USAFA Cheating Scandal

[Christcorp]

My biggest disappointment in this and similar threads, is the lack of trust and respect so many have for the academies. In the military, we live in a world that by design, we have to trust that those above us or in charge, will make the best decisions based on the facts presented to them, and what is in the best interest of the military. And we have learned to to live with, accept, and respect those decisions. Even if we don't always agree with those decisions.

Yet, in this and similar threads, that is not how many ate behaving. Many think they know all the facts. They don't. Many think they are in the position to make the best decision. You aren't. Many think they can see the big picture and knows what's best for the military. You can't. What this shows is disrespect and lack of trust in the military. Very sad. If everything was as clear cut, black and white as u think; and the media provided all the facts, "yea right", then there wouldn't even be a need to investigate. But that isn't how it is. That's what is so disappointing. Not the cheating or possible disciplinary actions, but the lack of respect and trust some have in the academy and the military.

 

[Luigi59]

Many think they know all the facts. They don't.

Then let's talk about what we do know....

• Were the cadets allowed to access the internet during the test they were taking?

The Air Force Academy spokesman says "no, they were not." So if they did, wouldn't you call that cheating? I think you would. Therefore, we know they were cheating.

• Does the USAFA have an honor code that allows cheating?

From what I read, clearly they do not.

• Does the USAFA have an honor code that tolerates cheating?

From what I read, clearly they do not.


So.....we KNOW they were cheating, and we KNOW the honor code doesn't allow cheating, and we KNOW the honor code doesn't allow the cadets to tolerate ANYONE who was cheating.

Now what don't we know that would change any of these facts?

 

[falconfamily]

Now what don't we know that would change any of these facts?

Each individual case. We don't know the specifics of each case and will never really know that.

By the way here is another thing to consider. In 1951 West Point had a honor scandal where tests questions were being provided to members of the football team, it was willful and systematic. In the end, many of those cadets were dismissed, but were still allowed to get their commissions via ROTC. A number of those cadets served in the Korean war and had distinguished service records. A couple retired as Generals. I am in no way condoning what they did as cadets, but as hornetguy detailed in his post, people are capable of being remediated and leading productive careers at the academy and the military.

 

[EDelahanty]

Each individual case. We don't know the specifics of each case and will never really know that.

By the way here is another thing to consider. In 1951 West Point had a honor scandal where tests questions were being provided to members of the football team, it was willful and systematic. In the end, many of those cadets were dismissed, but were still allowed to get their commissions via ROTC. A number of those cadets served in the Korean war and had distinguished service records. A couple retired as Generals.

Where there's a will, there's a Waiver

 

[MemberLG]

I can't help but notice how many times I see derogatory posts about USAFA, USNA, and USMA from posters that have ties to another academy. It just may be an error in perception on my part, but there are certain posters that seem to posts articles on here that do not present those academies in a good light.
I have been on this site for almost 4 years and have noticed it for a good portion of that time.
I am not trying to justify what happened, or even sweep it under the rug. I am just trying to state my perception of some of the posters.

Two parts, I don't think this forum discussion is limited to good things happening at SAs and sometimes intention doesn't matter.

I believe the purpose of this form is to educate and inform people interested in SAs. As a grad, FFR, National Guard officer, and parent, I learned a thing or two from this forum.

What if I want to make Navy or AFA look bad? If my attack against other SA is baseless, no one will defend me or paid attention. But, if I bring a valid point, there will be a discussion. I do think that thread is pretty good because we are having some interesting and good discussion about the Honor Code.

I think most grads have a better understanding of the Honor code not beause we are better rather we lived under the Honor Code for four years.

I'll be the first to admit, that West Point had similiar incidents that could have started similiar discussions

- the current quarterback committed an honor violation and was retained
- a case of sexual assault by a cadet again another cadet that went to a Court Martial
- a grad, a BDE commander in active duty, getting court martialed.

If I post these things, the discussions would have been something along the line does athelets get treated differently, do administrations do enough to prevent sexual assaults, conducts of grad indicative of the SA, and so on.

 

[Rawrbert]

Long time lurker and rising C3C here,

I took Calc 2 this past semester and will give some facts about the situation.

The test was administered online through USAFA's WebWork page. My teacher made it very clear that no resources were allowed to be used during the FSE; resources being calculators, notes, Wolfram, Google, etc. The only thing that we were supposed to have open on our computers was the WebWork page with the FSE test, nothing else. Since the test was being done online, an internet connection was needed to load the test page and submit the test.

