# Cheating on SAT Illegal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 28, 2011, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904 "2011-09-28T17:32:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/41 "2011-10-01T14:16:25Z")
The New York Times article also states that the perp was using a driver’s license with the picture replaced; and that he has been charged with felonies, and the ones whose test he took have been charged with misdemeanors. It also mentions that the female was “in a romantic relationship” with the accused. I suspect that the majority of cases do not result in charges because it’s something that’s difficult to prove after the fact, especially if it’s one pair of cheaters and the only real evidence is wildly inappropriate scores. The article says the authorities at the school first heard rumours of the cheating; then decided to check, so they looked up those who took the test at a different location (where they were not known on sight). Even in huge high school, that probably was not more than a dozen or three. Six had wildly inappropriate SAT scores, so the pulled the tests. They matched the handwriting on all 6 tests to another student from the previous year “because his handwriting was known to them.” It probably wasn’t hard to pick students from the last 2 or 3 years capably of achieving that score consistently. Apparently they knew it was another local student whoduunit, probably again from the rumours. My guess is they hauled them in and started the questioning. At very least, fraud is signing the piece of paper swearing you are who you claim to be. I bet one of them confessed - the force can have a strong influence on the weak minded. Plus, the authorities had them all - they pretty much knew the setup once they had the papers; they just needed a confession to seal the deal. If nobody admitted anything, it would have been a weaker case based solely on handwriting analysis. (Unless they could fingerprint the papers too? Does cheap photocopy paper hold fingerprints well?) The moral of the story is keep your mouth shut - to your friends in the first place, and especially to the police. Finally, I guess criminal conviction or not, confession or not, SAT could always nullify their scores which is what they typically seem to do. If that went to court, it’s “preponderance of evidence”. Handwriting should be enough to win that if it’s obvious, even if it does not win “beyond reasonable doubt”. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/42 "2011-10-01T14:31:29Z")
Md200 did you read the second article? It is really much the same as the first article a person with a fake ID took tests for others. But in that case nothing happened except for tests being invalidated. The main deal is that the SAT and ACT testing companies have a policy to not do anything but invalidate the tests. Both articles speculate they do this mainly to avoid litigation. What is different here is that this cheating was discovered buy the high school and they told the police and DA. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/43 "2011-10-01T15:02:56Z")
> [@minkyhaha](#): > > He was arrested and paraded in front of the nation for cheating on the SAT, period. I’m not sure why you keep making that contention as many posts in this thread have pointed out that it is not the case. If he was found with a cheat sheet inside his coat pocket while taking the test, then there are no crimes committed. If they didn’t require ID and he just falsely signed his name, that probably wouldn’t be a crime. But he used a forged government ID. When you use a false government document for pretty much anything, you can be arrested and that is what happened here. It happens in every other circumstance as well and is not limited to SAT cheating. Try handing a cop a false drivers license when you get pulled over and see if you are charged. If you are under 21 and present a false ID to the clerk at the privately owned liquor store, you can be charged. And there are some instances where you can be held criminally liable for making false statements to a private entity. Insurance fraud comes to mind. State Farm is a privately owned business, but I can go to jail for misrepresenting myself to them. The SAT is privately owned and no laws against cheating on it have been passed yet, but if there were, I can’t say that it would be ridiculous to do so. The benefits of a good SAT score are in the tens of thousands of dollars, and there is a legitimate government interest in preventing that fraud. I fail to see the outrage. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/44 "2011-10-01T15:21:25Z")
> [@gazpacho](#): > > Md200 did you read the second article? It is really much the same as the first article a person with a fake ID took tests for others. But in that case nothing happened except for tests being invalidated. > > The main deal is that the SAT and ACT testing companies have a policy to not do anything but invalidate the tests. Both articles speculate they do this mainly to avoid litigation. What is different here is that this cheating was discovered buy the high school and they told the police and DA. If they were trying to avoid litigation, they would not nullify the scores. The only litigation between SAT and an alleged perp is “reinstate my score” which is what Adler did. Sounds like they have a policy of not calling the police over fake IDs. Again, Mr. Adler in the second article was charged with perjury. Unless they caught the person red-handed taking the test and called the police immediately and have