P

eople say you don’t know what 
you’ve got until it’s gone. However, 
when it comes to technology, the 

opposite holds true: You don’t know what 
you’ve got until you’re stuck with it.

Over the course of the pandemic, technol-

ogy has creeped further into our lives, educa-
tion being no exception. All of my classes this 
semester have been conducted online, as have 
my club meetings and social events. Practical-
ly every interaction I have with the University 
of Michigan happens through a webcam.

However, there is one new technology that 

has seen particularly rapid adoption since the 
beginning of the pandemic: exam proctoring 
software.
T

here are a number of companies 
competing in the remote proc-
toring space, including ProctorU, 

Respondus, ExamSoft, HonorLock and Proc-
torio.

ProctorU, for example, offers four levels of 

online proctoring: record, record+, review+ 
and live+. The most basic service available is 
“record,” which offers identity verification 
and end-to-end recordings of the students’ 
camera and screen. During the exam, the ar-
tificial intelligence records instances of pos-
sible suspicious behavior — anything from 
eye movement to background noise. The ser-
vice then produces a report including flagged 
events that may require further review by an 
instructor.

In comparison, “live+” offers more deter-

rence features designed for high-stakes ex-
ams. Along with monitoring exam-takers via 
artificial intelligence, this service includes a 
proctor who supervises students and inter-
venes when they suspect cheating.

With the breakneck transition to virtual 

learning, there has been a documented in-
crease in cheating, and exam proctoring ser-
vices have stepped in to address this issue. 
In an email to me, Scott McFarland, CEO of 
ProctorU, touted the advantages of software 
solutions to deter academic dishonesty.

“Changes in assessment design can miti-

gate some risks of misconduct,” wrote Mc-
Farland. “But so long as there are remote tests 
that require demonstrated knowledge in the 
form of a test, proctoring will be necessary. As 
of now, the only alternative to remote proctor-
ing is not proctoring, which increases the risk 
of academic misconduct.”
H

owever, all of this increased busi-
ness for remote proctoring has 
coincided with a backlash over 

privacy and accessibility concerns.

Without the backing of their schools, some 

students have taken matters into their own 
hands. Daniel Farzannekou, a student at the 
University of California, Los Angeles, was fea-
tured in The New York Times for his act of 
resistance against the Respondus proctoring 
software. Before the exam could begin, Far-
zannekou replied to directions to scan his face, 
room and ID by holding a profane slip of paper 
up to his webcam and uninstalling the soft-
ware. He called the software “dystopian,” com-
paring his peers’ numbness to its dangers to the 
placating tactics of authoritarian regimes.

When I reached out to Respondus via email 

to comment on criticisms of this kind, they ac-
tually addressed the issue of privacy head-on 
and sent a list of industry-standard protections.

“With online proctoring, students often 

have the misconception that Respondus views 
and uses the webcam videos for its own pur-
poses,” wrote Jodi Feeney, Vice President of 
Operations at Respondus. “The data is owned 
and controlled by the university. Respondus 
doesn’t have human proctors reviewing the 
videos; the proctoring is done by an automated 
system.”

According to Sowers, Respondus also does 

not watch students while they take exams, 
sell or share data with third parties or access 
files on students’ computers. Sowers wrote 
that the software “exceeds the requirements” 
outlined in data protection legislation such as 
FERPA, GDPR, CCPA and frameworks like 
Privacy Shield and SOC 2 certification.

Nevertheless, the use of exam software 

has still resulted in legal controversies over 
privacy. When the Faculty Association of the 
University of Santa Barbara expressed its 
concerns and advocated a policy of refusal 
towards ProctorU in a letter to the Chancel-
lor, ProctorU’s legal counsel levelled spurious 
allegations of trademark infringement, copy-
right infringement and defamation.

Finally, artificial intelligence implemented 

in these services tends to perpetuate discrimi-
nation. The behavior of students suffering 
from chronic illnesses, anxiety or other condi-
tions are singled out by the algorithm. The fa-
cial recognition technology also discriminates 
against people of color. The fact that facial 
recognition systematically fails to recognize 
non-white faces is well-documented, so it 
should not come as a surprise that this phe-
nomenon is being reproduced in the sphere of 
remote assessment.

When I asked if there has been criticism of 

their services, none of the software providers 
I reached out to for this story addressed dis-
crimination or algorithmic bias in their email 
responses.
T

hough this national conversation 
has been brewing since the begin-
ning of the pandemic, it was only 

after a few of my friends finished the Law 
School Admission Test in the first week of Oc-
tober that I began to take notice of the invasive 
nature of proctoring software. Hearing about 
their experiences — such as showing proctors 
their rooms or allowing proctors to control 
their laptop’s function — was pretty unsettling, 
and I was curious to know whether automated 
remote proctoring had penetrated into regular 
college courses as well.

The college of Literature, Science and the 

Arts has staked out a clear position on remote 
proctoring technologies. On the LSA Technol-
ogy Services website, the college specifically 
recommends against the Respondus Lock-
down Browser, which prevents students from 
navigating away from a webpage, and other 
third party services. They enjoin faculty to 
“Avoid the Temptation for Invasive Technol-
ogy Solutions to Address Issues of Academic 
Integrity.”

And indeed, the LSA students that I spoke 

with had not experienced remote proctoring 
software in their college courses.

When I spoke over the phone with LSA se-

nior Teresa Clark, she indicated her gratitude 
for the way professors were handling assess-
ments.

“To accommodate people’s schedules, pro-

fessors will give you the entire day to complete 
the exam,” Stark said. “They’ll release it at the 
beginning of the day and give you the entire 
day to work on it so they have been definitely 

less stressful and less high stakes than in-per-
son exams.”

