Cheating software is silly. Seems simpler to force someone to a secure location with a trusted proctor. This can and should be shared amongst all users of this and costs amortized appropriately.
> Yet even as officials come up with novel ideas, so do the cheats. In February, a medical student at Mahatma Gandhi Memorial College in Indore, a small city, was caught with a skin-coloured Bluetooth device surgically implanted in his ear. A phone linked to the device was sewn into a secret trouser pocket. Last year, ten students taking a trainee-teacher exam were arrested for attempting to use Bluetooth gadgets concealed in the soles of their flip-flops. At least 25 students had bought such footwear from a gang for 600,000 rupees ($7,700) a pair. It is often mandatory for students to remove shoes and socks before exams.
While I don't disagree, a secure location with a trusted proctor is not simple or easy for all cases: students may be studying remotely/at home, which could be in a rural area with no accessible proctoring, or internationally with no trusted proctoring.
And that is not always due to their own wishes: covid lockdowns, unavailability of international flights or other governmental restrictions may be keeping them there.
For things like the SATs/ACTs in the US, this used to be the case. I think it still is, but less 'important' tests (read: probably in-school tests and such) were moved remotely because of covid and might be stuck in a kind of limbo now
Or just instruct the student to go to a location chosen at random from a list of nearby cooperating venues -- schools, churches, office buildings, whatever -- where they won't have had the chance to prepare any elaborate cheating schemes.
That would represent a good compromise between an on-site proctor and allowing the student full control over the testing environment.
