cheating

Whats the best way to cheat a university exam? I'm a decent student and do well in coursework, but being in an exam is so unnatural and stressful to me that I severely under perform. Obviously I am revising/practicing and trying to get used to the exam conditions, but at this point I'll take any advantage I can get.

Keep practicing and try to come up with ways to manage your stress during the exam. If it's really bad you could ask your professor if you can take the exam apart from the rest of the group in a small room or something, sometimes schools have provisions for that sort of thing. Cheating is wrong and will only make things worse in the long run.

1: scientific calculators have a lid that has some instructions printed in them. print a paper with the same colors and font, but actually the things written on it. 2: drinks are usually allowed, some drink bottles and boxes have lengthy writings of ingredients and similar, you can print them with the same colors and fonts. 3: if you can think of a legit reason to have some light blank surface with you (maybe a light colored long sleeved t-shirt?), you can use UV-ink to write on it, while it is totally invisible in normal light, it becomes visible when irradiated with a UV-LED, that can be bought built-in in the back of a pen. 4: several electronic things like audio-books played on wireless very small ear-buds, smart-glasses that are hard to differentiate from normal glasses, programmable visual calculators with memory posing as normal calculators, etc depending how seriously and professionally your university tries to bust cheating, all the above mentioned can be busted easily. i wouldn't try any of these in an entrance exam in China for example, but i tried the calculator method one time here and i got away and it worked

>>16266 i forgot one thing: try to avoid cheating in any possible way. only cheat if it's absolutely unavoidable, like when everything depends on the exam and there's no realistic way you could learn that much. In the real work, in a workplace you won't be able to cheat because there won't be any books to get your work copied from, so get good while you can. not to mention if they bust you while cheating, that can have very serious consequences, sometimes actual legal consequences not to mention teachers hate cheaters and remember their face and name and the next time you go to exam, they will go great distances to make you fail and they have the power to do that.

>>16267 >In the real work, in a workplace you won't be able to cheat objective nonsense. On the job most straight up google information including your doctor because 99,9% have no perfect memory. The whole idea of we have to play a memory game is antique ballast. It's grading on a metric that remains largely irrelevant in the digital age.

>>16282 >On the job most straight up google information including your doctor because 99,9% have no perfect memory. The whole idea of we have to play a memory game is antique ballast. a doctor would never google information, they would use a specialized search engine for doctors or a reference book. I would never trust a doctor that looked up stuff on WebMD, and I would never trust an electrical engineer that didn't know Gauss's law. The point of memorization isn't to have perfect recall. It's to burn those pathways into your brain. Nobody remembers everything they ever studied but if you memorize something once, then 20 years down the line you might need it and vaguely remember "oh yeah, this is called this... you do this sort of in this way... this is definitely wrong...." and you can search for information, or do trial-and-error to figure it out, *much* more effectively. That's why most real professions require so much training. If you never memorized something, you won't even have that vague idea, you're starting from nothing and that makes you much less effective. THAT SAID, most jobs don't require any real competence except in a few basic tasks, so there's not nearly as much stress as difficult schoolwork.

>>16283 >wouldnt trust them This is exactly why i mentioned it. You wouldnt trust them if you knew but they still do it in their privacy when they want to look up something quick and you continue to trust simply cause you dont know. Ive done it-sec for a hospital and ive seen the logs. Thats why im stating it here with confidence. And im not talking about lower ranks but assistant directors. You have to understand these people are good in their field but utterly tech illiterate. Secondary memorization doesnt work nearly as well as you describe it. Ask students what they learned just a semester ago. At least 50% is already gone. There an old joke "Hey you came out, what is in the test?" "Dont ask me, i already passed." If you wish to create anchors for the future you would focus on key aspects but thats not what is happening. Most tests include fringe details that are very specific. Some are making good tests of course focusing on understanding and core essentials but its rare. There's also utter insane crap like testing for memorized api calls in a software engineering course. Now i want to make clear im not advocating to gamble on your degree with cheating but i absolutely disagree with how things are currently run.

