Hundreds of Air Force Academy cadets suspected of cheating during pandemic-induced online learning

[MidCakePa]

The military is not a business — at least not in the traditional sense of delivering a profit to shareholders. Therefore, a traditional ROI calculation is not only irrelevant but also misleading.

Typical ROI calculations compare apples to apples, i.e. a dollar invested yields an incremental dollar downstream. But the military — specifically officer development and officer output — cannot be measured so simply. Looking solely at years served is a woefully inadequate measuring stick.

Of course, as a taxpayer, I want the military to spend its funds wisely and prudently. No more $900 ashtrays in transport planes (or whatever it was). But it’s always interesting to see sticklers use episodes such as this to justify their so-called reformist agenda.

In the end, the military isn’t trying to maximize yield 10 or 20 years downstream. It is, however, trying to optimize that yield. The goal is not to ensure that a lot of officers make flag rank, but to make sure it’s the best ones that do. The military is, after all, not meant to be a lifetime employment plan. And neither are corporations — at least at the senior management level.

 

[Navy555]

The fact that thousands of applicants are denied ever year, only to have many of those selected engage in widespread cheating is pretty depressing.

 

[A1Janitor]

The fact that thousands of applicants are denied ever year, only to have many of those selected engage in widespread cheating is pretty depressing.

You assume the cheating has nothing to do with the rigor of the academies ... where plebes took the wrong choice (and should be punished harshly IMO) ... and the academies picking the wrong candidates who wouldn’t cheat.

There would be a percentage of the other candidates that didn’t get in that would take the wrong path too.

 

[StPaulDad]

There's always a temptation to over-simplify the world, to think that there was a single place where the right decision would have made all the difference, that each person is a single consistent type that can be counted on to always act in one way, that there is always evidence to support a correct choice, etc. Life is full of choices with incomplete data or unsatisfying outcomes that can't always wait for clarity. You make your decisions at the time in the place with the tools at hand at that moment. Deal with people where they are now, help them get where they need to go, and maintain the standards how best you can without burning the place down around you. It's always been a balancing act, serving some needs that are not always readily apparent and trying to keep pace with a world that has changed several times over in the many generations these schools have been operating. Give some credit to the folks trying to make these decisions by accepting that they face a complex problem painted in more greys than blacks or whites.

 

[justme]

Despite requests for references on this, he has provided NOTHING to back it up.

www.cna.org › PDF › d0016...PDF
Retention of Female Surface Warfare Officers - CNA

Ironically i saw this yesterday while looking for something else. Its a bit dated and specific to women SWOs, but does show some credence to OCS retention > ROTC > USNA...at least in some cases.

I still believe each type is needed regardless of efficiency.

I

 

[SOG-SA]

There's always a temptation to over-simplify the world, to think that there was a single place where the right decision would have made all the difference, that each person is a single consistent type that can be counted on to always act in one way, that there is always evidence to support a correct choice, etc. Life is full of choices with incomplete data or unsatisfying outcomes that can't always wait for clarity. You make your decisions at the time in the place with the tools at hand at that moment. Deal with people where they are now, help them get where they need to go, and maintain the standards how best you can without burning the place down around you. It's always been a balancing act, serving some needs that are not always readily apparent and trying to keep pace with a world that has changed several times over in the many generations these schools have been operating. Give some credit to the folks trying to make these decisions by accepting that they face a complex problem painted in more greys than blacks or whites.

I understand your thought process....and to a certain extent, appreciate the perspective. The fact that it was an articulate expression of your opinion adds weight to your comments.

But we're talking about a very basic, very straightforward issue, here.

You (hypothetically) have an exam to take. You have TWO choices. Do your own work, or cheat (in one of countless ways available to kids, now...thanks to internet/software/apps/etc).

You either do right, or do wrong. Where's that "grey area" you speak of? With respect to SA Staff, Administration, Leaders...how can you claim to require that students abide by the honor code of the institution, then flex, when it's violated? That removes the very principles the code was developed to enforce.

NOT picking a fight, here.....so please don't misinterpret my comments as such. I just don't see how anyone could see that cheating occurred, that it was admitted to by those that did, and explain it away by suggesting that the current (or former) general environment is a potential and plausible excuse for such actions.

Maybe I'm the odd man out......but where I came from, either you did your own work, or you took from others. The value of each is drastically different.

 

[RailsUSAFAMN]

This sums it up in 14 words, Period!!

 

[StPaulDad]

The argument that somehow picking the right kids would have avoided this is magical thinking. Part of my point is that not all choices do have clear and correct answers.

