This article is from the archive of our partner .

Adam Martin's post today on the cheating scandal at New York's Stuyvesant High School prompted one of our commenters to reminisce about taking the same tests. As Commenter briala wrote: 

At least when I took them many years ago, the Regents exams were very basic, meant mainly to show you had learned the minimal, lowest common denominator set of knowledge for which it is reasonable to expect an entire state-wide body of students to be able to learn and master.

For truly elite students, then, like say the best in New York City, these tests should be a cakewalk.  So much so I can't believe it was easier to snap a mobile phone pic than it would have been to solve a question straight up.

Why would so many be interested in participating I wonder?  And given the time frame for which its relevant -- the single block of 3 hours in which the test is being administered -- how could so many of these students be on their phones about it at once?

My guess is there's more to this story than we've heard so far.

Isn't it true with many cheating stories that just taking the test seems like a far simpler solution than the hassle the cheaters go through?

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to