the logic you espouse makes no sense.

You are essentially saying "If you are innocent then do what they ask, if you are guilty then fight".

A corollary is "If you are guilty take the plea deal". Most do.

The innocent fight.

I don't see it the way you do.

"Taking the plea deal" is not a good analogy to retaking the test. I see retaking the test as similar to "going to court to prove your innocence."

Luckily, these kids are being charged as criminals for suspected cheating however.

So the girl who took the SAT and was accused of cheating in a sense did not "go to court to prove her innocence" because she lacked the proof -- the proof being a retake of the test to demonstrate ability to score in that range. Instead she has a temper tantrum similar to what we have been observing in the oval office for the past couple of years. As DT would say "Witch Hunt!!!"

Here's the thing... in this country, no one goes "to court to prove (their) innocence". Burden of proof is on the accuser. What she is doing with the court case is moving that burden back to them... which is not a thing you are likely to do if you are guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll explain since you claim to fail to understand.

Lets assume someone DOES cheat and is caught

Do you think it is easier to

1) Study hard, retest and essentially wipe away your cheating (especially when you only need to make up less than 50% of the difference in scores)

or

2) Retain a lawyer, pay big money for that, and expose your cheating for the world so you are never admitted anywhere?

Seriously, you understand that. Don't try and claim you don't.

This makes no sense at all. Someone who cheated would not likely be able to get a close enough score to the first one. And if the student takes the test under the retake conditions, there is no chance that cheating can occur, so replicating, or just getting close enough to the first score shows that the student can get a good score without cheating.

If someone did cheat and then retakes the test and gets a close enough score, well, then, good on them, they can now move on. There is no actual punishment for the cheating, other than ETS won't allow a score obtained by cheating to be sent to colleges. So getting a close enough score, or getting any score at all where the test is given in a one on one situation gives the student a score they are able to send out to colleges and they can then move forward. In a retest situation, colleges will never be informed that there was a cheating allegation.

Hiring a lawyer and going public, on the other hand, lets the whole world, including the colleges the student wants to apply to, know that there is an allegation that the student cheated. Plus, the student doesn't have a score that can be sent out. It is much easier, and a more efficient use of time, to prove that one did not cheat to simply retake the test under the conditions set out by the testing organization.

If someone didn't cheat, there is no useful reason to hire a lawyer and go public, and every reason to simply accept the offer of a free retake of the test to show that they earned the initial score fairly, and move forward in the application process with now two sets of scores which could possibly be super scored.

Sorry, I disagree and in fact think the logic you espouse makes no sense.

You are essentially saying "If you are innocent then do what they ask, if you are guilty then fight".

A corollary is "If you are guilty take the plea deal". Most do.

The innocent fight.

I am saying, “If you did not cheat, accept the offer to retake the test for free and get a the same or close to the same score. That will show that you earned the score you did without looking at someone else’s test.”

That’s all. Just follow the procedure that the organization has set up for these situations. If you are one of the 1500-2000 or so people that get this letter every year and you did not cheat, follow the procedure outlined in the letter you receive. Another option is to have your school send in your transcript and other test results to show that the questioned scores are actually right in line with the work you usually do at school. If you did not cheat, one of these methods should certify your disputed score.

I am also saying, “If you did cheat, go ahead and take the free retest and see what happens. It’s free, so it’s no skin off your nose either way. If you do well enough to certify the disputed score, you’re home free and you got away with it. If you don’t do well, it doesn’t matter. ETS won’t tell anyone about their allegations. You can just try again another time or take the other test. Maybe try actually studying and not cheating the next time.”

I wouldn’t suggest to either person that getting a lawyer and making a public statement about the allegations is a good idea. This is not a criminal situation, there is no court of law, no plea deal, no possibility of fines of punishments. It is just a private business doing what they can to maintain the integrity of their process. Sometimes they send out these letters and they are wrong. If they are wrong, it is a simple matter to prove that they are wrong. No need for lawyers or fundraisers, since the retest offered is free to the test taker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll explain since you claim to fail to understand.

Lets assume someone DOES cheat and is caught

Do you think it is easier to

1) Study hard, retest and essentially wipe away your cheating (especially when you only need to make up less than 50% of the difference in scores)

or

2) Retain a lawyer, pay big money for that, and expose your cheating for the world so you are never admitted anywhere?

