Editing Proctor (section)

==Education==

===High university official===
In some universities, a proctor is a high official.

====Cambridge University====
[[File:Agar Cambridge Proctor 1815.jpg|thumb|left|upright|Proctor of the [[University of Cambridge]], aquatint by [[John Samuel Agar]] after [[Thomas Uwins]], from ''History of the University of Cambridge'' (1815) by [[William Combe]]]]
The early history of the office at Cambridge is obscure, but it seems that the Proctors have always represented the colleges in University proceedings.<ref name=EB1911/> In the past the Proctors administered the university's finances, acted as examiners for all candidates for the degree of [[Bachelor of Arts]], prosecuted anyone suspected of unfair trading, and had a multitude of other tasks. At present their functions are twofold: (1) taking part in all university ceremonials, and (2) enforcing discipline in the case of members of the university who are ''in statu pupillari'' (undergraduates, Bachelors of Arts and [[Bachelor of Laws|Bachelors of Laws]]).<ref name=EB1911/>

=====Election=====
At [[University of Cambridge|Cambridge University]] the Proctors are nominated every May by colleges identified in a predetermined cycle. They then serve for one year from 1 October, assisted by their Deputy Proctors and two Pro-Proctors. They must have been a member of the Senate for three years, and must have resided two years at the university. The two Pro-Proctors are not, as at Oxford, nominated by the Proctors, but are also elected by the Regent House on the nomination of the colleges, each college having the right to nominate a Pro-Proctor for the year next before that in which it nominates the Proctor (Grace of 26 February 1863). Two additional Pro-Proctors are also elected by the Senate each year, on the nomination of the Vice-Chancellor and Proctors, to assist the latter in the maintenance of discipline (Grace of 6 June 1878).<ref name=EB1911/>

The Proctors for 2020–2021 are Dr Karen Ottewell (Senior Proctor) of [[Emmanuel College, Cambridge|Emmanuel College]] and Dr Annamaria Motrescu-Mayes (Junior Proctor) of [[Clare Hall, Cambridge|Clare Hall]].

The Deputies to the Proctors are Dr Gemma Burgess (Deputy to the Senior Proctor) of St Edmund's College and Mr Francis Knights (Deputy to the Junior Proctor) of Fitzwilliam College.

The Pro-Proctors are Dr John Fawcett (Senior Pro-Proctor) of Churchill College and Rev'd Dr Mark Smith (Junior Pro-Proctor) of Clare College.

Mr Timothy Milner of Darwin College is additional Pro-Proctor for Ceremonial.

Mr Gordon Chesterman of St Edmund's College is additional Pro-Proctor (2020–21).

The first hundred years of Proctorial records are mostly lost, but the Proctors' Office web site has a more or less complete list of the Proctors since 1314.

=====Ceremonial functions=====
The Proctors are ''[[ex officio]]'' members of the Board of Scrutiny, the Board of Examinations, and various other bodies. Their presence is essential at all Congregations of the Regent House, at which the Senior Proctor reads all the Graces and the Junior Proctor takes the vote of the Regent House. If any Grace is opposed by any member of the Senate saying ''non-placet'', the Proctors take the votes of those present and announce the result. Graces are offered not only for making changes in University Statutes and Ordinances and for appointing examiners and the like, but also for granting degrees. When a degree is to be taken, the college of the candidate presents a ''supplicat'' or petition for the degree; this petition is approved by the Regent House, if and when they have satisfied themselves that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions, and is read at the Congregation by the Senior Proctor: these ''supplicats'' are practically never opposed, but Graces for new Statutes and Ordinances are frequently opposed, and on very important occasions such as the election of a new Chancellor many hundreds of non-resident members of the Senate come up to record their votes.<ref name=EB1911/>

=====Disciplinary functions=====
The proctors' powers as to discipline have a very long history. As far as concerns members of the university they have authority to impose certain fines for minor offences, such as not wearing academic dress on occasions when it is ordered, and also to order a student not to be out of their college after a certain hour for a certain number of days ("gating"). For more serious offences, the proctor generally reports the matter to the authorities of the offender's college to be dealt with by them, or as a last resort brings the offender before the university court of discipline, which has power to [[Rustication (academia)|rusticate]] or send down (expel). 

The power of the proctors over persons who are not members of the university dates from charters granted by [[Elizabeth I of England|Elizabeth I]] and [[James I of England|James I]], which empowered the university authorities to search for undesirable characters, men and women, rogues, vagabonds, and other ''personas de male suspectas'' (persons suspected of evil), and punish them by imprisonment or banishment. In recent times this power was often exercised with respect to prostitutes. The proctors promenaded the streets attended by their servants who are always sworn in as special constables. These constables, colloquially known as "Bulldogs", are now members of [[Cambridge University Constabulary]]: they retain full police powers of arrest within 5 miles (8&nbsp;km) of [[Church of St Mary the Great, Cambridge|Great St Mary's Church]], deemed to be the centre of the university (proctors no longer have the power of arrest). 

