In Tuesday’s paper Suresh Chaudhary submitted a letter-to-the-editor that spoke of the Higher Secondary Education Board (HSEB) being rumored to have leaked question papers for twelfth grade science. (Though, hadn’t entire articles been dedicated to SLC students cheating and what’s worse (or borderline hilarious) of teachers acting as the accomplice in issues past?).
It seems in Nepal the notion of “sharing is caring” extends beyond the case of passing around a packet of chips or offering to cover the entire bill after a momo-party. Here the objective of sharing one’s knowledge is extended right into that of handing over answers to classmates. In conversation with a friend about how rampant and accepted cheating really is in academia, I offered my observation.
Cheating is such a vague term – thumbing the Oxford Dictionary would offer little clarification, as the phenomenon is contextual, rather than universal. Perhaps the only generalization to offer is to claim that if cheating is the norm here, it’s not as though it’s not elsewhere either. The only difference may be how rampant and open it is here – entire western websites are dedicated to teaching students how to cheat, but it assumes covert position. In Nepal, overt cheating is almost a part of the educational socialization process.
It didn’t make sense to say it isn’t considered wrong, because there are feeble attempts to hide the act – folding in palms with inked formulas or whispering only when the proctor is out of earshot. And yet, it is also an open secret as whispers are merely shushed and the student creating a ruckus reprimanded by merely being seated up front.
The solidarity between students means help is offered and help is accepted. The objective is to have the class “pass”. And if the one proctoring wants to remain popular, they too keep silent and it’s a simple means to ensure everyone comes out winning. It’s only shameful when the entire institution is exposed (like when the distinction holder was not enrolled in NASA nor was HSEB topper at Capital College and Research Center in the summer of 2010).
A student cheats and the teacher lets it slide. The teacher helps the class cheat, the school lets it slide. The school helps the teacher, HSEB lets it slide. When the HSEB helps the school, the Ministry of Education lets it slide. Before we know it the Nepali degree will be as useful as our Nepali passport – to be dumped, tossed and betrayed for any other.
There seems to be little guilt attached to “cheating” – code word for “helping”. Few take issue with having cheated their way through secondary schools and even frighteningly so, their tertiary education. When “passing” is the point of exams, and not learning, the objective clearly needs to be re-evaluated.
It seems in Nepal the notion of “sharing is caring” extends beyond the case of passing around a packet of chips or offering to cover the entire bill after a momo-party. Here the objective of sharing one’s knowledge is extended right into that of handing over answers to classmates.
Whether asking for “help” or giving that “help” it is a means to assist weaker classmates. Refusing to “help” marks a student as uncooperative and perhaps would be social suicide if they were already tagged the class dork.
In fact I’d go so far as to declare there is an element of pride and solidarity attached to “helping” a classmate. And little to zero regard for the insult offered to their intellect or to the helper’s own integrity.
If cheating is the norm because classes really are so very uninspiring, then ensuring classes are everything but that must be made the priority. If cheating is accepted because the iron gates of the SLC are simply unreasonable then developing practical tests ought to the objective.
But, I suspect it’s not entirely about uninspiring teachers and unreasonable standardized tests. It is perhaps also about the solidarity between those being initiated, between those being examined. As such, to break that bond – to refuse help would be equivalent to refusing to have your comrade’s back in battle. In which case it isn’t wrong. It is, maybe, even right.
As such, the grave issue must be tackled accordingly – the current value of a Nepali degree, or lack thereof, is insulting enough.
To convince students that with equal effort and preparation by all involved (teachers, parents, self) it is indeed possible to learn, not just pass, an exam. To persuade cheaters (both givers and takers of answers) that they are hurting the collective, that if they do not friends stand on their own today they will collapse tomorrow (it’s only a matter of time before graduate schools and employees sense one’s true capabilities). To ensure students learn to value their individual effort and that truly respecting their peers is to deny them the opportunity to belittle their abilities.
Till then, I’m afraid cheating will simply be something to continue due to the feigned fault of teachers and exams. As Dale Seedfeldt, head of high school in my alma mater used to offer, “Exams are only an opportunity for you to show what you have learned”.
An assessment cannot be the end-all-be-all, it is merely a measure to gauge the performance of the teacher and that of the student, lying as either is denying the system the ability to correct whatever has been wronged – uninspiring teachers and poorly designed exams included.
sradda.thapa@gmail.com
Related story
Ford, GO Ford celebrate 'Global Caring Month'
