They report cheating in the UNAM online test; what is the Safe Exam Browser and why did your system fail?

El UniversalIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 905 days ago

The Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) has established a technical commission to review the 2026 undergraduate admission process, which faced controversy over potential irregularities and the use of artificial intelligence in evaluations. The commission, operating in a permanent session, is analyzing documentation provided by the university administration and requesting additional evidence from various institutional units. Its goal is to provide clarity to the academic community and society regarding the admissions process and to identify possible responsibilities. The commission also aims to explore alternative approaches for future admissions processes. The decision to create this independent body followed public concerns raised by applicants, academics, and experts. Eduardo Backhoff Escudero, a member of the commission, confirmed that they are working on the issue, responding to calls for recognition of those who passed the entrance exams through honesty and perseverance.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual account of the establishment of a commission to investigate the 2026 UNAM admissions process, focusing on transparency and accountability. It does not take a clear ideological stance but reports on the actions taken by the university and the responses from stakeholders

Why factuality (95): The article accurately outlines the formation of the Technical Commission and its goals of ensuring inclusion, equity, and transparency. It aligns with other reports and provides clear context about the scope of the investigation.

Why objectivity (90): The tone is neutral and informative, focusing on the university’s official communication and the steps being taken to address the controversy. It avoids taking sides or expressing opinion.

El UniversalIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 806 days ago

Protesters outside the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) demanded the cancellation and rescheduling of the university entrance exam in person mode after the institution suspended online testing due to alleged fraud. Demonstrators gathered near the campus, chanting slogans against online exams and calling for transparency. They handed over a petition to university authorities, requesting that future exams be conducted in-person, individual notifications be issued to affected applicants, and mechanisms for appeal and dialogue be established. The university authorities could not meet with the rector and instead received the demands from other officials. One protester, Melanie Maya, criticized the online exam system and called for reinstatement of in-person testing.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the protests as a legitimate call for transparency and fairness, emphasizing concerns about online exam integrity and advocating for in-person assessments. It highlights the frustration of students and their families, portraying them as victims of a flawed system. The emphasis on

Why factuality (85): The article accurately describes the protests and demands for a face-to-face exam, which aligns with the broader narrative. It includes quotes from demonstrators and mentions the university’s response, supporting the cross-source consensus.

Why objectivity (80): The tone remains neutral, presenting both the protesters' demands and the university’s position without taking an explicit side. The language is descriptive rather than opinionated.

El UniversalIndependentCenterFactual 80Objective 854 days ago

The National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) is investigating whether artificial intelligence (AI) was used to gain unfair advantages during its 2026 undergraduate admissions exam. However, current university regulations do not specifically list AI as a reason to invalidate the exam. The admission guidelines prohibit the use of electronic devices such as phones, smartwatches, and calculators during the test but do not explicitly mention AI tools. Experts have pointed out a regulatory gap, noting that while the rules address other forms of cheating, they fail to account for AI assistance, which has become a central concern in the ongoing review of the exam results.

Bias read (Center): The article presents information objectively, citing the university’s regulations and expert opinions without overtly favoring any side. It does not use emotionally charged language or selectively present sources to support a particular viewpoint. The focus is on identifying a regulatory gap rather

Why factuality (80): The article accurately explains the legal framework around the cancellation of exams and the absence of explicit provisions for AI use. It aligns with other sources about the rules governing the admission process and the consequences of violations.

Why objectivity (85): The article remains neutral in tone, explaining the legal aspects without taking sides. It avoids emotional language and focuses on the procedural and legal dimensions of the issue.

El UniversalIndependentProgressiveFactual 80Objective 806 days ago

Students who failed the first virtual entrance exam at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) staged a protest in Ciudad Universitaria, demanding the cancellation of the online exam and its rescheduling in person. Demonstrators gathered near the Metro Ciudad Universitaria and Insurgentes Sur, heading towards the Rectorate Tower, chanting slogans against the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in exams and calling for transparency. They accused the university of unfair practices, claiming that some candidates who cheated received higher scores, while those who studied honestly were unfairly penalized. One student, Melanie Maya, expressed frustration over the perceived injustice, stating that many students had sacrificed months of study and felt it was unfair that those who used cheating tactics benefited. She called for the return of in-person exams and the cancellation of the online test for those suspected of misconduct.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue as a struggle between honest students and those who allegedly cheated using AI, implying that the university is failing to uphold fairness. The emphasis on transparency, criticism of AI in exams, and calls for in-person testing align with progressive concerns about techn

Why factuality (80): The article reports on the demonstration in front of the Rectoría, describing the participants and their demands. It aligns with other articles about the protests and the call for a presential exam. The information is consistent with the broader narrative of student dissatisfaction and institutional

Why objectivity (80): The tone is neutral, presenting the actions and demands of the demonstrators without taking sides. It focuses on reporting the events without injecting personal opinion or emotional weight.

