USAFA Cheating Scandal

...you lack many details...

This is a late post on this thread...I just now came across these messages.

The public announcement as posted in the news media was flat out wrong. The exams were NOT conducted outside of the classrooms. The exams were proctored and in the classrooms. The news article stated the exams were conducted on the Cadets' own time and un-proctored. That was not true. The Cadets were given practice assignments using the exact same software to complete in their dorm rooms, un-proctored. But the exams were later conducted in the classrooms. The news articles were fundamentally flawed in their reporting on this issue.

As some of you noted earlier, very important details never made it into the public media. Therefore, your discussions are fundamentally flawed, no fault of your own. Please don't assume that the teachers and mentors are ignorant and foolish. They are dealing with a generation of young people that probably cheated on exams while in High School.
 
You're right on Paco. If you read through the thread, that was my frustration with all of the "stone throwers". No one knew or even seemed to care about the facts AND most of the details that were reported were all wrong. All of the negative comments came well before the leadership was able to fully address the situation so the comments in this thread were based on speculation and conjecture to assume what the leadership and staff were or were not doing about the issue. You'll notice when I circled back a few months later and ask if anyone knew (factually) what the final outcome was, no one did. So yes you are right, the teachers, staff, and leadership did the right thing even though they were never given the proper consideration of the facts in this forum.
 
Beating dead horses....

OK, enough - at this point everything that should have been said has been said. The matter is settled, let's move on.
 
OK, enough - at this point everything that should have been said has been said. The matter is settled, let's move on.

You would have thought so, but we have a new poster who felt it necessary to revive the thread after it lay dormant for 6 months.

Supposedly his information will "set us all straight" so I don't see anything wrong with scoutpilot asking for some clarification from our "new inside source."
 
Luigi,

The new poster Paco should have read the entirety of this thread before he made the contribution of "new" information. It was not new information, and those points were stated earlier by other posters in the thread. BTW, check Paco's profile - the contributor has only one post. One. And all he did was to kick up a thread that has been dormant for months by providing "facts" that are not complete either. The manner in which cadets were found to have used Wolfram varied greatly, not all of them did worse on their finals, not all of them used Wolfram during the proctored exams. The results of the finals resulted in a wide spread investigation that netted a large number of cadets. Due to privacy concerns we may never really know the extent of this, i.e. the EE test scandal at the Naval Academy involved hundreds of upperclassmen, but only several dozen (many whom admitted to the charges) faced discipline and were identified.

My inside sources tell me that the cadets who were offered redemption must really want to be there. Probation is not something to be made light of: Every one in cadet leadership knew who the Wolfram Cadets were, the Squadron Cadre knew who they were. Cadets who are on probation do not wear rank on their uniforms and the entire wing pretty much knows that you might be one of "those" cadets, the instructors are suspicious of the cadets who are on probation, and you cannot leave campus. My understanding is that less than half of the Wolfram cadets completed probation, some simply could not deal with the situation, others apparently had other infractions and were forced to leave. As I stated before, those who are still there must want to be there and were deemed by their peers, as well as the cadet and academy leadership to be worthy of such an opportunity. I, for one, would not be so strident in suggesting that their fate be worse than it had been for the past 6 months and now that the matter is done, we should all move on.
 
Last edited:
..and now that the matter is done, we should all move on.

Last I checked, this was a discussion forum. I didn't see anything in any of the recent posts that violated the TOS.

Two quotes come to mind:

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."

Edmund Burke (often attributed to George Santayana)

"Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."

Justice Louis Brandeis
 
Luigi, I do not object to discussion - I do object to endless rehashing of old information with that brings nothing new to the table. I also do not advocate repeating errors or ignoring the lessons to be learned. But I cannot see any benefit to continuing this thread any further. It is done and there are other things we can focus on.
 
Luigi, I do not object to discussion - I do object to endless rehashing of old information with that brings nothing new to the table. I also do not advocate repeating errors or ignoring the lessons to be learned. But I cannot see any benefit to continuing this thread any further. It is done and there are other things we can focus on.

Respectfully disagree that this is rehashing of old information, rather this is discussion about our discussion.

As some of you noted earlier, very important details never made it into the public media. Therefore, your discussions are fundamentally flawed, no fault of your own. Please don't assume that the teachers and mentors are ignorant and foolish. They are dealing with a generation of young people that probably cheated on exams while in High School.

The way I read Paco's message is that since we didn't have all the facts our discussion was flawed and what AFA did cannot be questioned by us. Perhaps my reading skills can be improved or Paco can better explain to me what I might have misunderstood.
 
Back
Top