*/By Rick Nason, PhD, CFA
Partner, RSD Solutions Inc/*
*/Follow us on Twitter/* [1]
By now you have heard about the test cheating scandal by members of the U.S.
Air Force who were caught cheating on their mandatory tests for operating
nuclear missiles. As a university professor I am aware that cheating is
basically a fact of tests and exams. From the U.S. Air Force example it
appears that the phenomenon occurs in all places and under all situations.
All risk managers have of course been tested on various subjects at some
stage of their life; through K – 12, college, university, trade school, or
perhaps even through taking one of the risk management certification programs
such as GARP or PRMIA. Undoubtedly some of them may have cheated once,
twice or perhaps systematically at one time or another.
Cheating on a test or an exam is of course not correct. However, is
cheating on a test any worse than cheating on an analysis being done for
senior managers, regulatory reports or other stakeholders of the firm? I am
not talking about lying about the results, or cribbing or copying the results
of someone else. I am instead talking about not doing the due diligence
required to make sure the numbers are accurate. I am talking about perhaps
assuming a given distribution for a calculation when another distribution
would give truer results. Perhaps it is deliberately not asking the right
risk questions. These are all forms of cheating, and there are many others.
Cheating is not confined to test taking.
[1] https://twitter.com/rsdsolutions
1 comment:
Great post!
I think the biggest motivator for cheating is that it is a much cheaper alternative. Why pay two people to do a number of in-depth due diligence when you can pay one person to do the same amount with "hidden" assumptions? Why spend 10 hours studying and truly understand something when you can take 15 minutes to write multiple choice answers on the inside cuff of your sleeve? I would argue the root of the problem is one of the oldest: near-sightedness. Instant gratification always seems more appealing than long-term success.
Post a Comment