Before the FSE, we had 8 FSPAs which were pretty much practice FSEs which we were allowed to use resources on(including Wolfram); we just had to document how many problems we used resources for. 7 of the FSPAs were graded and accounted for 14% of the total course grade. 6 of the FSPAs were on integrals (the other 2 on derivatives) and completing the first 5 integral FSPAs would lower the score needed to pass the FSE depending on how many you completed.
From the course letter,
Integral FSPAs successfully completed Passing Grade
0 90%
1 85%
2 80%
3 75%
4 70%
5 60%


The FSPAs consisted of 55 problems exactly like the ones found on the FSE. We needed to complete at least 50 problems to get credit for the FSPA and lower our required passing score. If the cadet did all the integral FSPAs, he/she would have done over 300 integration problems in preparation for the FSE.

Failing the FSE would not have guaranteed a failure in the course. It was worth 100 points/1000 total course points, so failing it would have made it somewhat difficult to pass depending on how many points the cadet has already dropped over the course of the semester, but in reality after the FSE there was a possible 360 points left that could be earned. Cadets who fail the FSE aren't likely to be getting all 360 points (since they have demonstrated that they aren't proficient at integrating, a vital part of integral calculus) and would probably end up failing the course.

My personal opinion on the matter is that my teacher was very clear on what we were allowed to use during the test, I would assume that the other teachers were clear on this as well. Additionally, I'm almost positive that for everyone in Calc 2, it was not the first time taking an FSE, because we had one for Calc 1 in the Fall (although on derivatives) and my roommate who was taking Calc 2 at that time said that he had one as well. The rules were the same back then, nothing changed between semesters.

Personally, I was called in to meet my teacher because I viewed Wolfram the day of my FSE, although in my situation I went on to Wolfram the period before I took my FSE to do some last-minute reviewing. The main issue is that too many cadets were using Wolfram to just give them the answer so they could get the FSPAs over with and not take the time to actually learn how to solve the problems. I'll admit that I used Wolfram when I did my FSPAs, mostly on questions that stumped me, but instead of just copy/pasting the answer, I would use the Show Steps button to learn how Wolfram solved it. My teacher warned us in class not to rely on Wolfram, because we'd be screwed for the FSE and the final, but people passing the in-class FSE with nearly perfect scores and failing the FSE on the final with extremely low scores alerted that something was up. It wasn't hard for them to see who used it in class since they keep logs of every single website you visit using the wireless network, but I wouldn't be surprised if some cadets used their phones to get the answers and got away with it.

Overall, everyone knew the rules, any cadet who is trying to spin it to say that it was administered improperly is just trying to snake their way through the fact that they got caught. These cadets brought it upon themselves and I think deserve to get a lot more than just remediation. We took the test on Lesson 35, that's months into the semester and well after Recognition for us freshmen. We were given hundreds of problems to practice so that we'd only have to get 12 questions correct on a single test. The teachers would go over FSPA problems in class that the students were having trouble with and it's not like they weren't available for EI for all 34 lessons prior. Everything was there to help prepare us for this test, which we all knew about since it's in both our syllabus and the course letter. There was no reason that anyone should have cheated on that test. I see the purpose of the honor board in cases where the facts may be a bit more construed and remediation may be the best option, but because the cheating was so blatant and the blame is solely with the offenders, in my opinion disenrollment may be the best course of action.

 

[Luigi59]

Long time lurker and rising C3C here,

I took Calc 2 this past semester and will give some facts about the situation.

The test was administered online through USAFA's WebWork page. My teacher made it very clear that no resources were allowed to be used during the FSE; resources being calculators, notes, Wolfram, Google, etc. The only thing that we were supposed to have open on our computers was the WebWork page with the FSE test, nothing else. Since the test was being done online, an internet connection was needed to load the test page and submit the test.

Before the FSE, we had 8 FSPAs which were pretty much practice FSEs which we were allowed to use resources on(including Wolfram); we just had to document how many problems we used resources for. 7 of the FSPAs were graded and accounted for 14% of the total course grade. 6 of the FSPAs were on integrals (the other 2 on derivatives) and completing the first 5 integral FSPAs would lower the score needed to pass the FSE depending on how many you completed.
From the course letter,
Integral FSPAs successfully completed Passing Grade
0 90%
1 85%
2 80%
3 75%
4 70%
5 60%


The FSPAs consisted of 55 problems exactly like the ones found on the FSE. We needed to complete at least 50 problems to get credit for the FSPA and lower our required passing score. If the cadet did all the integral FSPAs, he/she would have done over 300 integration problems in preparation for the FSE.

