Quiz Document PDF

Some interviews are flagged for cheating because someone else is talking and the candidate (TC) is lip-syncing. Do we know for sure that lip syncing a clear signal of cheating? Should we always flag it as either blatant or suspected cheating or not at all? The truth is lip-syncing can be one part of...

Some interviews are flagged for cheating because someone else is talking and the candidate (TC) is lip-syncing. Do we know for sure that lip syncing a clear signal of cheating? Should we always flag it as either blatant or suspected cheating or not at all? The truth is lip-syncing can be one part of suspected cheating. Audio issues are real while the evolution of candidate cheating is also real. We have seen candidates cover their mouths, we zoom in to look for the act of opening or closing the mouth or check for a lack of facial expressions on top of lip syncing or listen for coughs or try to determine if hands are matching the typing on keyboards to what they verbally say, and it all can get very complication and become stressful for IVEs to focus so hard during a live interview that it becomes mentally taxing. The good news is we can simplify lip-syncing and prevent it from stressing us out! Let’s think of it as just one indicator that suspected cheating may be occurring. This is key! Once we determine they may be lip-syncing, move on and continue with the interview as we normally would. We can look for another type of signal later on in the interview so as to not become frustrated and protect our mental well-being. On its own, lip-syncing is not blatant cheating. The best an IVE can do is flag if potentially suspicious as suspected cheating and then QC will do the verification. Trend: Low Audio Quality Interviews have been flagged for cheating when a setting appears to have been used to purposely have low video quality. We are working with a global audience, so we cannot assume cheating if they have their video off or low quality audio. While we can’t control the video streaming quality on the candidate’s side, certain behaviors may raise flags for potential cheating. Some examples include a robotic or inconsistent speech pattern compared to the candidate's usual speaking style, code being produced without typing (suggesting copy-pasting), or even overhearing someone else in the room providing answers. If you notice a candidate is not in a visible position, you may ask them to reposition so that they are in the camera frame. Witnessing these trends in action can be difficult to identify as clear cheating on their own. Now, let's explore a tactic that allows us to flag potential cheating more effectively by relying on observing a combination of signals. Combination Observations A combination of signals is our best friend with potential cheating! It will protect our mental wellness. During a live interview, if we notice two or more signals of cheating, we can make a mental note to flag the interview. We might see or hear the word “something”, we might wonder about lip-syncing, or we might worry that a candidate set their video quality to low on purpose. We might see many other possible signals. It’s important to note that our role is not to determine whether a candidate is definitively cheating, but rather to identify and flag any suspicious behavior for further review. Our QC team will then assess the interview, and ultimately, the client will make the final decision regarding any misconduct. We want to encourage you to flag anything that seems suspicious. If you identify any suspicious behavior, please feel free to mark the interview as possible cheating and the QC team will proceed accordingly. Whether we observe suspected cheating from a category on the form or from another tactic, we can still use the combination method to determine when to flag an interview for cheating. New Signals as Identified by a QCer We see interviews flagged for cheating with notes saying TC was "looking at another screen" which has become a bit overblown, as multiple monitors or large monitors are very common, and some candidates compulsively check the time or check on the IVE. It helps to establish where you think Karat Studio (KS) and the room are in the candidate's view and then decide if there's a third location involved as well. Some of the traditional clues are good (going top to bottom, not being able to explain the approach, writing code fluently and then lots of fumbling over minor issues or bugs). Check out this list of some new major clues that are not yet covered: 1. The candidate highlights the entire question, especially if it's immediately after the IVE pastes it. There's no reason to do this and IVEs can see it happen. It's the biggest clue that something is up.  2. Long pause between asking / introducing the question and getting an answer. The mainstream LLMs tend to give very verbose answers that take some time to digest. 3. Reading something that sounds scripted especially with DAQs. I've done QC where the candidate sounds like they're reading a sales brochure. The LLMs tend to try to sell you on their reasoning. 4. Using the wrong data type in the function signature. Without some guidance, LLMs will tend to use the easy data type, i.e. in Java using List instead of String[]. This can also burn the IVE, so we should be double-checking the function signature anyway. 5. The candidate gets flustered by questions. What I've observed is that when using AI assistance, the candidate tends to get absorbed in using the AI and is now in a 3-way conversation between themselves, the IVE, and the LLM, and questions can be an interruption in the conversation. Sometimes candidates can be rude or dismissive of the IVE or just not responsive to instructions. 6. Lots of typing without any activity in Karat Studio. 7. Candidates have someone talking in their headphones or voices in the background. Sometimes the body language is obvious, but one common thing that I've seen is that the candidate looks like someone who took a phone call when you're in the middle of a conversation - their eyes go unfocused or just look off in space. Also there's a long pause - you can have 10-15 seconds where they're receiving input and they're extremely distracted when this happens. (IVEs also have reported hearing voices which QC has a hard time picking up; it might be that these don't get picked up well on video.) This puts the candidate in a 3-way conversation and can make them seem distracted. I don't think any one of these is a big signal but if you get 2 or more the signal gets stronger. Many thanks to the author of this amazing list, a Karat IVE and QCer, Gordon Weakliem! New QC Rules Below you will find the new policy requirements related to flagging cheating, the handbook has also been updated. These policies were developed and reviewed by QC Leads to ensure greater consistency in cheat detection across the community. Many IVEs are committed to flagging cheating, and their efforts are truly valued. This policy aims to create a fairer environment for those dedicated IVEs. The policy will go into place on January 1, 2025. Policy Update: IVEs are required to flag blatant cheating and suspected cheating in the results form. If an IVE doesn’t flag blatant cheating, a Guideline Incident will be applied, if an IVE doesn’t flag suspected cheating, a Guideline Take Note will be applied. What isn’t changing? How cheating is flagged is the only change here. What IVEs observe will remain the same. No one will receive an incident for a new way of cheating that pops up, as we know cheating tactics adapt and evolve over time. Check out some examples on this chart (please note, they do not encompass all scenarios): Blatant Cheating Suspected Cheating Possible Cheating (required to flag) (required to flag) (not required to flag) Someone else’s voice in Barely audible voice in the the background background, could not be Long pauses related to the interview Long periods of looking in Unnatural gaze patterns Occasional glances away another direction prior to that hint at external answering prompts. Writing a perfect solution Overly perfect solutions Unusually verbose coding line-by-line but providing a without proper styles that mimic glaringly incorrect explanations AI-generated code explanation of approach or code As a reminder, for IVEs and QCers, your role is to identify behaviors that may suggest cheating. However, it is not Karat's responsibility to make the final determination about whether cheating occurred or if the client should hire the candidate. QC Impact QC is essential! It serves as an IVE’s most reliable tool for validating cheating observations. We must adhere to the standard QC rules and guidelines for all interviews—including those that are flagged—since our clients take cheating seriously and will be closely monitoring these interviews. It's important that our quality aligns with the established guidelines. When an interview is flagged for suspected cheating, we highlight the concern with clients and ask them to carefully review the interview results and video. Karat's job is to flag possible cheating but we aren't making the final decision on whether to move forward with the candidate. It's important that the client reviews the integrity of the interview. Therefore, clients also review how the interview was conducted, which means the IVE’s performance plays a big part. These flagged interviews often get extra attention, so how they’re handled reflects on Karat.