The investigation, which is still ongoing, began after several students came forward to report that some students had continued working and shared answers on the spring final for Computer Science 70 after the exam had ended. Recent discussion regarding the incident by was sparked by a post on social news website Reddit on Saturday.

According to students and members of the teaching staff, the crowdedness and logistical difficulties of Haas Pavilion, where the exam took place, made it easier for students to cheat. Although the staff members were aware that the Math 54 class would be taking an exam at the same time, they expected the room to be able to accommodate the 1,000 students taking their exams.

However, the crowdedness forced GSIs to check identification after the exam, causing exam collection to take 15 to 20 minutes. CS 70 students also sat in the back, making it difficult to hear any announcements from the room’s single sound system.

“The Haas Pavilion was so echoey — no one could actually hear,” said Dhruv Garg, a campus junior majoring in electrical engineering and computer sciences. “(When the professor said time was up), it wasn’t clear whether her instructions were targeted towards just her class or everybody.”

According to GSI Chenyu Zhao, witnesses brought the cheating incidents to the attention of the teaching staff after the exam. Within an hour, the professor posted on the class’s forum, notifying the class of the incident and urging the class to take responsibility.

“The cheaters are going to be hurting the grades of all the honest students in the class,” Professor Sahai wrote. “They deserve no mercy or loyalty after doing such a despicable act to their fellow students.”

The electrical engineering and computer sciences department’s academic dishonesty policies recommend that cheaters be failed for the corresponding courses and that students be expelled after a repeat offense. According to the Center for Student Conduct, if students fail to resolve the incident with their professor, they will receive an alleged violation letter to either accept their sanctions or go to a hearing.

Ultimately, less than 2 percent of the class was found to be guilty. For those who confessed before grades were turned in, grades were readjusted to remove points possibly gained on an extra question. Those who still have not confessed, according to Sahai, will at least fail the class, and the university will decide the subsequent punishment. The investigation is ongoing.

Students said that the cheaters had no justification for their actions, given the professor’s helpfulness and fairness throughout the semester.

“The professor and GSIs threw homework parties, which were very helpful,” said Alex Danilychev, a campus sophomore and computer science major. “We also had extra credit opportunities throughout the semester. I could’ve easily gotten three times the extra credit I got if I wanted to.”

The students had a range of responses, varying from surprise to anger, compelling them to report anything suspicious they witnessed. According to the professor, more than 20 people came forward with reports.

“There was a positive side in that the discussion that happened afterwards generated a shared sense that something was wrong and not acceptable,” Sahai said.

Contact Mary Zhou at mzhou@dailycal.org

The post Details emerge about cheating incident in computer science course appeared first on The Daily Californian.

In a split vote on Nov. 14 — with Student Action voting in favor and CalSERVE voting against — the senate passed a bill that permits Internet voting on the campus’s WiFi network. What this change does is bring the elections bylaws up to speed with now-commonplace mobile technology by abolishing an archaic rule. What the change does not do is encourage cheating in and of itself. Still, some senators are right to believe that more rules violations may occur.

Two years ago, then-presidential candidate Noah Stern used a BlackBerry to vote on behalf of another student. Yes, similar situations can take place with greater ease this year as a result of the change. Candidates who decide to break the rules now have more avenues to approach voters in hopes of influencing their choices. Nevertheless, cheating has happened and will continue to happen in ASUC elections, regardless of how people can vote, over AirBears or otherwise.

Rather than seeking to uphold a worthless rule, the ASUC should attack the documented culture of cheating that has become so ingrained in the two dominant parties. Indeed, in years past, CalSERVE and Student Action leaders have met to discuss what campaign violations can be brought against the other party before agreeing which charges will actually be pursued. This tradition illustrates the institutionalized acceptance of rule bending lying at the heart of the AirBears contention.

The injustice is not that more students will be able to vote over campus WiFi — it’s that the game’s two biggest players have a history of agreeing that cheating is OK. ASUC officials and partisans must use the concerns highlighted by AirBears voting to crush the unscrupulous atmosphere that remains present in campus elections.

The post Airing grievances appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Hey, you! Yes, you — mediocre gamer. Yes, that’s right, I know all about you. You’re tired of being beaten by luckier, more skillful opponents, right? Do all of your friends joke that you’re just paying for the company at your weekly poker game? Is a nerd who figured out all the hotkeys for that online game is grinding you into the dust?

Do I ever have a solution for you.

Who am I, you ask? Why I’m your regular Friday columnist’s streetwise alter-ego, Clue Fields. The cupcake who writes the other column thinks hard work and dedication are the keys to success. Balderdash, I say! He doesn’t have the balls to tell you what I’m about to: the secret to winning.

I’m talking, of course, about bending the rules. Some would call it cheating, but I call it the creation of otherwise unavailable winning opportunities.

It’s all in the wrist, really. If you want to pull off the likes of The Credit Caper or The Baccarat Offset in Vegas, you’ve got to develop your sleight-of-hand skills.

Who am I kidding — why am I endorsing the really intricate maneuvers when one of the simplest is the most effective?