Failing the FSE would not have guaranteed a failure in the course. It was worth 100 points/1000 total course points, so failing it would have made it somewhat difficult to pass depending on how many points the cadet has already dropped over the course of the semester, but in reality after the FSE there was a possible 360 points left that could be earned. Cadets who fail the FSE aren't likely to be getting all 360 points (since they have demonstrated that they aren't proficient at integrating, a vital part of integral calculus) and would probably end up failing the course.

My personal opinion on the matter is that my teacher was very clear on what we were allowed to use during the test, I would assume that the other teachers were clear on this as well. Additionally, I'm almost positive that for everyone in Calc 2, it was not the first time taking an FSE, because we had one for Calc 1 in the Fall (although on derivatives) and my roommate who was taking Calc 2 at that time said that he had one as well. The rules were the same back then, nothing changed between semesters.

Personally, I was called in to meet my teacher because I viewed Wolfram the day of my FSE, although in my situation I went on to Wolfram the period before I took my FSE to do some last-minute reviewing. The main issue is that too many cadets were using Wolfram to just give them the answer so they could get the FSPAs over with and not take the time to actually learn how to solve the problems. I'll admit that I used Wolfram when I did my FSPAs, mostly on questions that stumped me, but instead of just copy/pasting the answer, I would use the Show Steps button to learn how Wolfram solved it. My teacher warned us in class not to rely on Wolfram, because we'd be screwed for the FSE and the final, but people passing the in-class FSE with nearly perfect scores and failing the FSE on the final with extremely low scores alerted that something was up. It wasn't hard for them to see who used it in class since they keep logs of every single website you visit using the wireless network, but I wouldn't be surprised if some cadets used their phones to get the answers and got away with it.

Overall, everyone knew the rules, any cadet who is trying to spin it to say that it was administered improperly is just trying to snake their way through the fact that they got caught. These cadets brought it upon themselves and I think deserve to get a lot more than just remediation. We took the test on Lesson 35, that's months into the semester and well after Recognition for us freshmen. We were given hundreds of problems to practice so that we'd only have to get 12 questions correct on a single test. The teachers would go over FSPA problems in class that the students were having trouble with and it's not like they weren't available for EI for all 34 lessons prior. Everything was there to help prepare us for this test, which we all knew about since it's in both our syllabus and the course letter. There was no reason that anyone should have cheated on that test. I see the purpose of the honor board in cases where the facts may be a bit more construed and remediation may be the best option, but because the cheating was so blatant and the blame is solely with the offenders, in my opinion disenrollment may be the best course of action.

Obviously, you either don't know all the facts, you are not in position to judge, don't have faith in the military, can't see the big picture, or you have a lack of trust in the academy.

 

[scoutpilot]

My biggest disappointment in this and similar threads, is the lack of trust and respect so many have for the academies. In the military, we live in a world that by design, we have to trust that those above us or in charge, will make the best decisions based on the facts presented to them, and what is in the best interest of the military. And we have learned to to live with, accept, and respect those decisions. Even if we don't always agree with those decisions.

Yet, in this and similar threads, that is not how many ate behaving. Many think they know all the facts. They don't. Many think they are in the position to make the best decision. You aren't. Many think they can see the big picture and knows what's best for the military. You can't. What this shows is disrespect and lack of trust in the military. Very sad. If everything was as clear cut, black and white as u think; and the media provided all the facts, "yea right", then there wouldn't even be a need to investigate. But that isn't how it is. That's what is so disappointing. Not the cheating or possible disciplinary actions, but the lack of respect and trust some have in the academy and the military.

Great point. Academy leadership is never wrong.

 

[falconfamily]

Obviously, you either don't know all the facts, you are not in position to judge, don't have faith in the military, can't see the big picture, or you have a lack of trust in the academy.

As he stated in his conclusion, "I see the purpose of the honor board in cases where the facts may be a bit more construed and remediation may be the best option". The cadets who are given remediation/probation might well have been given this choice because the honor boards/panels thought that this was the best option. Per Falcongirl, not all will be given this option, which follows his reasoning where "disenrollment may be the best course of action".