Stark also took the LSAT earlier this month, 

and the easygoing nature of her professors 
stood in sharp contrast to the ProctorU em-
ployee who kept an eye on her during the LSAT.

“You have to record your entire room,” Stark 

said with a laugh. “Which did cause some con-
fusion because my room was pretty messy and 
they apparently prefer that they don’t see any-
thing in the video.”

When I asked Stark how she would have re-

acted if she had been accused of cheating, she 
explained that the business about her cluttered 
room might have weighed against her.

“My room had like a bunch of random stuff 

in it,” Stark continued. “And I would have found 
it difficult to prove that I didn’t have some ex-
tra material around me.”

Outside of LSA, some colleges have em-

ployed different methods to deter cheating. 
During our phone conversation, Business and 
Engineering junior Vikas Chanduri explained 
how exams work in those two colleges. 

“In the entire engineering department, the 

engineering honor code works in a way where, 
even when we have in-person exams, there 
actually isn’t a proctor in the room,” Chanduri 
said. Instead, in pre-pandemic times, the honor 
code allowed engineering students to walk into 
an auditorium and take exams surrounded only 
by other students, with professors or Graduate 
Student Instructors waiting outside the exam 
room in case anyone had any questions.

The College of Engineering simply places 

trust in its students — what a concept! That 
attitude, however, differs quite a bit from the 
Machiavellian world of the Ross School of 
Business. 

“In all my (pre-COVID) Ross classes there 

were always (GSIs) walking around and my 
professors were at the front of the classroom 
for questions,” Chanduri explained. “So I guess 
in a way that has been transferred into a virtual 
environment, exactly the same way that it was 
before.”

Chanduri then talked about his experience 

using the Respondus Lockdown Browser dur-
ing one of his Business School classes last se-
mester.

“It was kinda weird at first having the cam-

era on the whole time,” Chanduri explained. 
“But I guess it’s the same idea as if you had a 
proctor watching everyone in an exam room … 
so I didn’t think it was that big of a deal.”
I

n my view, however, the problem with 
exam proctoring technologies is that 
they are not really helping us to adapt. 

Rather, they are providing a vulnerable techno-
logical crutch we will be stuck with long after 
the pandemic ends.

Consider the fact that most of these services 

require students to have access to a computer 
and a good wireless connection. In Michigan, 
the rift between those who have internet con-
nectivity and those who do not, known as the 
“digital divide,” poses a huge challenge for on-
line education. Research conducted by The 
Education Trust shows that the percent of stu-
dents without digital access in some counties 
in Michigan is around 30-40%, and a recent 
report from The Brookings Institution stated 
that 70 out of 83 Michigan counties have in-
ternet connectivity rates below the national 
average.

To the extent that adaptation is happen-

ing, it is actually students and faculty adapting 
to technology, not the other way around. For 
students to even be able to take exams, they 
have to download software or Chrome exten-
sions, subject themselves to invasive security 
procedures and allow artificial intelligence to 
gather extensive data on their behavior. I sup-
pose that for many of us who have become 
accustomed to pervasive online surveillance, 
this does not seem like too much to ask.

Here is the thing about erecting digital 

fences around university exams: Clever com-
puter science majors will always find ways to 
hop over them. Some of them have even posted 
lists of possible circumvention methods online 
for everyone to see. The Virtual Machine, for 
instance, lets people run computer programs 
on software embedded within their physical 
computers. Even something as simple as Post-
it Notes on one’s screen can work around the 
most basic software solutions.

The result will not be the ultimate victory 

of proctoring technologies, but an intermi-
nable arms race between software providers 
and cheaters. As the methods of security and 
prevention advance, so too will methods of 
circumvention. We might even see a revolving 
door between the makers of remote proctoring 
software and a growing suite of circumvention 
services.

Ultimately, educational institutions need 

to understand that any technological “solu-
tion” comes with its own host of problems. 
There are not side effects or unintended con-
sequences; they are latent in the design of the 
technology itself. That is why many professors 
have turned to alternative methods of exami-
nation that require students to demonstrate 
their thought process and engagement with 
class material: some examples include ditching 
multiple choice exams for in-class essays, or 
having students present material in a presenta-
tion or project.

Remote proctoring technologies have 

some utility, especially when professors need 
to deliver high-stakes exams to hundreds of 
students. But where a relationship of trust 
already exists between student and teacher, 
this is what should be relied upon rather than 
technology.

Perhaps we should also turn our attention 

to the education system in which an over-
whelming number of students believe they 
must cheat to get ahead. If only indirectly, 
proctoring software companies benefit from 
institutions that believe themselves to be full 
of tricksters and thieves. Therefore, they do 
not really want to solve the problem of aca-
demic dishonesty, even if such a thing could 
be done. What really matters is whether uni-
versities suspect their students of cheating 
and can think of no better way to stop them.
D

espite his reputation for advising 
deceit, Machiavelli himself recog-
nized that the ways of treachery 

could win a prince, “power, but not glory (im-
perio, ma non gloria).” Deep down, I think we 
all share this intuition that fraud impedes true 
greatness. And, therefore, that aspiring musi-
cians, athletes and artists should avoid fraud 
as much as aspiring accountants, lawyers and 
engineers.

In the end, no matter how well exam 

proctoring technologies can deter cheating 
through surveillance and fear of punishment, 
they never will be able to convey its real cost; 
that in developing the skill of cheating, one 
neglects the virtue of learning.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
1— Wednesday, October 21, 2020
 
statement

The hard truth about 
exam software

BY ALEXANDER SATOLA, STATEMENT CORRESPONDENT

ILLUSTRATION BY EILEEN KELLY