According to Internet gambling guru Richard Marcus, one of the best scams — “The Savannah” — involves a classic bait-and-switch betting scheme that takes advantage of good acting skills. The scheme is simple: Lay down two chips, a $5 on top of a $100 or even $1,000 chip, on the 2 to 1 column and hope for a win. If you do, congratulations! But if not, simply scoop up your chips before the dealer can sweep them away. When he protests, replace the expensive chip with another $5 chip and repeat the aforementioned steps, or move to a different table to keep things kosher. You wouldn’t want the fascist Sin City pigs to catch wind of your brilliant scheme and kick you out.

I can already tell you’re skeptical. That’s just your pesky conscience getting in the way. Hell, anyone these days can see that cheaters profit. It’s the American way; from Old West snake oil peddlers to the Wall Street geniuses who stacked derivatives upon credit-default swaps (small businesses and homeowners be damned), cheaters have always prospered.

Take Bill Belichick, for example. He’s a personal hero, a true paragon who managed to sneak a peek at the New York Jets playbook and take home the 2007 Coach of the Year award. He fleeced the entire NFL for the low, low price of $500,000 and his dignity.

Need more anecdotal evidence that my methods are superior? Look no further than all-time soccer great Diego Maradona, who I can unequivocally and without reservations proclaim to be the most talented sportsman who ever lived. The grace and confidence with which he leaps toward the ball, the superior hand-eye coordination he employs to punch it into the net, the unabashed swagger as he takes his victory lap — these are qualities a true champion possesses. Had he admitted his violation of the rules, he wouldn’t be in the history books, now would he?

Physical games not your style? It’s even easier to cheat in cyberspace. Everyone loves first-person shooters, but nobody likes losing. Try evening the odds with an aimbot (you’ll never have to worry about missing again!) or a wallhack (I see you!). Who needs friends when you’ve got 100-percent accuracy and x-ray vision? I know I don’t.

Now there’s that mischievous gleam I like to see in gamers’ eyes. That determination to win no matter the cost will earn you your spot in the 1 percent. Which brings me to my one and only disclaimer: People will be jealous of you.

All the lemmings will tell you you’re being “unsportsmanlike,” “unfair” and “un-fun.” But don’t let that get you down — you’ll have way more fun than everyone else because you’ll be holding all the chips!

Tonya Harding didn’t get where she is by thinking about other people’s good time. She knew that true gamesmanship is about creating, and then seizing opportunity. No megalomaniacal rules association should be able to dictate the way we play. As an old baseball coach of mine once told a bunch of impressionable young athletes, “it’s no fun unless you’re winning.”

That other columnist mistakenly believes in some pretty outdated shit. Community? Respect for one’s opponent? Fairness? You just want the big, beefy W. It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there, and none of us want to be just another sheep in the flock. It seems to me that the 99 percent only sleep in tents because they couldn’t figure out how to get a real job and buy a mansion. Stick with me, kid, and you’ll go far.

Up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, start is how I roll. Would you care to join me?

The post Cheating for fun & profit appeared first on The Daily Californian.

During a recent post-lecture hookup, I remembered an article I had read a couple of years ago about the shape of the human penis. Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t bored, but working some handy magic down his basketball shorts definitely made it natural for the shape of it to come to mind. I mean, it’s kind of funny shaped if you think about it.

The article in question, by Jesse Bering, appeared in Scientific American in April of 2009 and discussed the findings of Gordon Gallup of the State University of New York at Albany on the biological reasons for the shape of the penis. The conclusions and theories he poses are quite interesting and thought provoking.

For one, he created the “semen displacement theory,” which states that the head and coronal ridge formed underneath it are for insemination insurance purposes. Meaning, given the customary thrusting during sexytime, these features help their owner scoop out the juice left in his ladyfriend by previous dudes and leave his way up there. No one gets to make babies with her but him.

The other interesting emergence from Gallup’s studies is that long separations and suspicions of female infidelity lead to more aggressive thrusting during intercourse. This also goes back to the insemination insurance need. If a dude thinks that his ladyfriend cheated, he goes at it harder and deeper to make sure he is the one making babies with her. Or, if he hasn’t seen her in a while, he also goes at it harder and deeper just in case she might have gotten lonely during his absence and had some bed-rocking fun with other dudes. Again, the mission is to make sure he’s making babies with her, and no one else.

Although I can’t personally verify the first finding, I have observed the second one. For example, after having very, very regular bedroom time with an ex, summer break began and upon reuniting about a month later, “harder and deeper” thrusting would have almost been an understatement. That was a fun night —no babies ensued, contrary to the supposed goal. And I’m sure that many of you out there know exactly what I (and Gallup) am talking about.

Gallup’s last hypothesis is a quite amusing one. Theoretically, a woman can get pregnant by a man with whom she never actually had sex (scary or potentially exciting?). How does it work? You should read Bering’s simple explanation (or another one here if you are in love with Ryan Gosling and would like some hope about your chances of having his kid).

And so I continued the aforementioned handy work. Hmm — this is indeed and interesting shape, I thought. The pinnacle of sexual design? Maybe.

The post Pinnacle of sexual design? appeared first on The Daily Californian.