If occasion arose, the proctors and their constables could arrest a suspected woman and have her taken to the [[Spinning House]] (for which [[Thomas Hobson (postal carrier)|Thomas Hobson]] the carrier had left an endowment). The next day, the woman would be brought before the [[List of Vice-Chancellors of the University of Cambridge|vice-chancellor]], who had power to commit her to the Spinning House; as a general rule the sentence was for no longer than three weeks. For this purpose the Vice-Chancellor sat ''[[in camera]]'' and the jurisdiction had nothing to do with that of the vice-chancellor's court.{{clarify|date=June 2016}} In 1898, attention was called to this procedure by the case of a girl named Daisy Hopkins, who was arrested and committed to the Spinning House. Application was made on her behalf to the [[Queen's Bench Division]] for a writ of ''[[habeas corpus]]'', and when the application came on it appeared that there had been a technical irregularity (the prisoner not having been formally charged when brought before the Vice-Chancellor); so the writ was granted and the prisoner released. She afterwards brought an action against the proctor, which failed. It was then decided to abolish the practice of hearing these cases ''in camera''. The whole practice was, however, objected to by the authorities of the town, and after a conference an agreement was reached: the proctorial jurisdiction over persons not members of the university was abolished (1904).<ref name=EB1911/>

Today, the Junior Proctor retains special responsibility for university societies and for resolving disputes arising from the [[Cambridge Students' Union]]. The Special Pro-Proctor for Motor Vehicles is responsible for licensing the keeping and using of motor vehicles (other than mopeds) within {{convert|10|mi|km}} of Great St Mary's Church by University students who have not yet reached MA status and are in residence in term or in the Long Vacation period of residence. The Motor Proctor also has the power to impose a fine of up to £175 on students breaching the regulations on the keeping and using of motor vehicles.

====Oxford University====
{{See also|Oxford University Police}}
[[File:Oxford Proctor 1674.jpg|thumb|upright|1674 engraving of a Proctor in the [[University of Oxford]].  From ''Habitus Academicorum'', by George Edwards]]
The Proctors of [[Oxford University]] are senior officers of the university who are responsible for enforcing University discipline and sanctions, for handling complaints against the university, and for conducting public [[Test (assessment)|examination]]s (often at the [[Examination Schools]]). They are elected annually by the [[colleges of Oxford University|colleges]]. Two Proctors are elected each year: a Senior and a Junior Proctor.<ref>[http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/proctors/ About the Proctors' Office], University of Oxford website</ref>

The reform of the university statutes in 2002 reorganised the disciplinary system of the university and reduced the powers of the Proctors. However, they still act as [[ombudsman|ombudsmen]] for the university, and handle formal complaints by and against students (although more minor disciplinary matters are usually dealt with by the [[Dean (education)|Dean]] of each college). They have the power to issue [[Fine (penalty)|fines]] to members of the university for numerous offences, including [[cheat]]ing in examinations.<ref>[http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/2004-5/supps/1_4728.htm Oration by the Senior Proctor], Oxford University Gazette, 23 March 2005</ref>

Prior to 2003, the Proctors were aided in disciplinary matters by the [[Oxford University Police]] (who wore [[bowler hat]]s and were generally known as "Bulldogs"); the University Police were a private constabulary with full powers of arrest within the precincts of the university and within four miles (6&nbsp;km) of any University building.<ref name="kofk">p194-5, Bruce, Alastair and Calder, Julian, ''Keepers of the Kingdom'' (Cassell, 1987), {{ISBN|0-304-36201-8}}</ref><ref>[http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1999-00/weekly/230300/oration.htm Oration by the Senior Proctor], Oxford University Gazette, 23 March 2000</ref> However, after receiving public criticism in 2002 for their exercise of authority over citizens of Oxford who were not members of the university,<ref name="ot">[http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2002/05/22/6593799.University_police_branded__too_powerful_/?ref=arc University police branded 'too powerful'] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402101618/http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2002/05/22/6593799.University_police_branded__too_powerful_/?ref=arc |date=2 April 2015 }}, ''Oxford Times'', 22 May 2002</ref> the force was disbanded by the University Council in 2003, due partly to the excessive expense of complying with new Government requirements on police training and complaints procedures.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080528000052/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/10/15/dp1501.xml Straw rejoices as Oxford's Bulldogs are put down], ''The Daily Telegraph'', 15 October 2002</ref><ref name="gaz2">[http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/2002-3/weekly/270303/notc.htm#1Ref Oration by the Senior Proctor] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205042758/http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/2002-3/weekly/270303/notc.htm#1Ref |date=5 February 2012 }}, Oxford University Gazette, 27 March 2003</ref> Today, the Constables have been redesignated as "Proctors' Officers" and continue to serve under the Proctors, but no longer have the powers of police constables.

