PCP investigation: unusual similarity. Please Help! I'm innocent.

[dwheats]

Nyo wrote:

S2000magician wrote:

ZBB wrote:

higgmond wrote:

ZBB wrote:

higgmond wrote:

ZBB wrote:Thanks for pointing out another possibility! I can only speak for myself. I don’t know if it is becaues someone else was copying off me. ..

Failing to properly shield your answers could be construed as giving assistance during the exam, a violation of the testing policy.

So am I going to be punished by this? Is it helpful if I explain to CFAI that I 100% did NOT help anyone? I think I covered my answers, because I need to darken some of my choice since my hand removed some of the pencil marks when I covered my scantron. But it probably wasn’t air-tight.

If you had intentionally helped the person next to you or looked at someone else’s paper, would you admit it? I’m guessing that you, and most others, would not. So what is CFAI to do, just punish those who admit to cheating and let everyone else walk? You can certainly try to defend yourself (the lack of a proctor’s report works in your favor), but in this situation the onus is on you to prove your innocence which is a difficult task at best.

Thanks for the input higgmond. Punishing both is very unfair for the innocent party.

But punishing neither is very unfair to the guilty party. And it’s also unfair to all of the candidates who didn’t cheat (not merely the accused but innocent party).
Which is worse?

I see your reasoning but I respectfully disagree. Surely there are candidates or even charter holders who have cheated and have never been caught. How you handle these cases? CFAI is responsible for ensuring a level playing field for everyone. If it is not capable of doing this to the full extent, then punishing innocent parties ( as in similarity analysis) is not in my opinion the right thing to do.

You’re right. There should be no enforcement of laws then, because they cannot be applied surely and uniformly.

 

[S2000magician]

Which is worse: a Type I error, or a Type II error?

 

[Nyo]

dwheats wrote:

Nyo wrote:

S2000magician wrote:

ZBB wrote:

higgmond wrote:

ZBB wrote:

higgmond wrote:

ZBB wrote:Thanks for pointing out another possibility! I can only speak for myself. I don’t know if it is becaues someone else was copying off me. ..

Failing to properly shield your answers could be construed as giving assistance during the exam, a violation of the testing policy.

So am I going to be punished by this? Is it helpful if I explain to CFAI that I 100% did NOT help anyone? I think I covered my answers, because I need to darken some of my choice since my hand removed some of the pencil marks when I covered my scantron. But it probably wasn’t air-tight.

If you had intentionally helped the person next to you or looked at someone else’s paper, would you admit it? I’m guessing that you, and most others, would not. So what is CFAI to do, just punish those who admit to cheating and let everyone else walk? You can certainly try to defend yourself (the lack of a proctor’s report works in your favor), but in this situation the onus is on you to prove your innocence which is a difficult task at best.

Thanks for the input higgmond. Punishing both is very unfair for the innocent party.

But punishing neither is very unfair to the guilty party. And it’s also unfair to all of the candidates who didn’t cheat (not merely the accused but innocent party).
Which is worse?

I see your reasoning but I respectfully disagree. Surely there are candidates or even charter holders who have cheated and have never been caught. How you handle these cases? CFAI is responsible for ensuring a level playing field for everyone. If it is not capable of doing this to the full extent, then punishing innocent parties ( as in similarity analysis) is not in my opinion the right thing to do.

You’re right. There should be no enforcement of laws then, because they cannot be applied surely and uniformly.

Read again what I wrote before you turn on the irony mode. Ask for help if needed

 

[Nyo]

S2000magician wrote:
Which is worse: a Type I error, or a Type II error?

There is a better route. Punish the guilty candidates. If the CFAI is not capable of doing this then it has to amend its testing policies (e.g. monitor the exam with video cameras).

 

[S2000magician]

Nyo wrote:

S2000magician wrote:Which is worse: a Type I error, or a Type II error?

There is a better route. Punish the guilty candidates. If the CFAI is not capable of doing this then it has to amend its testing policies (e.g. monitor the exam with video cameras).

Going forward, that may be a solution.
How so we solve the problem before us today?

 

[Nyo]

S2000magician wrote:

Nyo wrote:

S2000magician wrote:Which is worse: a Type I error, or a Type II error?

There is a better route. Punish the guilty candidates. If the CFAI is not capable of doing this then it has to amend its testing policies (e.g. monitor the exam with video cameras).

Going forward, that may be a solution.
How so we solve the problem before us today?

If it cannot be determined who cheated and who did not then CFAI must not void the hard work and harm the reputation of a candidate just because it is not capable of doing what it is paid to do. So, no candidate shall be punished. Just my POV.

 

[S2000magician]

Nyo wrote:

S2000magician wrote:

Nyo wrote:

S2000magician wrote:Which is worse: a Type I error, or a Type II error?

There is a better route. Punish the guilty candidates. If the CFAI is not capable of doing this then it has to amend its testing policies (e.g. monitor the exam with video cameras).

Going forward, that may be a solution.
How so we solve the problem before us today?

If it cannot be determined who cheated and who did not then CFAI must not void the hard work and harm the reputation of a candidate just because it is not capable of doing what it is paid to do. So, no candidate shall be punished. Just my POV.

Is CFA Institute being paid to ferret out cheats?
I don’t recall reading that anywhere.

 

[Nyo]

S2000magician wrote:

Nyo wrote:

S2000magician wrote:

Nyo wrote:

S2000magician wrote:Which is worse: a Type I error, or a Type II error?

