Students are adept and exam cheating methods are dynamic and this fact reduces the chances of catching students cheating. Exam administrators prefer to discourage exam cheating by severe punishment and proactively, positively altering student’s idea of cheating in exam.
Cheating is a desperate move that results from desperation and luck of confidence in one self. It does not however guarantee success. Loyola Marymount University like many other academic institutions have set up systems and procedures of dealing with academic dishonest. Punishment if found guilty depend on severity of the violation of examination codes and extenuating circumstances. Such Punishment may include cancelation of exam, suspension and expulsion. Server punishment when caught, still show how important passing exam is. Education should not be about passing exam, there would be no difference anyway between those who cheated and those who passed the paper honestly. Education should be learning.
It is evident; cheating in exam cheating is a moral behavior that is triggered by luck of confidence in one’s self, and probably pressure from parents and teachers. Exam should test skills that are useful at work place or in contemporary life. It is not sufficient to condemn our academic system by looking at what it has done to our society (where those failing exam and dropping out of college employ those who pass and graduate). Students should be at the center of anti-cheating policies and results of exams should not be allowed to be the basis of discrimination and scale if it should determine whether a student is graduating or not. Habit of honest should be built. The academic community should therefore shift there focus from creating anti-cheating policies to addressing the cause of cheating. McCabe, Trevino and Kenneth found that students not only develop academic dishonest be observing peers but also actively learn how to