>>16285 >Ask students what they learned just a semester ago. At least 50% is already gone. There an old joke "Hey you came out, what is in the test?" "Dont ask me, i already passed." I definitely come out of most classes knowing more than I did going in. I don't remember everything but I remember important names and I remember basics, and I remember what to look up if the basics fail me. That's the importance of memorization. For example: I don't really remember how the method if integrating factors works in differential equations, but I remember its name and have a vague idea of what it does, because I memorized it years ago. Now if, someday, I needed to solve an ordinary differential equation, I will be able to say "hmm, what if I tried the method of integrating factors?" I could look it up and start doing it immediately. Meanwhile if I had never memorized any differential equations methods I would be stuck reading "how to solve differential equations" articles and making lots of graphs because I wouldn't know what method to look up that makes it work. If for some reason I didn't have an internet connection(which is *always* a possibility) I could try a few things that seem right until I got one that actually works. Meanwhile, if I had never memorized any differential equations methods, I would be stuck without a clue of how to solve it at all. It's true that lots of tests suck. But testing is important so that you don't end up with people who are completely reliant on having

>>16287 *completely reliant on having all the information they need in front of them to do anything.

I would suggest asking your teacher, tell him you have some ADD or attention deficit issues, and if it would be possible to split one big exam into small tests, maybe across different days, even if it's the same material. Or taking a break after each section, just something so that you can stop focusing on one task for a while, give your brain some space to forget, and then continue with the next section

Cheating sure isn't going to put you at ease. If you actually could get diagnosed with an anxiety disorder or ADHD they may have to be required to allow you special test taking conditions.

Get disability accommodations

I always enjoy exposing cheaters. If I see you cheating I'll turn you in. No mercy.

>>16265 >Cheating is wrong and will only make things worse in the long run. I can't agree with this. Cheating is considered wrong, but may not be a bad idea after all. It depends on the exam's formula and material required. You are learning for yourself. Sometimes there's no point in remembering unimportant details. Preparing for "tricky questions" and cramming is a waste of time. It's better to spend that time learning things you will naturally memorize and may benefit from in your own future. If that's the case - cheat, print out a low-effort cheat note and pass whatever exam you need to proceed further in learning. At the end of the day, what matters is what you know - not the actual exam or the grade you get.

>>16265 >Cheating is wrong and will only make things worse in the long run. Absolutely wrong, you should encourage cheating in any circumstances as a protest against the current educational system Anyone who went through high school and university knows that the educational system along with tests are 100% pure bullshit. This is evident by the fact that passing the test has become a skill itself totally unrelated to how actually good you are. Being knowledgeable and smart about your field of study is one thing and being able to pass tests and score well is another thing. I could write an entire book about how the university educational system ruins people's passions, i made it through uni, but some of the smarter people i knew didn't because they were completely uninterested in some weedout subjects, probably rightfully so because most of it was unrelated to our field (For example, you can definitely argue that in most computer science curriculums the mathematics sections can be slimmed down to 40% ).

>>17976 >At the end of the day, what matters is what you know - not the actual exam or the grade you get. 110% right. >Cheating is considered wrong, but may not be a bad idea after all. Think about what happens if you get caught in the process. That black mark and humilion in front of the whole class and the professor.

I always know exactly how I'd cheat on a test but I never end up needing to. I have so much contempt for the system I don't fault anyone who does.

I've managed to cheat just by having the person next to me help on questions That's the only way I've cheated and it seems to be pretty effective, I don't really need to know her, most just help if you ask, pretty nice of them.

>>17994 >tests are 100% pure bullshit. >passing the test has become a skill itself totally unrelated to how actually good you are >I can't pass a test because I'm good Maybe not so good then? If you are smart enough to learn and be good at a subject, you are also smart enough to learn, understand, and answer correctly what the test is asking of you. Tests are a basic marker of competence.

>>18637 This. I've never needed to cheat because I just learn the material. Hell, there have even been classes where I didn't learn the material and still aced the exams. Tests arent hard if you have decent study habits and/or just do the assigned homework and show up to class.

