In fact, this is one of the most exam-tackling strategies: spot and rake up points with low-hanging fruits throughout the test.
But, to put it in your words: exam tackling strategies are not vital real-world skills.
The truth is tests are merely a game between student and professor. A game born of arrogance and gatekeeping. There are even metagames being played as exemplified by this article: would the professor really ask such as question?
A bit offtopic to article, engineering exams tend to be about noticing little details and not ignoring them.
The story doesn’t report that only an elite few were able to solve a specific next-level question to get full marks. It says some people are so hung up on grades that they went straight for the honey pot.
> It says some people are so hung up on grades
So? Practically, grades matter pretty often. And even if they did not, there is nothing wrong with being motivated by grades or having grades related ambitions.
You say this like full credit is required to pass. A perfect score is often practically impossible, and at least a big achievement in most of higher education, not something most people can walk in expecting to get.
I don't. I did not said nor implied that. I said full credit, because I meant full credit. I did not meant "required for barely passing".
> A perfect score is often practically impossible, and at least a big achievement in most of higher education, not something most people can walk in expecting to get.
It is pretty often practically possible and achieved. In any case, motivated talented hard working student is entitled to expect full credit to be possible.
Average student is entitled to expect all exercises to be possible to solve and within range of what was taught in the course. Even if he personally cant solve everything, it should be doable.
EDIT: In other words, if you know to hoover up the easy marks, you get a better score anyway.
If a teacher takes no real measures to prevent some students from cheating, that breaks trust with the honest students. This story - true or not - is of a teacher trying to create trust with the honest students by ensuring that at least some of those who cheat don't get away with it.
Honestly the problem is this mass education model where professors have hundreds of students to assess. Tests are necessary in this environment because they scale to any number of students. If people want an honest appraisal of their skills, a mentor who focuses on a single student exclusively is much better positioned to provide it.
Not abiding by the rules that have been set.
> Looking up the answers in one's books or phone?
Yes, if the rules have said that you are not permitted to do so.
> Talking to your fellow students?
Yes, if the rules have said that you are not permitted to do so.
> That sort of artificial difficulty shouldn't even be part of the rules in the first place.
If you are studying a subject that is intended to have you gain certain skills, then it is reasonable and appropriate to assess whether or not you have done so. Being able to recall certain facts and to carry out certain procedures without external assistance is sometimes/often included in the skills you are expected to acquire as part of the course.
> If your tests are so easy they can be solved via Google, they're pointless and it doesn't really matter if someone is cheating in the first place.
Suppose you are learning calculus, and your instructor wants to know if you can differentiate a particular function from first principles. This is an important skill to ensure you are ready to move to the next stage, but it's trivial to search for it on the internet.
This is just one example that counters your assertion.
> If people want an honest appraisal of their skills, a mentor who focuses on a single student exclusively is much better positioned to provide it.
True. Given the current trends in teacher numbers versus student numbers, that's unlikely to happen. So in the meantime we must do what we can with mass assessment, and try to make that assessment fair. Preventing cheating is part of that.
If it was an open-book exam then arguments could be made that looking stuff up online is an extension of looking it up in the official textbooks (unless you are _only_ allowed the official textbooks... but you get my drift).
Every school and uni exam (for the most part) will have past papers you can test yourself with. The exam doesn't deviate a whole lot (in my experience) from the past papers with the changes usually revolving around the made-up scenario, e.g. "a boat with a speed of 34kph..." vs "a plane travelling at a speed of..."
They could have studied the past papers and done well but they wanted the easier route.
So, no, they cheated. They deserved their punishment.