all documents in hand, it’s pretty difficult to prove the impersonation beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the guy had a test score and was suing to prevent it being invalidated, obviously the SAT did not have “beyond reasonable doubt” proof. (Would you as a jury accept the word of an eyewitness that out of a room of 100-plus nondescript strangers, he can definitely identify one who was present and one who was not?) The test was finished, turned in and graded before the problem came to light, since he’s suing over the marks? In the OP incident I assume they have confessions, otherwise it would likely be a tenuous case. Mr. Adler in the linked article failed to heed the “Oscar Wilde Principle”, that it is a very bad idea to sue when you are clearly in the wrong and criminal charges can result from the testimony. I would be curious to know what proof they have of perjury. It requires 2 independent pieces of evidence that the person lied, not just that the judge believed someone else’s story over yours in the last court case. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/45 "2011-10-01T15:28:30Z")
From the Baltimore Sun > [@](#): > > The SAT scam began last fall when a high school friend and student at the University of Virginia took the college entrance exam for Adler. The friend scored 1410 out of a possible 1600 points. > > The Educational Testing Services, which administers the SAT, received a tip that Adler had not taken the test. ETS told Adler it was questioning his scores and was withholding his scores while it investigated. > > Adler sued to force ETS to release the scores. During that case, Adler lied about his involvement with the test. He also got a friend, David Scrulevich of Rockville, to testify for him. Adler lost the case, also in Montgomery County Circuit Court, and later confessed to what had in fact occurred. > > He was charged with five counts of perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice. In August, he agreed to a guilty plea. Mr. Scrulevich, now a student at a North Carolina community college, was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. He pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and is scheduled to be sentenced next week. Basically, they have his and his accomplice’s confessions. Once again, the only evidence strong enough to convict is a confession; and then, only for the cover-up, not for the actual SAT scam. “Received a tip…”? Sounds like same as the OP case, someone could not keep his mouth shut. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/46 "2011-10-01T15:34:49Z")
Reading the Sun article closely, the other person charged assisted in perjury. The guy who took the test does not appear to have been charged. We assume he kept his mouth shut and his head down during all of this. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/47 "2011-10-01T16:04:46Z")
> [@gazpacho](#): > > I don’t understand why people are getting so cranky at minkyhaha. His central question is a good one. People are caught taking the test for someone else fairly frequently. What usually happens is that the SAT test is invalidated, and that is it. No other penalties apply. You are allowed to take the test again. Why in this case were people arrested? I think people are getting so cranky at **minkyhaha** because they’re seeing **minkyhaha** getting so cranky at the idea that cheaters on the SAT are being arrested, and are interpreting this (rightly or wrongly) as **minkyhaha** being soft on cheating—saying that it’s no big deal and shouldn’t be punished. But that’s subtext, and not an issue for GQ. You’re right that there is a good question here—probably more than one. (1) What laws (if any) were these people actually breaking? I’m curious to hear a legal expert weigh in with an authoritative answer to this. But I don’t share the OP’s apparent incredulity that they could have been breaking a law. What if I wanted to get a job as a school bus driver, but I don’t drive very well, so I hire someone else to pose as me, with a fake ID, and take the (private) bus company’s driving test for me? It wouldn’t surprise me that a law was being broken in that case, and it might well be the same law as in this SAT situation. (2) If such cheating is illegal, why is it usually not prosecuted? The answers we’re seeing here seem to be that, in many cases, it’d be difficult to prove in a way that would hold up in a criminal court, particularly if the accused are minors. (3) If it usually is not prosecuted, why was someone arrested in this particular incident? ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/48 "2011-10-01T16:06:36Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > What benefit did he receive from the aggrieved party? I dunno, but that’s not relevant. The benefit and fraud don’t have to come from the same source. The statute says: > [@](#): > > A person is guilty of criminal impersonation in the second degree when he impersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another. I think the OP raises a very interesting question… not “why was this a crime” so much as “if this is a crime, why isn’t it prosecuted more often.” ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/49 "2011-10-01T16:21:00Z")