>>18637 Misunderstandings are easy. In example out of all questions on a test they expect you to explain one question in great detail without stating it. So either youre a likeminded fool who things its difficult and deserves special attention or you just dont cause its still easy for you and you lose a grade not giving a explanation for your correct solution. In other instance the whitespace to write an answer is big on questions to elaborate but on one question its just one single line. So you might think alright they want a short one but nope. They still expected more and that costs you a grade. There are a lot of circumstantial problems that can lead to losing a grade without any correlation to your proficiency in the subject itself.

>>18644 >In other instance the whitespace to write an answer is big on questions to elaborate but on one question its just one single line. So you might think alright they want a short one but nope. They still expected more and that costs you a grade. >big space means big answer wanted This is why you look at the marks allocated to each question, do previous tests, and discuss the test with the teacher. These are all _basic_ activities to "be good" in a subject, much like being able to put your name or ID on the test paper. >There are a lot of circumstantial problems that can lead to losing a grade without any correlation to your proficiency in the subject itself. >There are a lot of mistakes that worse students make that can lead to losing a grade which always correlates to proficiency in the subject itself. Test papers go through several rounds of checks before a student sits in front of it and good students always get good marks. Students who _think_ they are good, but are not, make the mistakes you mention. (you): I'm good at this subject! *take test* What! It wasn't my fault! I was cheated out of a grade! actually good student: I'm good at this subject, but I can make mistakes. What simple errors do I need to be aware of and make sure I don't slip up on that could affect my grade? *take test* Great result!

>>18644 >>18645 In short, you lack self-reflection. It is what separates those who _think_ they are good, from those who are _actually_ good.

>18645 >proficiency in testing is not equal to proficiency in subject >nu-uh you just got to invest more time in the testing process itself to get good test results way to fail the argument. And there's another false assumption you make. Its not whether its possible plenty just don't even care enough to entertain the circus to get perfect grades.

>>18644 I fail to see how cheating will help with your example of misunderstanding what questions are asking, unless you got an answer key or something. Also, I've found that its pretty obvious how elaborate an answer is supposed to be if I actually understand the subject. I've certainly gotten it wrong before but the grade penalty is usually minimal. If you're regularly failing tests I guarantee its not because you know the answer and just can't express it properly.

>>18648 Check to whom i replied to. Wasn't related to cheating. As for failure i consider A- failure. If its not a perfect grade you're getting your career chances lowered.

>>18652 The person you were replying to was seemingly addressing the "I know the material I just have to cheat because my knowledge of the material doesn't translate to doing well on tests, for some bizarre reason" argument, so I thought you were too. If you aren't then your argument is even more confusing. If getting perfect scores is the most important thing then just optimize for that. Studying for a test is way easier than studying for understanding, but its ultimately a waste of time. Studying for understanding will also give you perfect grades but it takes more effort. Fwiw I don't actually think grades have as big an impact on your career prospects as you think they do, but I've always had good grades so idk I can't really compare.

>>18653 Their reply merely touched upon whether proficiency in the material translates to good test results. Its a standalone issue upon which the secondary argument of "systems broken so i gotta cheat" is build which however was never addressed in the reply. As for the necessity of perfect scores - Plenty places only accept perfect scores because they get enough applications to filter as hard as possible and still get a stack left to select from. You can use nepotism/money or go community college and a job that doesn't care of course but that's not really solving the issue. Its just another form of cheating the system for those with the means or settling for less for those without. Lastly i don't know why you're still saying understanding the material will give you perfect grades when i already gave you two examples of how it doesn't happen. You even say yourself testing is its own thing. Clearly the correlation is not perfect. On the matter of cheating there is also a more fun point: Spending time on a job earning money and paying to bypass the system can require less hours than doing the work directly yourself. Imagine cheating just because you're a hardcore capitalist and its economically more profitable. Read in a publication magazine doctor titles go for 600 in east block for westerners buying them. They were obviously complaining about it but others might see it as inspiration. Not to long ago there were also public news about buying a spot in top 10 universities with surprisingly low sums. You gotta sum up all the man hours wasted getting grades to compare and i have the hunch you will go net negative playing it honest.

