essays
braindumps
plagiarism
& intellectual
property
related
Guides:
publishing
intellectual
property
related
Profiles:
Education
Ghosting
Diploma
Mills
|
braindumps
This page considers 'brandumps' or 'exam mills', services
that sell answers to professional test questions and academic
exams.
It covers -
introduction
Much technical certification - ranging from supposed proficiency
in use of particular software (eg Microsoft Certified
Software Engineer aka MCSE qualification) to capability
in the use of cleaning equipment and forklifts - involves
satisfactory completion of tests. Achievement in such
examinations may be a prerequisite for gaining or holding
a job. One contact, for example, was required to complete
an online test of Occupational Health & Safety awareness
before being allowed into an Australian retailer's logistics
centre.
In order to save costs much testing is conducted online,
often at a time of the examinee's convenience and from
that person's home or offfice computer rather than desktop
machines that are housed in an examination room and that
are supervised by invigilators. Marking may be automated,
rather than involving a human scrutineer of data entered
by the person being tested or of the options chosen by
the person from a battery of multiple-choice questions.
Reliance on such examinations is likely to continue, given
-
- the
vogue for 'distance learning', 'self-directed learning'
or 'online learning' explored elsewhere on this site
- the
credentialism apparent in recruitment in professional
and non-professional employment.
It
has been reflected in the emergence of online 'exam mills',
services that sell answers to software exams, electronics
and other trade certification exams, and even pharmacy
assistant or other healthcare exams.
Those mills are counterparts of the entities selling completed
essays and dissertations, highlighted in the preceding
page of this note. They have attracted less attention
from educators and regulators than essay mills but arguably
have a substantial impact and thrive on the laziness or
mere dishonesty of many of the same people, including
armed services personnel (such as more than 100,000 peple
taking US Army Correspondence Course Program (ACCP) exams
over an eight year period).
As with online 'term paper mills' the industry can trace
its history to at least the 1850s, with national/regional
testing of applicants for the railways, military and other
organisations that sought to recruit employees on an objective
basis. Exam mills have flourished with the privatisation
of technical skills, as employers sought staff who were
proficient in the use of proprietary software (eg particular
products from Microsoft, Cisco and Novell) which was not
taught - or tested - by public institutions.
Publicity attracted by the mills has resulted in emulation
by new market entrants, questions about the value of certification
and calls for meaningful verification that the people
being tested are indeed who they purport to be (eg someone
is not sitting the test under another person's name) and
are not blithely entering data from a set of answers purchased
on the net.
size and shape
As with essay mills, the number of such services is uncertain.
Some services have the character of an ongoing business,
with a permanent web site, a discrete domain name and
expenditure of money on advertising to drive traffic to
that site rather than relying on word of mouth.
Other services appear to be more evanescent or opportunistic,
with people selling answers in venues such as eBay. Those
so-called 'braindumps' operate for a shorter time than
their more prominent peers, essentially aiming to get
as many buyers as possible before the venue operator forces
closure of the particular outlet. The seller may re-emerge
under a different name in the same venue and it is probable
that some braindump sellers are using several names in
multiple venues at the one time.
Where are the answers coming from? There has been no comprehensive
study and much information is anecdotal. It is clear that
some answers are coming from insiders who have advance
access to questions and results, online or otherwise.
Some answers appear to reflect diligence on the part of
site operators, collating results from high-achieving
students over numerous tests or simply paying several
students to recurrently sit and memorise tests. Some information
is gained through hacking; some apparently results from
pinhole cameras or other surveillance tools.
Are exam mills profitable? The Boston Globe reported
in 2007 that one US operator made US$700,000 in nine months
prior to arrest, with a competitor taking over US$300,000.
Figures for 'offshore' sites, in India and Pakistan for
example, are contested but it has been claimed that some
of the major sites have pulled in more than US$10 million
- from local and overseas customers - over several years.
The US shamschool.com scandal featured claims that service
personnel had downloaded 200,000 packages of answers to
multiple exams in 2006 and 2007, including -
- 42,839
downloads regarding engineering tests, covering explosives
and mine detection
19,570 downloads regarding such matters as chemical
detection and contamination
- 18,891
downloads of air defense artillery examinations
-
and downloads of medical corps examinations.
issues
The exam mill industry poses a range of questions.
One is complicity by some employers and third parties,
with criticism in the US for example after private security
guards at a North Carolina nuclear plant reported that
their employer routinely provided them with answers to
state certification exams.
