Colombia's passive examination system

@wwaycorrigan

[For an audio/vlog version of this story, click here.]

A few years ago, a Colombian ex — of sorts — asked me for some urgent help. She had an English exam to take for her university. If she didn't pass it, she wouldn't be able to graduate.

She had one slight problem, though. She had very little English. Well, she practically didn't speak the language at all.

'The exam must be passed; by somebody, it doesn't matter who.'

Not-very-testing times

Cue a couple of weeks of intense English classes dictated by me to get her up to scratch. That, of course, would have been the more righteous approach. What really happened? I took the exam for her. She still, rather pathetically, had a hold over me at the time. And she knew it. At least she did watch me answer the questions; I'll give her that much.

The way that text-only, multiple-choice exam was set up — fully online, unrecorded, and with a very loose student verification mechanism — it seemed as if the university didn't really care if it was taken by the student who was meant to take it.

In other words, it effectively encouraged cheating, particularly in a country where the overall level of English, as well as the desire to speak it, is low.

Around that time, I did write a piece, Colombian universities' English at all costs, questioning the requirement for a certain level of English in courses where knowledge of the language was far from essential.

'It's not that the student must pass the test. It's a case of — using, pertinently, English's passive voice — the test must be passed . . . by somebody, it doesn't matter who.'

But eight years or so have passed since that old flame asked for my assistance; plenty of time for the universities and language institutes to re-evaluate their procedures and amend them where necessary. Except, from my latest experience, they haven't.

Sound system

For one particular institute, in any case, the acceptance of cheating — or at least playing the system — is even more blatant than what I'd witnessed before.

Here's what happened: An 18-year-old who I've never met — he was given my contact details by a production assistant on a shoot in which I recently participated — asked me to take his test for him.

This time, however, it wasn't a text exam. It was an oral one. Yes, an interview via a Zoom call. Thing is, it can be done without using the camera. The examiner just wants to hear the student's voice.

Thus, with my, um, Mid-Atlantic English accent — or is it still a west of Ireland one? — I assumed the identity of this Bogotá native teenager.

Now, if the one conducting the interview — Laura, a Colombian, who was visible to me throughout the call — genuinely thought that I was an 18-year-old studying English as a foreign language, either she's not the sharpest examiner around or my level of English is not what I thought it was. Or maybe I'm just a good actor, although I made no effort to come across as a rookie learner of the language, as the guy for whom I took the test clearly is.

Perhaps, seeing as how it must have been obvious to Laura that it wasn't an 18-year-old Colombian answering her questions, the oral exam will be declared invalid.

However, from what I gather, it's an accepted practice in certain quarters.

In essence, it's not that the student must pass the test. It's a case of — using, pertinently, English's passive voice — 'The test must be passed — by somebody, it doesn't matter who.'

Deep fake

Yes, I could have declined to take it for this guy whom I've never met. For one, the payment I received for doing it won't tempt me to dine in an exclusive Bogotá restaurant. It's barely enough for a roasted whole chicken in my working-class barrio.

Yet, curiosity got the better of my mild moral objections to this rather innocent fraud. If I hadn't done it, somebody else would have, no doubt.

What's more, if the guy was more tech-savvy, he probably could have set up ChatGPT or the like to do it for him. I'm quite behind the curve when it comes to the use of Artificial Intelligence, but from what I've heard and read, it would be up to such a task. In fact, I imagine an AI version of the student would have been a far more convincing fake than me.

Thus, with AI's overhauling of innumerable areas of human competence, Colombia's passive examination system is perhaps a better reflection of the times than what's considered best practice in other places.
__________________________________________________________
Listen to The Corrigan Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Defenders of the unfaithful

While there are those who take a zero-tolerance approach to relationship cheating, there are others who give it something of a scale of seriousness. 

True enough, a willingness to give some leeway in the event of a breach of trust might reflect that you weren’t that serious about the relationship in the first place, and may even be inclined to do likewise yourself, but this isn't necessarily always so.

Lost dog or top dog? (From Facebook.)

Whatever the case, at the lowest end of this cheating scale, for those prepared to use it, is 'the mistake with regret'. 

An example here would be a drunken kiss with somebody. The guilty party isn't fully with it when the misdemeanour occurs, it isn't really actively pursued and it's something that gives rise to immediate shame for doing it. For the doves amongst us, this can be forgiven pretty quickly (although a far less tolerable attitude will come into play for repeat offenders).

Moving up the scale, we've got the vindictive cheat. This is actively sought, thus making it much worse than above, yet it's done because the person feels badly hurt by their partner, perhaps after a big argument. 

It's not to say that they have no feelings for the one they've cheated on, it's more an act of punishment to readdress the hurt. The door to reconciliation is still ajar, if both sides are willing to go through it.

On from that, leading the way on the negative side of our scale is the couldn't-care-less cheating. It's pretty impossible to resurrect a relationship after this one. Basically, it's cheating done with blatant disregard for the other half, their feelings registering not a beat in the heart of the cheater.

Now yes, it could be a case where this type of offender never felt in anything close to a relationship; unrequited love so to put it. If that's made clear from the get-go, then fair enough. But no, here we're referring to people who had said openly they were in a relationship and generally pretended to act as such. 

This is what makes it particularly severe, as it implies the romance was nothing but a charade, just a little game at the very most; 'use and abuse' being the motto to follow.

Looking at it from the way things seem to play out here in Colombia — where unfaithfulness and cheating, it could be argued, are more common than in other parts (see Republic of Jealousy & http://bit.ly/13VtSAZ for example) — a good approach is to try not to get too emotionally involved, don't take things seriously. That, of course, can be easier said than done.

Nonetheless, overcoming problems, be they of a cheating nature or otherwise, are part of a lasting relationship. Plus, we do have the old saying that 'it's better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all.' 

On the flip side, there's the adage of 'not missing what you never had.' Perhaps there's a happy medium? It might just require a mindset change for some.
___________________________________________
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan - The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".