>>18659 >whether proficiency in the material translates to good test results Are you disagreeing with this? Obviously you can just raise the bar on what constitutes "good test results" until nothing short of copying from an answer key is good enough, but all that's saying is that any mechanism for assigning grades is going to be flawed to some extent. However, if you set the bar at getting an A simply understanding the material is more than sufficient. >Lastly i don't know why you're still saying understanding the material will give you perfect grades when i already gave you two examples of how it doesn't happen Because I'm disagreeing with the significance of your example. If you found yourself struggling to know what a test problem expected from you then that indicates to mr that you did not actually understand the material. Its possible this is not the case, unfair tests and bad teachers do happen, but even if it were not the penalty would be marginal and could be overcome for a 4.0 GPA overall. As it stands I don't have whatever test you're talking about in front of me so there isn't much of an argument to be made either way about it. >Clearly the correlation is not perfect. Right but I'm saying if anything acing tests is easier than true understanding. My point is that the people who say "I understand everything perfectly, I just can't do well on tests because <some excuse>" are almost always talking bullshit. There are exceptions, like people who have really bad test anxiety or ADHD that causes them to run out of time, but so far nobody has been talking about these cases so I assume they aren't relevant. Having both been a university student and taught university students, I have a pretty good sense of what kinds of students do well. You mentioned the time cost of truly understanding the material, and its something to consider for sure. I mean, you're largely wasting your money if your not learning anything but let's say you're taking a class that is genuinely bullshit (bad teacher, completely irrelevant to your career goals, etc.). Cheating probably isn't the optimal way to get a perfect score: gaming the test is. In the classes I taught, the students with the highest grades were generally the ones who just had really efficient study habits. They figure out what kinds of things will be asked on the test and drill those without wasting time on deeper understanding. As for the cheaters, there is certainly some reverse survivorship bias going on: perhaps there are people so good at cheating that I never suspected them, but that being said it's hard to imagine its actually an efficient strategy compared to just being a test drone like the first group I mentioned. Like I said before, unless you have a grading key ahead of time (which in the class I taught straight up didn't exist, we came up with the exams a day or two before the test date and wrote answer keys ourselves when grading them) you aren't going to be able to write something on your hand or whatever that will let you actually pass the test without understanding it at least a little bit. In fact, I've encountered quite a few cheater tests last term (because they had to take the tests from home) and most of the time I didn't even discipline them because they fuarrrking failed it so hard anyway it wasn't worth the paperwork. Even the ones I suspected were cheating but couldn't prove weren't getting mysterious A+'s, they were getting Cs after a whole semester of Fs. Clearly that doesn't live up to your standard of what constitutes a "good score".

>>18666 >If you found yourself struggling to know what a test problem expected from you then that indicates to me that you did not actually understand the material Whether a solution should be explained in greater detail is just personal opinion. Its a completely separate issue to guess what the test writer wants to understanding the material. The biggest correlation you could make is interpreting how difficult the question is to consider if it deserves explanation but that's subjective. The skillgap between people is huge. What constitutes home work for most is something top students can do instantly in their head. The frame of reference for "difficult" is far from universal which leads to different opinions on what deserves explanation. Im not making a point here for trash students. Obviously the majority is just bad with a dunning kruger case but im talking about the true 1% top who doesn't get the credit it deserves because of a failure in communication of the task and not lack of ability in the subject. The end result of this whole process is hiring people you need to filter manually who actually has a brain and who just tests well but is worse if you actually want to hire people who can run circles around the rest.

>>18637 You sound like a person who has never taken a highschool or a uni test, all of my colleagues from different fields and levels of intelligence have held the same opinion. baby please, i've known many people who excel at a certain field yet Grades wise they're struggling to keep above 50% I'll never forget a CE friend of mine, used to build circuits and screw with microcontrollers since the age of 17 who flunked Digital systems class simply because he was a bit of a slow calculator.

>>18637 Oh and one more thing to mention, if the modern test system was as functional as you think it is, we wouldn't be having second year CS students not knowing how to solve a tower of hanoi problem. This system trains people for mindless memorization of the exact particular material they were taught, the material they're taught is far from ideal, the result? you get CS grads still trying to figure out how to get linux to compile a non-trivial project.