A more fundamental question - the 'monster under the bed'
that arguably has been sedulously ignored by some employers
and certifying entities - is the credibility of much certification.
That concern is underlined by the reluctance of some organisations
to take legal action when cheating is detected (eg the
US Army was recurrently alerted to abuses such as shamschool.com)
or to accept the costs associated with stronger identity
verification and invigilation. Some testers have complained
that police and other bodies regard cheating as a trivial
or low-value crime, one that is not worthy of investigation.
As with essay mills, major exam mills have sought to evade
off litigation through disingenous statements, for example
marketing their services as 'study guides' or 'preparation
tools'. Many have spread risk through use of multiple
sites, typically located outside the US, Canada and Australia.
Promotion has typically been upbeat. One vendor thus indicates
that -
If
you purchase and use one of the ... Questions and Answers
or Certification Preparation Kits - we guarantee that
you will pass your exam on the first attempt. If for
any reason you do not pass your exam, [we] will provide
you with another exam of your choosing absolutely free.
Others indicate that -
we guarantee you'll pass on your first attempt
and
that
If you purchase and use any ... Q&A with Explanations
or Complete Preparation Lab, we guarantee you will pass
your exam on the first attempt.
The
broadness of such guarantees is accompanied by emphatic
declarations regarding the exam mill's intellectual property
(that, it seems, is sacred) and by disclaimers
such as
This web site and the information, contents, graphics,
documents and other elements included herein (collectively
the "contents") are provided on an "as
is" basis with all faults and without any warranty
of any kind. [The vendor] hereby disclaims all warranties
and conditions with regard to the web site contents,
including without limitation, all implied warranties
and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular
purpose, title and non-infringement. Except as may be
expressly stated on this web site, neither [the vendor]
nor any of its officers, directors, shareholders, employees
or other authorized representatives shall be liable
for any damages arising out of or in connection with
the use or performance of this site, or the information
or contents available from this site. This is a comprehensive
limitation of liability that applies to all damages
of any kind, including (without limitation) compensatory,
direct, indirect or consequential damages, loss of data,
income or profit, loss of or damage to property and
claims of third parties. The contents of this site could
include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors.
regulation
Regulatory issues have several aspects -
- consumers
using essay mills services in breach of conditions established
by the certifying entity
- consumers
fraudulently claiming certification to which they are
not entitled
- misleading
advertising and non-delivery of services by exam mills
and individual braindump vendors
- unauthorised
copying and distribution of the exam.
One
student reading an earlier version of this page asked,
in apparent puzzlement, what is the problem with using
a set of prepackaged answers - particularly where successful
certification can double an individual's income (and indeed
might double the income of that person's extended family).
One response is that learning might be of value to the
person in the long term, and to associates who rely on
the person's supposed skill.
Another response is that the person who uses answers,
on a free or paid-for basis, typically breaches conditions
established by the tester and fraudulently seeks an advantage
from an employer in claiming to be genuinely certified.
The number of employees dismissed for such fraudulent
claims is unknown, with indications being provided on
an anecdotal basis of IT staff being "let go"
after on-the-job performance was clearly inconsistent
with expertise supposedly demonstrated through possession
of the magic bit of paper as a software engineer.
Microsoft complained in 2003 that it was a victim, as
when
companies hire people who have obtained MCSE and MCSD
certificates by cheating, but who, in fact, cannot install
and maintain the systems correctly because they have
neither the experience nor expertise in the Microsoft
products commensurate with the certificates, those companies
tend to blame the Microsoft product and become reluctant
to buy other products.
The extent to which consumers have paid their money to
a braindump vendor or an exam mill site but received nothing
(except perhaps large amounts of spam when the vendor
sells the address to a third party) is unknown. Consumers
typically do not complain to trade practices and other
consumer protection
agencies.
Unauthorised access to, sale and distribution of exams
(and of exam answers) is a violation of intellectual property
and other law, such as the duties of agents to whom a
certifying body entrusts its exams. There has been litigation
by certifiers, with Microsoft for example suing Shahzad
Shahnawaz of Pakistan-based TestKing.com in 2006 for alleged
conspiracy to steal its intellectual property.
Another Pakistani national allegedly paid a local test
proctor for answers to Cisco and Microsoft exams in 2001,
on-selling them to Oregon-based Robert Keppel's
cheet-sheets.com. Keppel reportedly made over US$756,000
in sales before apprehension by the FBI and prosecution
under the federal Economic Espionage Act of 1996. Keppel
was forced to pay back the money and spent 10 months in
prison after pleading guilty.
::
|
|
