Alright, I think everyone must realize that no matter how serious AI abuse by students or instructors may be in this university, that is not a reason for personal privacy to be violated.
Let us be straightforward. There are two aspects that everyone must realize.
- Privacy issues
Rosalyn’s privacy policy says it collects exam-session data including webcam images, photo ID images, video and audio from the webcam and microphone, identifying information, device IDs, and IP addresses. It also states that refusing to provide required personal information or disabling webcam/microphone access prevents a student from taking the exam through the service. Separately, the policy says students may be given the option to consent to the use of exam-session data to train Rosalyn’s AI algorithms.
That raises a simple question for UoPeople: is AI-training consent truly optional, and can students refuse it without losing access to exams?
https://www.rosalyn.ai/trust-center
- UoPeople’s original intention
Is there still anyone here who remembers what this university was founded for?
UoPeople came into being so that poor people from all over the world could improve their knowledge and even change their fate. You only needed to give what you were able to give, and then begin devoting yourself to learning.
I do not want to defend any AI users, whether they are students or teachers, but those people from impoverished regions should still be allowed to use offline proctoring.
As for the degree-mill problems that arise, those should be left to companies and schools to solve and screen for. People who have not gained knowledge will never be accepted. But this is not a reason for UoPeople to cancel offline proctoring — unless it is far too eager to get rid of those students who make it look “less prestigious.”
This reminds me of The Greatest Showman. Barnum became famous by relying on the troupe of oddities. The outside world’s rejection made Barnum determined to enter high society. After meeting Miss Jenny Lind, he neglected the troupe of oddities who had accompanied him all the way.
Everything is so similar. UoPeople was originally a university established so that poor people could also have access to education. As its teaching quality gained recognition, it obtained WSCUC accreditation. But this also multiplied UoPeople’s pressure, including the recent WGU degree-mill news.The Washington Post
UoPeople says: Rosalyn, I want to enter high society.
But, UoP, do not forget the road you came from. A usable laptop, stable electricity, proctoring fees — for people in many countries, these are truly, truly difficult. You can never imagine what kinds of corners of the world those students who long for education are living in.
Of course, I still understand UoPeople. But this is a systemic problem. The high cost of university tuition has caused many people to be unable to receive the education they should have received. Therefore, RA accreditation has made people begin to support every seemingly correct action by UoPeople.
We all know that abusing AI is wrong. Submitting AI-generated work as one’s own work is not learning; it is only pretending to learn. It hurts honest students, weakens the value of everyone’s degree, and gives universities a convenient excuse to treat every student as suspicious.
But that is exactly why the solution must be careful, fair, and humane. Academic integrity should protect honest students, not punish them with systems that ignore poverty, weak infrastructure, privacy concerns, and the realities of studying from difficult places.
UoP, you should fight AI abuse. But you should not abandon us once again for Miss Lind.
This is a circus. It is not an art show that belongs only to Miss Jenny Lind.