Seriously, you understand that. Don't try and claim you don't.

This makes no sense at all. Someone who cheated would not likely be able to get a close enough score to the first one. And if the student takes the test under the retake conditions, there is no chance that cheating can occur, so replicating, or just getting close enough to the first score shows that the student can get a good score without cheating.

If someone did cheat and then retakes the test and gets a close enough score, well, then, good on them, they can now move on. There is no actual punishment for the cheating, other than ETS won't allow a score obtained by cheating to be sent to colleges. So getting a close enough score, or getting any score at all where the test is given in a one on one situation gives the student a score they are able to send out to colleges and they can then move forward. In a retest situation, colleges will never be informed that there was a cheating allegation.

Hiring a lawyer and going public, on the other hand, lets the whole world, including the colleges the student wants to apply to, know that there is an allegation that the student cheated. Plus, the student doesn't have a score that can be sent out. It is much easier, and a more efficient use of time, to prove that one did not cheat to simply retake the test under the conditions set out by the testing organization.

If someone didn't cheat, there is no useful reason to hire a lawyer and go public, and every reason to simply accept the offer of a free retake of the test to show that they earned the initial score fairly, and move forward in the application process with now two sets of scores which could possibly be super scored.

Sorry, I disagree and in fact think the logic you espouse makes no sense.

You are essentially saying "If you are innocent then do what they ask, if you are guilty then fight".

A corollary is "If you are guilty take the plea deal". Most do.

The innocent fight.

I don't see it the way you do.

"Taking the plea deal" is not a good analogy to retaking the test. I see retaking the test as similar to "going to court to prove your innocence."

Luckily, these kids are being charged as criminals for suspected cheating however.

So the girl who took the SAT and was accused of cheating in a sense did not "go to court to prove her innocence" because she lacked the proof -- the proof being a retake of the test to demonstrate ability to score in that range. Instead she has a temper tantrum similar to what we have been observing in the oval office for the past couple of years. As DT would say "Witch Hunt!!!"

Here's the thing... in this country, no one goes "to court to prove (their) innocence". Burden of proof is on the accuser. What she is doing with the court case is moving that burden back to them... which is not a thing you are likely to do if you are guilty.

Nice try, but as I mentioned, these are not criminal cases. When using these analogies, you must keep this in mind. Burden of proof is on the accused in this situation unfortunately. ACT is a private organization. They can administer these tests and decide when things look fishy. There is no court system or police involved. You are pretty much at their mercy, but the resolution is so simple. RETAKE THE TEST. Then you are done. Trying to fight it with a high profile lawyer in the media is over the top and a cop out for someone who clearly would never be able to get that score under the controlled conditions of a retake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am saying, “If you did not cheat, accept the offer to retake the test for free and get a the same or close to the same score. That will show that you earned the score you did without looking at someone else’s test.”

That’s all. Just follow the procedure that the organization has set up for these situations. If you are one of the 1500-2000 or so people that get this letter every year and you did not cheat, follow the procedure outlined in the letter you receive. Another option is to have your school send in your transcript and other test results to show that the questioned scores are actually right in line with the work you usually do at school. If you did not cheat, one of these methods should certify your disputed score.

I am also saying, “If you did cheat, go ahead and take the free retest and see what happens. It’s free, so it’s no skin off your nose either way. If you do well enough to certify the disputed score, you’re home free and you got away with it. If you don’t do well, it doesn’t matter. ETS won’t tell anyone about their allegations. You can just try again another time or take the other test. Maybe try actually studying and not cheating the next time.”

I wouldn’t suggest to either person that getting a lawyer and making a public statement about the allegations is a good idea. This is not a criminal situation, there is no court of law, no plea deal, no possibility of fines of punishments. It is just a private business doing what they can to maintain the integrity of their process. Sometimes they send out these letters and they are wrong. If they are wrong, it is a simple matter to prove that they are wrong. No need for lawyers or fundraisers, since the retest offered is free to the test taker.

At least two people feel the "the procedure that the organization has set up for these situations" is unfair and should be fought in court. I must repeat, it is ridiculous to assume guilt because of refusal to participate in a process that is deemed unfair. That's the whole frickin' point. Fighting an unfair system.