You can.
I did a remote proctored exam for the NREMT last year. They had me walk the camera around the room, under the desk, etc. All devices had to be in my backpack. No earbuds. They made me unplug the conference tv on the wall, lift picture frames etc. I had to keep my hands above the table the whole time, I couldn't look down if I was scratching an itch. They installed rootkit software and closed down all of the apps other than the browser running the test. They killed a daemon I run on my own pcs that is custom. They are recording from the webcam the whole time and have it angled so they can see. They record audio the whole time. I accidentally alt tabbed once and muted the mic with a wrong keyboard, those were first and second warning within 5 seconds.
When you take the test in a proctored testing center location they lock all of your stuff in a locker, check your hands, pockets, etc. They give you earplugs. You use their computer. They record you the whole time. They check your drivers license and take a fingerprint.
Those methods would stop a large % of your attack vectors.
As do the repercussions:
A candidate who violates National Registry policies, or the test center's regulations or rules, or engages in irregular behavior, misconduct and/or does not follow the test administrator's warning to discontinue inappropriate behavior may be dismissed from the test center. Exam fees for candidates dismissed from a test center will not be refunded. Additionally, your exam results may be withheld or canceled. The National Registry of EMTs may take other disciplinary action such as denial of National EMS Certification and/or disqualification from future National Registry exams.
At a minimum you're paying the $150 fee again, waiting another month to get scheduled and taking another 3 hours out of your day.
I'd rather go take the test in person than subject myself to such extreme surveillance of my own premises.
I'd agree, but I did it at work in a conference room. And I was able to schedule a day out virtually instead of a month out for in person, and I didn't want them taking my fingerprint.
I used a spare laptop I wipe.
Making them surveil your employer instead is not a bad idea either.
I'd pit my megacorp's security against theirs any day of the week, but as I said I just used and wiped a laptop just for the test.
I took 3 CompTIA certification tests at a community college testing center. This was the procedure, more or less.
> When you take the test in a proctored testing center location they lock all of your stuff in a locker, check your hands, pockets, etc. They give you earplugs. You use their computer. They record you the whole time. They check your drivers license and take a fingerprint.
While attending there, I also took a virtual Calculus class. The instructor was based in the satellite campus, several miles away. The virtual class required a TI graphing calculator, used Pearson textbook & video lectures, and all the tests and quizzes were in Canvas. I worked from home or the main campus, where there was a tutoring center, full of students and tutors making the rounds to explain everything. I received tutoring every other week.
But then our instructor posted the details on our final exams. We were expected to arrive in-person, for the first time of the semester, on that satellite campus at specified times.
I protested, because everything I'd ever done was on the main campus, and I rode public transit, and the distance and unfamiliarity would be a hardship. So the disability services center accommodated me.
They shut me into in a dimly lit one-person room with a desk, paper, and pencil, and I believe there was a camera, and no calculator required. The instructor had granted an extended period to complete the exam, and I finished at the last possible moment. I was so thankful to be done and have good results, because I had really struggled to understand Calculus.
wow, that’s intense. i wonder how much actual cheating they must have caught to arrive at such a draconian model. it would be interesting if they published their statistics to make it clear whether all these things are truly necessary.
What stats would convince you? A woman was jailed in the UK last week for taking in person tests on behalf of others. She wore a variety of wigs to fool test centre staff. Where there's demand there's people who will try to supply it.
i guess i would expect them to publish some rates of disciplinary actions per sitting and the type of attempted behavior.
ex “1% of test takers were disciplined for attempting to contact someone for help using a disallowed electronic device surreptitiously”
minimally as deterrance
The remote proctored exam is a major invasion of privacy, but nevertheless, there's at least a dozen ways you could cheat despite all of that.
I fear that remote-proctoring can be liable to more false positives, if they are going to flag actions that "might" indicate a cheating sort of behavior, but they can't reach in and unveil your secret cheat sheet or identify your accomplice. I don't know the whole process after the remote proctor flags something, but it would seem more difficult for the student to defend innocence.
It's quite unfair of them to basically say "we're not competent enough as proctors to come up with evidence of guilt, so we'll use a guilty-until-proven-innocent system instead."