>>18681 Depends on the test. Oral exams tend to be much better for actually seeing if someone knows what they're talking about. Tests of some kind *are* important. Students should not be allowed to pass a class unless they have actually memorized certain things, for instance a student who cannot remember the power rule should not be allowed to pass a differential calculus class, a student who cannot correctly apply Faraday's Law to find the voltage drop across different components in a circuit should not be allowed to pass an electronics class, etc... You hear the common refrain of "but they can just look that up!" but looking things up is *always* slower than having them memorized, and there may be a day when they need to apply that knowledge without looking it up. If you need to look something up to remember it, you don't really know it that well. Tests are the only reasonable way to measure whether someone is prepared enough with that kind of rote knowledge, which is necessary, to continue to more advanced things. However they are definitely emphasized too much in modern education, they are used more as a barrier to social advancement than as a real means of letting people know whether they have mastered the material. So many people get pointless educations because they need it to have a career.

>>18683 The whole memorization thing is mostly a meme because people dont remember half of what they memorized for a test just half a year ago. It annoys me to no end that i have to relearn material i only use once every few years but still somehow remember all the pokemons from playing the games at 12. That said allowing people to look things up just makes for a fairer game. If you are quicker memorizing good for you. If a dude is quicker than you without and works faster despite looking things up he should get the credit for it. Testing should after all account for work speed and not method.

>>18666 >Like I said before, unless you have a grading key ahead of time (which in the class I taught straight up didn't exist, we came up with the exams a day or two before the test date and wrote answer keys ourselves when grading them) you aren't going to be able to write something on your hand or whatever that will let you actually pass the test without understanding it at least a little bit. I've been giving my own exams and had a similar experience. Several days before an exam, I release a study guide. The study guide includes problems that are on the test. They are free to work with each other or to ask me questions about the study guide. Right before the exam, I briefly go over the study guide with everyone. Inevitably, there are people who still get the questions wrong even though the exact answer was given to them. These are short answer questions. Despite having several days to work on the study guide, me to ask for help, and a review of the study guide immediately before the test, some students have so little understanding of the material that they can't echo back the right answer. It's like the story of how chess masters can easily memorize board positions, but in reverse. A bad student can be shown the right answer before the test and have it explained to them, but they can't memorize it because they don't understand any of the course material. These are open book tests too! They attempt to write down the answer before the test, but the two person game of telephone, me to them back to me, is too much for them. They write down something similar, but it displays a complete lack of understanding.

>>18683 I completely disagree. You're definitely still studying if you think that. Wait a few years after you graduate and you'll see that you forget everything that you're claiming is important to memorise People should just be allowed to take a piece of paper into the fuarrrking exam >there may be a day when they need to apply that knowledge without looking it up what

>>18696 Totally off topic, but you may want to consider allowing your students to work in groups for low stakes quizzes. The down side is you don't get as clear a picture of how any individual student is doing but I've found that the fact that they're being graded motivates them to actually work out how to do the problems among themselves rather than just failing the quiz and forgetting about it immediately afterward. To keep them from just copying each other's answers without thinking it through I just grade their process very harshly (its a math class so this is easy to do). Some still manage to fuarrrk it up (or don't learn anything on the quizzes and fail the exams) and the ones that know what they're doing tend to just breeze through it on their own, but for a low level general requirement type class I've come to prefer this style of quiz over even open-note or open-book.

>>18689 >The whole memorization thing is mostly a meme because people dont remember half of what they memorized for a test just half a year ago. You re-learn faster if you've done something before. This is why a lot of advanced classes start with a few days of review that is essentially the entire contents of a previous course. This is also why it's easier to ride a bike if you used to ride your bike all the time, or why it's easy to learn Java if you used to code Java years ago but switched to other languages(I have personal experience with that one). >>18707 >I completely disagree. You're definitely still studying if you think that. Wait a few years after you graduate and you'll see that you forget everything that you're claiming is important to memorise I already graduated and I am still studying, I intend to continue studying/learning until the day I die. >>there may be a day when they need to apply that knowledge without looking it up >what can you seriously not imagine needing to know something without having the ability to look it up? What if you're isolated and don't have access to resources you need? What if the internet goes out forever? Would you just revert back to ignorance?