> [@anson2995](#): > > I think the OP raises a very interesting question… not “why was this a crime” so much as “if this is a crime, why isn’t it prosecuted more often.” I believe that has been answered upthread. The company that administers the SAT would rather simply disqualify the applicant who cheated/presented false ID than go to the expense of contacting the authorities, filing a complaint, and taking the time to be a witness at trial, etc. It’s much like the same way a bar will just ask a drunk and unruly patron to leave instead of calling the cops and swearing out a complaint for disorderly conduct. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/50 "2011-10-01T16:49:58Z")
> [@anson2995](#): > > I dunno, but that’s not relevant. The benefit and fraud don’t have to come from the same source. The statute says: Well, it kind of is relevant, since your original claim was that the accused use a fake ID to obtain a benefit. As it turns out, it’s debatable whether the ID was fake within the definitions of the law and you’ve now conceded there was no benefit. Essentially, you’ve moved the goalposts to rely on the 2nd section of the statute, which is much clearer and applicable to the instant situation, but still does not change that no good claim has been made in this thread for how the 1st section is applicable. I don’t believe people are seeking this information to be argumentative, the statute is written vaguely, obtaining benefits generally has a clear distinction and in the case here, the accused in the OP derived no apparent benefits from his actions, only compensation. I believe this makes a difference in the eyes of the law. > [@](#): > > I think the OP raises a very interesting question… not “why was this a crime” so much as “if this is a crime, why isn’t it prosecuted more often.” OP didn’t raise this question. OP asked why cheating on a test administered by a private party could lead to legal sanctions. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/51 "2011-10-01T16:53:26Z")
And I don’t think that cheating on the test is illegal, per se. I think that certain actions that lead to cheating on the test are construed as illegal. Example: I write some very magical mathematical formulas on my hand and look at them when I take the test. What laws have I broken? What I find interesting is that it’s even debatable if the SAT company was defrauded. What exactly were they deprived of by the accused in the OP? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/52 "2011-10-01T17:27:51Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > What I find interesting is that it’s even debatable if the SAT company was defrauded. What exactly were they deprived of by the accused in the OP? I would argue that in order to maintain the integrity of their testing scores, they must implement, at a large cost, a system to validate the identity of people taking the test. Therefore people who attempt to gain entry to the test with false IDs are the ones that make this increased cost necessary. ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/53 "2011-10-01T17:49:21Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > Well, it kind of is relevant, since your original claim was that the accused use a fake ID to obtain a benefit. As it turns out, it’s debatable whether the ID was fake within the definitions of the law and you’ve now conceded there was no benefit. How is it debatable whether the ID was fake? The article the OP cites is quite clear. And I have not conceded that there was no benefit. You asked whether he obtained a benefit from the testing company, and I pointed out that this was not a necessary element of the crime. [QUOTE=IAmNotSpartacus] Essentially, you’ve moved the goalposts to rely on the 2nd section of the statute, which is much clearer and applicable to the instant situation, but still does not change that no good claim has been made in this thread for how the 1st section is applicable. I don’t believe people are seeking this information to be argumentative, the statute is written vaguely, obtaining benefits generally has a clear distinction and in the case here, the accused in the OP derived no apparent benefits from his actions, only compensation. I believe this makes a difference in the eyes of the law. [/QUOTE] I think that is a bizarre interpretation, since a) no such distinction is made in the statute between “benefit” and “compensation,” b) the statute does not say that the benefit must derive from the party that is defrauded, and c) even if there was no benefit, the criminal impersonation charge can apply if there was an intent to defraud. I think the criminal impersonation charge is a slam dunk. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/54 "2011-10-01T17:57:35Z")
> [@anson2995](#): > > How is it debatable whether the ID was fake? The article the OP cites is quite clear. If you’ll re-read what I actually posted, you’ll note no claims about the validity of the ID were made. Indeed, the ID is stipulated as being fake, I am speaking as to whether or not it is illegal to have a fake **school** ID. Although upon further research, it’s evident one need not present a fake government issued ID in New York to be guilty of presenting false ID, only presentation of any document generally used for ID purposes, of which a school ID is no doubt covered. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/55 "2011-10-01T18:00:18Z")
> [@minkyhaha](#): > > Run out of semantics? You forbade me from any further expression of substantial thought (“don’t rationalize it further”) and I politely complied. Are you saying now that you’d prefer that I _did_ offer further argument? Do you want to talk about it or not? If you do, then avoid saying things like “don’t rationalize it further.” ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/56 "2011-10-01T18:07:13Z")