I have no problem with anything he said. The Academy boards will act as they see fit and the system will function as intended.

 

[falconfamily]

Great point. Academy leadership is never wrong.

People make mistakes, it is more the idea that we are assuming that academy leadership is making a mistake when they have much greater grasp of the issues that we do. That part of it is rather puzzling to me.

Let's put it this way. The leadership always has the option of disenrollment, they are certainly not afraid to use it, but as senior leaders, they must also be judicious in the use of such sanctions and give the honor system the discretion to act in a deliberative manner. No one wants this thing to drag on, no one wants to see this thing swept under the rug and become a bigger scandal. But to carp on the honor code as "weak" and label the leaders as being something less than competent is really quite off base. As some have argued here, if you believe in the system, you need to allow the system to act as intended. Making this a political issue infused with emotion serves no good purpose.

 

[Christcorp]

Great point. Academy leadership is never wrong.

Falconfamily responded best, but let me add. You are not academy leadership. There is also checks and balances in place, and you are not part of that either. And the academies and military don't come on these forums to get your or my opinion prior to them making decisions. So whether the academy chooses to disenrol or retain an individual, I trust their decision. And if all the facts are out, as luigi believes they are, then there is obviously no reason for any investigation. So why is the academy wasting their time?

 

[scoutpilot]

People make mistakes, it is more the idea that we are assuming that academy leadership is making a mistake when they have much greater grasp of the issues that we do. That part of it is rather puzzling to me.

Let's put it this way. The leadership always has the option of disenrollment, they are certainly not afraid to use it, but as senior leaders, they must also be judicious in the use of such sanctions and give the honor system the discretion to act in a deliberative manner. No one wants this thing to drag on, no one wants to see this thing swept under the rug and become a bigger scandal. But to carp on the honor code as "weak" and label the leaders as being something less than competent is really quite off base. As some have argued here, if you believe in the system, you need to allow the system to act as intended. Making this a political issue infused with emotion serves no good purpose.

I carped on the USAFA honor code as being weak for two reasons, and they are important ones:

1. The idea that if you commit a violation and get caught and THEN admit your guilt, your lower level chain of command (quite possibly composed of your close friends) gets to essentially weigh in on your behalf.

2. The code stipulates "or tolerate among us," which is a much weaker version of USMA's toleration clause, though admittedly better than USNA's lack of the same.J


It's hard to take the "hey, shut up and let the leadership handle this" when it's coming from only the big USAFA homers. That whole "pouncing on a sister service" knife cuts both ways. Plenty of well known blue-nosers here are happy to weigh in on any thread about any moral or ethical issue concerning the POTUS, the wars, or a military issue, until it concerns a screwup at the Blue Zoo, and then they're the ones screaming for silence on the matter.

 

[Scratcher]

I'm not convinced honor can be built or developed. You've got it, or you do (sic)... but maybe I'm looking at it too black and white.

So you think Honor is hereditary? You have to learn it somewhere.

 

[Scratcher]

If it wasn't a school supported by the public dollar, I would agree with you..... but it is... so it's well within the interest of the public.

I'm pretty sure you could find federal funding supporting over 90% of the colleges in the nation. Can we force the same standards on all of them?

The public dollar is not the reason for the Honor Code. We hold ourselves to a higher standard because we owe it to the citizens of the United States who have placed their trust and respect in us to protect their freedom by supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies...

 

[Scratcher]

I don't care what Ohio State does... I don't pay taxes that support that school.

http://controller.osu.edu/acc/fedgrant-home.shtm

 

[Scratcher]

Generally great leaders tend to be honorable.

Why do you use the words "generally" and "tend"?

 

[falconfamily]

I carped on the USAFA honor code as being weak for two reasons, and they are important ones:

1. The idea that if you commit a violation and get caught and THEN admit your guilt, your lower level chain of command (quite possibly composed of your close friends) gets to essentially weigh in on your behalf.

2. The code stipulates "or tolerate among us," which is a much weaker version of USMA's toleration clause, though admittedly better than USNA's lack of the same.J


It's hard to take the "hey, shut up and let the leadership handle this" when it's coming from only the big USAFA homers. That whole "pouncing on a sister service" knife cuts both ways. Plenty of well known blue-nosers here are happy to weigh in on any thread about any moral or ethical issue concerning the POTUS, the wars, or a military issue, until it concerns a screwup at the Blue Zoo, and then they're the ones screaming for silence on the matter.