===Examination supervisor===
{{main|Exam invigilator}}
In the [[United States]] and some other countries, a proctor can be any teacher or other staff member at a university, secondary school, or even elementary school when they are [[Exam invigilator|supervising the administration of a test]] or [[Test (assessment)|examination]]; i.e., the role referred to as an "''invigilator''" in British, Canadian, Australian and South African English.

====Online proctoring====
Online proctoring is the monitoring or invigilation of assessments taken remotely.

Online proctors verify test-taker identity and monitor to prevent cheating using a variety of methods, including live, record-and-review, and automated proctoring. Online proctoring services work with colleges, universities, corporations, and other certification providers to offer identity verification services and assessment monitoring.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://examity.com/docs/BBJ_Article.pdf|title=Mass. tech firm that thwarts cheaters of online tests is in 'super growth mode'|website=Boston Business Journal|access-date=2017-10-15 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20181112132108/https://examity.com/docs/BBJ_Article.pdf |archive-date=12 November 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://rutgersonline.desk.com/customer/en/portal/articles/2900365-proctortrack|title=What is Proctortrack?|website=rutgersonline.desk|access-date=13 June 2018}}</ref>

Demand for online proctoring has expanded in recent years as a result of rapid expansions in online learning. In 2006, the [[United States Department of Education|Department of Education]] waived<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.worldwidelearn.com/education-advisor/indepth/financial-aid-online.php|title=Down with the 50 Percent Rule: Up with Online Education Financial Aid|website=World Wide Learn|access-date=2017-10-16}}</ref> the so-called “50 percent rule,” which stipulated that U.S. students in online degree programs could only receive federal student aid if half of their programs were campus-based. As of 2017, one in three students take<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.brookings.edu/research/promises-and-pitfalls-of-online-education/|title=Promises and pitfalls of online education|website=Brookings|date=9 June 2017|access-date=2017-10-17}}</ref> at least one course online during their college career. In addition, instructors in face-to-face classes can also administer exams online.

Higher education institutions around the world make use of online proctoring for tens of thousands of exams. The 17 campuses of the University of North Carolina proctor<ref name="IHEonlineExamProctoring">{{cite web|url=https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2017/05/10/online-exam-proctoring-catches-cheaters-raises-concerns|title=Online Exam Proctoring Catches Cheaters, Raises Concerns|website=Insde Higher Ed|date=10 May 2017 |access-date=2017-10-16}}</ref> between 30,000 and 40,000 exams online per year. At the fully online [[Western Governors University]], 30,000 exams are proctored online each month. Recent estimates suggest<ref name="IHEonlineExamProctoring" /> that there are about fifteen providers of online proctoring.

====Research on online proctoring====
Research suggests that students are equally likely to cheat online as they are in person.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.usnews.com/education/online-education/articles/2014/06/17/think-twice-before-cheating-in-online-courses|title=Think Twice Before Cheating in Online Courses|website=U.S. News & World Report|access-date=2017-10-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/do-online-students-cheat-more-on-tests/|title=Do Online Students Cheat More on Tests?|website=Faculty Focus|date=6 November 2015 |access-date=2017-10-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/views/2017/02/06/robert-ubell-online-cheating-and-what-colleges-can-do-about-it|title=Online Cheating|website=Inside Higher Ed|date=6 February 2017 |access-date=2017-10-15}}</ref> However, one study found that nearly three-quarters of college students hold the perception that cheating online is easier than cheating in person.<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring131/watson131.html|title=Cheating in the Digital Age: Do Students Cheat More in Online Courses?|journal=Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration|date=15 March 2010 |volume=13 |issue=1 |access-date=2017-10-16 |last1=Watson |first1=George |last2=Sottile |first2=James }}</ref> In 2016, USA Today reported on research by Examity which suggests that 6% of students violate rules for proctored online exams.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pressreader.com/usa/usa-today-us-edition/20160415/281530815190023|title=Cheating on Finals|website=USA Today|access-date=2017-10-11}}</ref>
There is clear evidence to that it is easily possible to circumvent e-proctoring software. A scientific test of the Proctorio software at the Dutch University of Twente showed that the software was not able to detect any of the cases of examination fraud it was subjected to. The conclusion was that the sensitivity of Proctorio is disastrous and should be considered at very close to zero.<ref>[https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/275927505/3e2a9e5b2fad237a3d35f36fa2c5f44552f2.pdf On the Efficacy of Online Proctoring using Proctorio]</ref>

Some online proctoring providers give colleges and universities access to anonymized, aggregated data on proctoring and cheating rates.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2017/07/universities-use-analytics-authentication-prevent-cheating-online-courses|title=Universities Use Analytics, Authentication to Prevent Cheating in Online Courses|website=EdTech: Focus on Higher Education|access-date=2017-10-18}}</ref> These analytics tools allow institutions to measure their violation rates against other schools, as well as to track incidents by time of year and type of course, among other metrics.