There is a better route. Punish the guilty candidates. If the CFAI is not capable of doing this then it has to amend its testing policies (e.g. monitor the exam with video cameras).

Going forward, that may be a solution.
How so we solve the problem before us today?

If it cannot be determined who cheated and who did not then CFAI must not void the hard work and harm the reputation of a candidate just because it is not capable of doing what it is paid to do. So, no candidate shall be punished. Just my POV.

Is CFA Institute being paid to ferret out cheats?
I don’t recall reading that anywhere.

CFAI is being paid for exam administration. Ensuring a level playing field for all ccandidates falls under this.
Anyhow, this is my point. What I believe (which of course I can be wrong) is that you cannot punish a candidate just because you are unable to determine if he is guilty or not. Otherwise all the candidates shall be punished since CFAI cannot know for sure if for example they had used cheat sheet during the exam and have not been caught. Or if a proctor finds after the exam is over a cheat sheet in the bathroom doors that mean that the whole exam center shall be punished?
In a similarity analysis, you are punishing a candidate you know he is innocent just because you don’t know who is innocent. Nonsense for me.
Again, similarity analysis shall raise a PCP investigation to proctors, not candidates

 

[S2000magician]

Nyo wrote:

S2000magician wrote:

Nyo wrote:

S2000magician wrote:

Nyo wrote:

S2000magician wrote:Which is worse: a Type I error, or a Type II error?

There is a better route. Punish the guilty candidates. If the CFAI is not capable of doing this then it has to amend its testing policies (e.g. monitor the exam with video cameras).

Going forward, that may be a solution.
How so we solve the problem before us today?

If it cannot be determined who cheated and who did not then CFAI must not void the hard work and harm the reputation of a candidate just because it is not capable of doing what it is paid to do. So, no candidate shall be punished. Just my POV.

Is CFA Institute being paid to ferret out cheats?
I don’t recall reading that anywhere.

CFAI is being paid for exam administration. Ensuring a level playing field for all ccandidates falls under this.
Anyhow, this is my point. What I believe (which of course I can be wrong) is that you cannot punish a candidate just because you are unable to determine if he is guilty or not. Otherwise all the candidates shall be punished since CFAI cannot know for sure if for example they had used cheat sheet during the exam and have not been caught. Or if a proctor finds after the exam is over a cheat sheet in the bathroom doors that mean that the whole exam center shall be punished?
In a similarity analysis, you are punishing a candidate you know he is innocent just because you don’t know who is innocent. Nonsense for me.

How do you know one candidate is innocent?
All I know for sure is that one candidate is likely guilty.

Nyo wrote:Again, similarity analysis shall raise a PCP investigation to proctors, not as well as candidates

Fixed that for you.
(Of course, if the proctors aren’t covered persons, the PCP doesn’t apply.)

 

[igor555]

id get a good lawyer and council and fight til the end. lie detector, sworn affidavits, whatever it takes

 

[Nyo]

S2000magician wrote:

Nyo wrote:

S2000magician wrote:

Nyo wrote:

S2000magician wrote:

Nyo wrote:

S2000magician wrote:Which is worse: a Type I error, or a Type II error?

There is a better route. Punish the guilty candidates. If the CFAI is not capable of doing this then it has to amend its testing policies (e.g. monitor the exam with video cameras).

Going forward, that may be a solution.
How so we solve the problem before us today?

If it cannot be determined who cheated and who did not then CFAI must not void the hard work and harm the reputation of a candidate just because it is not capable of doing what it is paid to do. So, no candidate shall be punished. Just my POV.

Is CFA Institute being paid to ferret out cheats?
I don’t recall reading that anywhere.

CFAI is being paid for exam administration. Ensuring a level playing field for all ccandidates falls under this.
Anyhow, this is my point. What I believe (which of course I can be wrong) is that you cannot punish a candidate just because you are unable to determine if he is guilty or not. Otherwise all the candidates shall be punished since CFAI cannot know for sure if for example they had used cheat sheet during the exam and have not been caught. Or if a proctor finds after the exam is over a cheat sheet in the bathroom doors that mean that the whole exam center shall be punished?
In a similarity analysis, you are punishing a candidate you know he is innocent just because you don’t know who is innocent. Nonsense for me.

How do you know one candidate is innocent?
All I know for sure is that one candidate is likely guilty.

Nyo wrote:Again, similarity analysis shall raise a PCP investigation to proctors, not as well as candidates

Fixed that for you.
(Of course, if the proctors aren’t covered persons, the PCP doesn’t apply.)

As i wrote before:
Let assume that unusual similarities are spotted between Candidate A and Candidate B. Then, 4 scenarios are possible:
1. False positive (which can be ruled out by the balance of probabilities)
2. A has cheated
3. B has cheated
4. They both cheated (which can be ruled out by the balance of probabilities as well since this scenario assumes that A and B have planned this beforehand - not possible since they did not know their exam seats before the exam day).
——————–
Anyhow, i think that we both made clear our opinions on this issue. I respect yours but I disagree.
Just one last question for you. If a proctor finds a cheat sheet in the toilets after the exam is over, what do you believe is the proper way for CFAI to handle this? As in similarity analysis, you know there is a cheater and non cheaters and you don’t and probably cannot know who is whom. Do you believe that the whole exam center must be punished by voiding their exams?