El UniversalIndependentProgressiveFactual 80Objective 755 days ago

Students selected through the online entrance exam at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) protested at the university's headquarters, demanding that their results be respected. The demonstrators, who were admitted based on their performance in the virtual exam, argued against the possibility of repeating the test in person, citing concerns over the psychological, physical, and emotional effects of such a change. They acknowledged potential cheating but rejected the generalization of these practices across all participants. The students presented a petition to university authorities, calling for the continuation of the enrollment process within the established timeline, respect for the honest selection process, and proper attention to those selected. One student, Frida, shared her experience of passing the exam and being accepted into a design program, emphasizing that the university was unfairly generalizing cheating accusations.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the students' demands as legitimate grievances against institutional unfairness, highlighting their frustration with generalized accusations of cheating and the potential negative impact of requiring a physical exam. The tone supports the students' perspective, portraying them as

Why factuality (80): This article accurately reports the protest by selected applicants who were upset about the possibility of retaking the exam in person. It includes quotes and demands from the protesters, which are consistent with other accounts.

Why objectivity (75): The article presents the protesters’ grievances without taking a clear position, but the emphasis on their demands may give a slightly more sympathetic tone to the students’ perspective.

La JornadaIndependentCenterFactual 75Objective 8010 days ago

Young individuals have been sharing guides on TikTok that provide tips on cheating during the entrance examination for the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). These guides reportedly offer strategies to circumvent the exam's security measures, raising concerns about academic integrity. The content has sparked discussions about the effectiveness of current monitoring systems and the potential impact on the fairness of the admissions process. Authorities and educators are likely evaluating the situation to determine appropriate responses.

Bias read (Center): The article reports on a specific issue related to academic integrity and the methods used by students to cheat in university entrance exams. It does not present a clear ideological slant but rather focuses on the actions of individuals and the implications for the educational system. There is no明显的

Why factuality (75): The article reports on the PAN party demanding an audit of the online exam. This political angle is consistent with other articles discussing external pressure on the UNAM. While it introduces a political actor, it does so within the context of ongoing controversy and is aligned with cross-source re

Why objectivity (80): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting the political demand as a formal request without endorsing or criticizing the party involved.

El UniversalIndependentProgressiveFactual 75Objective 705 days ago

El 17 de julio se revelaron los resultados de los exámenes de admisión a la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), que se llevaron a cabo en formato en línea por primera vez. Esta decisión generó controversia en redes sociales y entornos académicos, con usuarios reportando irregularidades y posibles fraudes. La UNAM suspendió temporalmente el proceso de inscripción tras detectar fallos en el sistema de seguridad. Se informó que el software Safe Exam Browser (SEB), utilizado para garantizar la integridad de la prueba, falló al no bloquear dispositivos externos o monitores adicionales, lo que permitió a algunos aspirantes usar inteligencia artificial para responder preguntas. La Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP) establece que los exámenes digitales deben incluir autenticación biométrica continua y control del entorno físico. Como consecuencia, ciertas carreras experimentaron un aumento inusual en los puntajes, alcanzando hasta 117 aciertos sobre 120. La UNAM anunció la creación de una comisión técnica para investigar los incidentes y considerar una denuncia penal.

Bias read (Progressive): El artículo destaca las irregularidades en el sistema de evaluación digital de la UNAM, lo cual refleja críticas hacia la implementación tecnológica en educación pública. Mientras menciona la existencia de mecanismos de seguridad, enfatiza la falla del sistema y la necesidad de medidas más estrictas

Why factuality (75): The article explains the failure of the Safe Exam Browser system, citing cybersecurity experts’ views. It provides context about the system’s limitations and how it may have been circumvented, which aligns with broader discussions.

Why objectivity (70): While informative, the article emphasizes the system’s shortcomings and user concerns, which may subtly favor the perspective of those affected by the exam issues.

El UniversalIndependentCenteryesterday

The article discusses the growing issue of students using artificial intelligence (AI) to cheat on academic work, highlighting concerns over academic integrity and the challenges educators face in detecting such practices. It cites studies showing a significant increase in AI usage for homework, with many students admitting to using tools like Grammarly to generate content without proper attribution. In one case, two high school students used AI-generated text for a project, including fabricated citations, which was identified by a federal judge. The article also references broader research indicating that nearly two-thirds of university students in the U.S. used AI during the 2023-2024 academic year, with some using it for cheating. Experts emphasize the need for updated educational frameworks and assessment methods to address this evolving challenge.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced overview of the issue, citing multiple studies and expert opinions without overtly favoring any particular political ideology. While it highlights concerns about academic dishonesty and calls for systemic changes, it does not take a clear partisan stance on solutions,