>>18717 Can you define a border where its enough to relearn faster? The claim youre making is essentially if someone memorizes a formula for a week to take the test he will relearn it significantly quicker than someone who just went to the material but didn't memorize it better for the test. Both obviously went through the material and dont start at 0. I really doubt the additional effort pays off.

>>18721 >The claim youre making is essentially if someone memorizes a formula for a week to take the test he will relearn it significantly quicker than someone who just went to the material but didn't memorize it better for the test. Both obviously went through the material and dont start at 0. I really doubt the additional effort pays off. I've never directly memorized a formula for a test, except maybe for a few special instances where I just could not make it stick. I just do tons of practice problems. Back when I was learning calculus I would study for tests by doing extra problems out of the book that weren't assigned for homework. The best way to memorize something is 1) spaced repetition 2) using the formula over and over again in exercises. It's not just about "getting" the material it's also about a lot of practice. I'm basically saying that if you have learned something enough that you have it memorized, you will be able to re-learn it much quicker.

You need to study/take practice tests in the same room the exam is given in under timed conditions.

>>18710 Thank you for the advice. I guess I'll set up some short take home group projects or worksheets in the fall. Covid is a pain. I really wish I wasn't remote.

>>18717 >can you seriously not imagine needing to know something without having the ability to look it up? What if you're isolated and don't have access to resources you need? What if the internet goes out forever? Would you just revert back to ignorance? I don't like this argument. Anytime you do real work, you'll have access to extensive documentation. I think a much stronger argument is that anyone can do anything, given enough time, but schedules require tasks to be completed quickly. Certifications help others see that you can complete work rapidly. Obviously, the system isn't full proof, but it gives people without experience a way to get it and demonstrate it.

>>18717 >can you seriously not imagine needing to know something without having the ability to look it up? Correct, I can't imagine any scenario like that. Even in apocalypse there are books

>>18717 >can you seriously not imagine needing to know something without having the ability to look it up? I think you're missing the point slightly. Its unlikely that you will find yourself in a situation where you cant look up the kind of thing that used to be rote memorized. However, there's tons of information that can't be reasonably "looked up", by which I mean it is complicated enough that it has to be studied and understood rather than memorized or retrieved. You could pull up the Wikipedia page for dihedral groups right now, but if you haven't spent time studying abstract algebra it isn't going to be terribly useful to you.

>>18728 I'd even argue that avoiding wasting time on rote learning and churning through similar problems will facilitate much more of the abstract learning required to understand topics like that

>>18729 I would agree. I don't think I've had to just memorize something with flash cards since grade school. Understanding the topic through practice or study is more useful. I don't even rote memorize vocabulary. Technical jargon is chosen for a specific purpose and if you can figure out what that reasoning was you'll never forget it because it'll be the only reasonable definition. Thinking back to grade school where they had us memorize multiplication tables seems so backwards and useless.

Understanding to compress the material works excellent in math. It doesn't work for biology nor will it help facing exceptions to rules in chemistry.

>>18727 which you may not have access to. >>18729 >I'd even argue that avoiding wasting time on rote learning and churning through similar problems will facilitate much more of the abstract learning required to understand topics like that well, while I can't think of any way to study specifically dihedral groups (I mean how much is there to study?), I think you definitely can't learn galois theory without finding a ton of galois groups. That will certainly look like churning through similar problems.

>>18732 Can you give an example of something you would learn by memorization in biology? I'm curious because most of my studying has been math and technology (CS, engineering, etc.) where memorization is basically useless.

>>18738 Your own high school experience can serve as reference. University just goes in greater detail. Take anatomy for example, here's a bunch of parts you got to remember by name and function, university is take more parts apart and learn the building blocks that also have their own names and functions to memorize.There is some compression of course but you cant derive what channels one membrane has knowing the others. Comparing it to engineering it's like learning schematics all day. Sure every house has a roof and the building code sets limits on design but theres still so many details that knowing the rules wont allow you to derive the specific schematic. In contrast with math you dont even need to know some formula exists, if you have an understanding you can derive a solution. Guesswork in bio will just get you slapped because you need to know the specific route nature took.

