Thoughts on invigilation, prompted by this thread.

https://twitter.com/JamesBSumner/status/1264819934741311488

Invigilation has two purposes: (a) make honesty an easier option than cheating; (b) persuade candidates that everyone else sees it the same way.

1/7

If you don't achieve (b) then you'll get rampant cheating whether or not it's rational, because no-one will want to lose ground to the cheats.

I have seen this happen.

2/7

Traditional exams are awful in many ways but they more or less achieve (a).

[Yes, I can think of some *almost* undetectable ways to cheat. They are the fruit of many hours of thought while walking the rows, and I'm not going to share them here.]

3/7

Traditional exams also, crucially, achieve (b), because everyone can see what every other candidate is experiencing.

It's reminiscent of those logic puzzles set on an island of perfect reasoners with perfect knowledge of each other's reasoning powers and one strange taboo.

4/7

Leaving all else aside, remote invigilation will engender misconduct because that reciprocity is lost, and a lot of candidates will then cease to believe (a).

5/7

Rumours and suspicion will multiply; My Mate In The Year Above will know someone who fooled the system; and instead of invigilating 300 approximately honest people you're trying to invigilate 300 potential cheats.

Hopeless.

6/7

If we have to abandon the traditional exam, we have to abandon it completely.

I don't want to do that. But let's not take a form of assessment the sole virtue of which is its resistance to cheating, remove that virtue, and pretend we've done something clever.

/end