Scoutpilot, no one is saying you do not have a right to voice your opinion. But clearly you have a lot of cynicism with regard to the composition and disposition of the honor panels and boards. The boards are composed of not only cadets but senior officers who guide the proceedings. There are at least two levels of review and people who sit on these boards take their roles very seriously. So the idea that a bunch of your best friends will let you off easy, is not likely.

Also with respect to cadets taking responsibility and admitting their involvement, consider what happened with the honor scandal of 1994 where people who did not take responsibility and did not tell the truth were generally unpunished and an operative phrase "lie until you die" became established as to how to behave when faced with an honor board. Was that a good outcome? Is it ever good when cadets collude to obstruct an investigation? Is that a good outcome - when that obstruction prevents a finding by the honor boards? In this case, USAFA has chosen to say that cadets taking responsibility is a good result, and my understanding of history leads me to agree with them.

As for toleration. There is quite a bit of discussion about the utility of this clause. It is not in use at the Naval Academy and there is no statistical evidence to support the idea that it makes honor violations any less common at the SA's that do have this clause. There are those who believe that much of the cynicism about the honor system stems from a clause that is not enforced as it has been stated. Much like how prohibition led to more lawless behavior not less (by creating a nation of law breakers), the tolerance clause is believed by some to lead to more cynicism about the honor code not less and overtime leads cadets to believe that certain aspects of the honor code is arbitrary. I am not saying I agree with this line of reasoning, but I think there might be merit to this argument and we should always consider ways to improve the honor code.

Just another line of reasoning....

 

[scoutpilot]

Scoutpilot, no one is saying you do not have a right to voice your opinion. But clearly you have a lot of cynicism with regard to the composition and disposition of the honor panels and boards. The boards are composed of not only cadets but senior officers who guide the proceedings. There are at least two levels of review and people who sit on these boards take their roles very seriously. So the idea that a bunch of your best friends will let you off easy, is not likely.

As for toleration. There is quite a bit of discussion about the utility of this clause. It is not in use at the Naval Academy and there is no statistical evidence to support the idea that it makes honor violations any less common at the SA's that do have this clause. There are those who believe that much of the cynicism about the honor system stems from a clause that is not enforced as it has been stated. Much like how prohibition led to more lawless behavior not less (by creating a nation of law breakers), the tolerance clause is believed by some to lead to more cynicism about the honor code not less and overtime leads cadets to believe that certain aspects of the honor code is arbitrary. I am not saying I agree with this line of reasoning, but I think there might be merit to this argument and we should always consider ways to improve the honor code.

There's a difference between "not likely" and "not possible" for starters. Secondly, we all know that the word of the lower chain of command isn't gospel in an honor proceeding. But when it's a matter of a recommendation on whether a cadet should stay after dishonorable behavior, the involvement at that level carries a far greater likelihood that friendship and personal feelings (both for and against) a cadet can weigh in.

Secondly, while I appreciate your explanation of how the honor system works, I spent multiple years as a company Honor Rep and was the president of 4 different honor boards. I'm pretty well-versed on how the system works, and for the record, the purpose of the non-toleration clause is NOT to make honor violations less common. It is to instill the philosophy that we are our brothers' keepers. The USMA honor code specifically says "nor tolerate those who do." It means that your belief in the integrity required of good leaders does not stop at the walls of USMA, and carries forth into your whole life. It was not written that way as an accident, and it was not written to affect the number of honor violations. The code is in place to affect the growth and sustainment of honorable conduct, and not turning a blind eye toward the dishonorable conduct of another is part and parcel of that.

 

[falconfamily]

There's a difference between "not likely" and "not possible" for starters.

Agreed, it is "not likely" you would be hit by a falling satellite, but is it is always "possible"



Given the circumstances, I cannot imagine any great number of the cadets who are offered a chance to regain their honor and standing in the wing, would have had benefit of such consideration from their "friends" on the honor boards. Especially as first year cadets where they have not built up a "political/power" base yet.

 

[scoutpilot]

Agreed, it is "not likely" you would be hit by a falling satellite, but is it is always "possible"



Given the circumstances, I cannot imagine any great number of the cadets who are offered a chance to regain their honor and standing in the wing, would have had benefit of such consideration from their "friends" on the honor boards. Especially as first year cadets where they have not built up a "political/power" base yet.

But that's just it. I am not talking about these particular cases. I'm talking about the system as a whole.