> [@anson2995](#): > > I dunno, but that’s not relevant. The benefit and fraud don’t have to come from the same source. The statute says: > > I think the OP raises a very interesting question… not “why was this a crime” so much as “if this is a crime, why isn’t it prosecuted more often.” Those are good questions, but they’re not what the OP asks. The OP asks whether people are arrested for cheating on the SAT very often. The factual answer to that question is just this: No one has _ever_ been arrested for cheating on the SAT. This _could_ have been treated as a simple misphrasing on the OP’s part and we _could_ have charitably assumed that the OP intended to be asking the questions you mention here–but the OP has unfortunately clarified that he means specifically to ask a question which presupposes that the people in this case _were_ arrested specifically for cheating on the SAT. He has gone so far as to tell me not to “rationalize any further” a claim that they were _not_ arrested for cheating on the SAT. So since the OP is insisting he intends to ask specifically how often people are arrested for cheating on the SAT, the function of GQ makes the most relevant and helpful thing to say just the following: No one has ever been arrested for cheating on the SAT. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/57 "2011-10-01T18:11:24Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > Essentially, you’ve moved the goalposts to rely on the 2nd section of the statute, which is much clearer and applicable to the instant situation, but still does not change that no good claim has been made in this thread for how the 1st section is applicable. By “section” do you just mean the bits listed number 1, number 2, and so on in the statute? All I saw your interlocutor referring to was the line listed number 1–which would be hte first section as far as I can tell. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/58 "2011-10-01T18:13:06Z")
Here’s the statute I’m talking about: > [@](#): > > § 190.25 Criminal impersonation in the second degree. > A person is guilty of criminal impersonation in the second degree when > he: > 1. Impersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with > intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another; or > 2. Pretends to be a representative of some person or organization and > does an act in such pretended capacity with intent to obtain a benefit > or to injure or defraud another; or > 3. (a) Pretends to be a public servant, or wears or displays without > authority any uniform, badge, insignia or facsimile thereof by which > such public servant is lawfully distinguished, or falsely expresses by > his words or actions that he is a public servant or is acting with > approval or authority of a public agency or department; and (b) so acts > with intent to induce another to submit to such pretended official > authority, to solicit funds or to otherwise cause another to act in > reliance upon that pretense. > 4. Impersonates another by communication by internet website or > electronic means with intent to obtain a benefit or injure or defraud > another, or by such communication pretends to be a public servant in > order to induce another to submit to such authority or act in reliance > on such pretense. > Criminal impersonation in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor. What “second part” are you talking about? As far as I can tell, the claim is the person who took the tests is in violation of the part labeled “1” above–he impersonated someone, in order to obtain a benefit. What benefit? The payment he received for taking the test. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/59 "2011-10-01T21:34:30Z")
Fry, I think you are right that there were sufficient legal grounds to arrest these people, but I also have a general sense that this case stinks. Minor matters of fraud that are mostly civil in nature are rarely prosecuted in this manner, and certainly don’t lead to perp walks and national news. The worst part to me is that once again the low level supply guy is taking the heat, and the members of the privileged class who create the demand and the situation in the first place will get off with a slap on the wrist. Think about how many drug users there are in college and at jobs leading nice middle class and upper class lives while their former suppliers rot in prisons or have their lives marked by a victimless crime. IMHO, this is just another case of scapegoating to hide systemic societal problems. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904/60 "2011-10-01T23:12:05Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Here’s the statute I’m talking about: > > What “second part” are you talking about? > > As far as I can tell, the claim is the person who took the tests is in violation of the part labeled “1” above–he impersonated someone, in order to obtain a benefit. What benefit? The payment he received for taking the test. The question as to whether or not the **compensation** the accused received amounted to a benefit. Using general definitions from the dictionary, I don’t believe the threshold is met. Perhaps if there were a legal definition of a benefit, we could look at that, no one has provided one as of yet. In any event, compensation and benefits are distinct concepts and are not interchangeable. ETA: And we’ve covered the defrauding part as well, and nobody has yet offered a solid argument as to what the testing authority was deprived of, in order to constitute fraud. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheating-on-sat-illegal/597904.md?page=4)