But on a different front, the fact is that at some point the academy model changed from casting a wide net and throwing back anyone who didn't meet the standard to bringing in a smaller cohort and getting the vast majority of them through the process. The standards for throwing folks out changed over that time, not for the biggest most obvious cheating cases, but for a lot of smaller things. The fact is there has to be room for nuance now because they don't bring in enough cadets to throw away 25% anymore, so context matters in ways it didn't used to. If they were passing around answer sheets it's a no doubter, if they were sloppy about footnotes on minor supporting facts it's perhaps a place for warnings, and if they were treading a line anywhere near plagiarism it gets murky fast. I honestly don't know what "using unauthorized tutoring websites" might do for you, but I have very clear ideas about "receiving solutions to exam questions in real time and completing final exams in small groups." According to the story they aren't done processing these cases, so there's still a chance many could be bounced.

 

[SOG-SA]

The argument that somehow picking the right kids would have avoided this is magical thinking. Part of my point is that not all choices do have clear and correct answers.

But on a different front, the fact is that at some point the academy model changed from casting a wide net and throwing back anyone who didn't meet the standard to bringing in a smaller cohort and getting the vast majority of them through the process. The standards for throwing folks out changed over that time, not for the biggest most obvious cheating cases, but for a lot of smaller things. The fact is there has to be room for nuance now because they don't bring in enough cadets to throw away 25% anymore, so context matters in ways it didn't used to. If they were passing around answer sheets it's a no doubter, if they were sloppy about footnotes on minor supporting facts it's perhaps a place for warnings, and if they were treading a line anywhere near plagiarism it gets murky fast. I honestly don't know what "using unauthorized tutoring websites" might do for you, but I have very clear ideas about "receiving solutions to exam questions in real time and completing final exams in small groups." According to the story they aren't done processing these cases, so there's still a chance many could be bounced.

In that...I agree. Not ALL choices have clear and correct answers, in life.

But with respect to cheating, the choices are very clear.

You cheat = you're wrong. You're in violation of the oath you took...and went against the code you agreed to adhere to.

You don't cheat = you did the right thing, played by the rules, and advanced under your own steam...like you should. You didn't take shortcuts, didn't take advantage of the easy way out, and didn't try to sell another person's work as your own.

Military officers are supposed to be the example that junior service members look to for leadership and guidance. The standard by which all others are measured and molded. If those officers can't even make it through school without cheating...and they're allowed to press forward...what precedent does that set?

 

[OldRetSWO]

www.cna.org › PDF › d0016...PDF
Retention of Female Surface Warfare Officers - CNA

Ironically i saw this yesterday while looking for something else. Its a bit dated and specific to women SWOs, but does show some credence to OCS retention > ROTC > USNA...at least in some cases.

I still believe each type is needed regardless of efficiency.

Study from 2007.
Retention of female SWOs is a definite issue that is far beyond commissioning source and has recently been
a hotly discussed topic on a major SWO social media site. Basically, the major issue reported by female SWOs
is the career path has a lot of time that is not really compatible with raising children unless there is adequate
family support available. There is a lot more to this than can or should be discussed here but this can be a
huge issue for SWOs in general and female SWOs in particular.

 

[lipton_hot_tea]

I posted this in the other thread but are they looking at why the students felt the need to cheat in the first place? What happened that they fell behind? Maybe they could give more non-graded assessments and refer to tutoring early on?

 

[USAFA10s]

I posted this in the other thread but are they looking at why the students felt the need to cheat in the first place? What happened that they fell behind? Maybe they could give more non-graded assessments and refer to tutoring early on?

Because USAFA - by necessity - is a high stress, high pressure environment. Your grades can determine your job, failing means you might not graduate, and you never, ever have enough time to do everything you are supposed to do.

The temptation to cheat will always be there - cadets know when they are not learning the material, and most seek help early. It's when you have a pile up of duties and events that prevent taking the time to get help that problems happen. In this case - the temptation was even higher because it's just easier to cheat remotely than in person. It's difficult to explain the pressure if you haven't been there. Everyone thinks they'll do the right thing until they are truly tested. The problem of choosing applicants that handle the pressure the right way is a tough one and admissions doesn't always get it right, but they do a pretty good job.

I do wish USAFA would return to the model that involved a much higher attrition rate though - in my book if you can't handle the pressure and decided to cheat, you really shouldn't get a second chance (with the possible exception of freshman, but even then, they better show some serious changes while on honor probation).