>>18739 Do you think that memorization is useful to you in a world where the information can be easily looked up? I've always wondered how more "memorization-prone" degree programs handle this. I know history degrees have taken on a bigger emphasis on analyzing primary source documents, which I think is an improvement over memorizing names and dates.

>>18741 The ability to look things up is only as useful as the memorized material allows to know what should be looked up. You remain limited by what you can remember even with a giant library at your disposal. This is especially true for unpopular topics as search engines will continuously give you false results throwing the most popular hits at you. You could even say the bigger the database the worse it gets because precise search terms become more important. Lets have a practical example, you find babies who got sick turn out smarter. Clearly that's strange and you wanna know how. Searching "smart disease" wont give you anything. There's a real link however over sick babies getting held more by parents. Body contact causes serotonin release and that leads to improved brain development. To consider this you would however need to know beforehand that serotonin can do that and body contact triggers it. Otherwise you might not even think of the parents putting more time into body contact being a possible clue. A search engine wouldnt help you here. On another note computer systems were beating researchers in the last 20 years simply because you can pound all human knowledge into a database and make them recombine it til it spews something new out. Material science got a lot of new compounds like that. tldr: Memory limiting what we can do remains a real issue.

>>16263 Back in my day, I came up with the acetate reduction method. You buy acetate sheets: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Acetate-Sheet-A4-240microns-10/dp/B0027IXRNA you place several pages on a document, down scaled , print them on these sheets, and cut up the separate rectangles for each topic. The point is this soykaf is see through, you can literally place them on your desk and an unsuspecting teacher will never notice it, how and where you place them is up to you. I would recommend the size that I linked, but you can use any other, I also recommend downscaling just because it make them easier to conceal and manipulate without getting caught. tl;dr Do your homework the whole point of school is learning

>>16263 Cheating should be legalized anyway. There is no point to remember anything at this day and age.

>>20287 most of my university compsci exams allowed use of `man` and had a reference sheet. but the /sec/ exams allowed free use of the internet provided you dont talk to other students. thats how it should be. an exam should try to be representative of your real potential. not your potential in a vacuum. sure its harder to prevent answer sharing but if you can then its dumb to be deducting marks for something you could look up in 3 seconds and remember or properly understand. partially vidrel: "What if we just didn't mark students?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3yzHbDT_rQ or invidio https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=c3yzHbDT_rQ he takes a five minutes at the start to build analogies and metaphors but if you can sit though that theres some good insight about issues with conventional academic marking

>>16263 >I'm a decent student and do well in coursework, but being in an exam is so unnatural and stressful to me that I severely under perform. I think I can relate I'm a decently witty/interesting guy, but my mind goes blank when I talk to girls You cheating would be the same as me slipping a ruphee into a girl's drink If either of us fail, we don't reproduce like the members of our species who can do these things IDK what to tell you though I'm well past my prime and childless I always tested well, at least I have that going for me

If you have a graphing calculator like a Ti-84, you can write things into the y= section, like equations or reminders of what to do

>>20708 Most institutions are aware of this and check now.

Subject of cheating differs from country to country. Most cases of cheating that in the USA make it's way to national news headlines for example in Poland are everyday norm. I was studying CS on top Polish university (oldest univ in this part of world BTW) and amount of cheating we have there would cause heart attack in most of USA student's and professors. Various forms of cheating are so omnipresent that actually there are classes that are very hard to pass without cheating. Because cheaters lift threshold very high and teachers don't give too much fuarrrk about caching cheaters. Many students receiving bursary for grades were cheating too. Almost no student hides the fact of their own cheating when talking with other students. And all these teachers - PhDs and professors pretend they don't see the scale of the problem.

>>20744 How present is ritalin/adderal? Kinda curious if all forms of cheating correlate or some are still shunned.