Due to the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2008, a large number of Wall Street executives, financial managers and other corporate officers were accused of their unethical behavior. At the same time, some people pointed that cheating had become more prevalent among business students. An article reported that 56% of business students admitted that they had cheated when they were studying in school, but only 47% of nonbusiness students admitted to cheating when they were students. The same type of debate occurred in the Bayview University as well, so the dean decided to run a test to see what the results would look like. In this case, 90 students were chosen to answer the quiz which was used to obtain results regarding three types of cheating. The quiz provided 3 simple “yes or no” questions, and the rule was that any student who answered yes to 1 or more of these questions was considered to have been involved in some type of cheating. The goal of this report was to help the dean find out whether the cheating was a major problem in the Bayview University and to give the dean some advice after the data analysis. Methodology and Hypothesis

The methodology of this report was using descriptive statistics to summarize the data and comments. The descriptive statistics tables were provided as follows. (The sample data were provided in Appendix) Table 1: quiz statistics results for all students

All| Internet| Exam| Collaborated| cheater|

Y| 23| 16| 23| 48|

N| 67| 74| 67| 42|

Total| 90| 90| 90| 90|

P(Y)| 25.6%| 17.8%| 25.6%| 53%|

P(N)| 74.4%| 82.2%| 74.4%| 47%|

From the table 1, we can see that there were 48 students that admitted cheating in at least 1 type of those options, and the proportion of cheating in this case was 53%. Among those 3 options, both option 1 and option 3 had the same proportion of cheating which was 25.6%. The lowest proportion of cheating option was option 2, the proportion of which was 17.8% and there were only 16 students that admitted it

Develop 95% confidence intervals for the proportion of all students. As we know the confidence interval for the proportion of all students who were involved in some type cheating can be calculated by the sample data through interval estimate formulation, so the calculated result is 0.53±0.104. We can use the same way to calculate the confidence intervals for the proportion of male students and the proportion of female students who were involved in some type cheating. For table 2, the calculated result is 0.57±0.141; for the table 3 the calculated result is 0.49±0.149. (Data tables 2 & 3 were provided in Appendix)

The hypothesis test which was used to determine if the proportion of business students at Bayview University who were involved in some type of cheating was less than that of business students at other institutions as reported by the Chronicle of Higher Eduction can be set as follow: H0:μ≥0.56

Hα:μ＜0.56

We can assume that α=0.05，np≥5, n(1-p)≥5, through computing the value of test statistics: z= -0.58, p-value=1-0.281=0.719. Because p-value＞α ,so we can’t reject H0. It means there is sufficient statistical evidence to infer that the proportion of cheating students in Bayview University was more than that of students at other institutions. We can use the same way to calculate determine if the proportion of business students at Bayview University who were involved in some form of cheating was less than that of nonbusiness students at other institutions as reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education. H0:μ≥0.47

Hα:μ＜0.47

Through computing the value of test statistics: z=1.13, p-value= 1-0.8708=0.1292. Because p-value＞α, we can’t reject H0 as well. It means we can get the same result as above. Result and Conclusion

After a series of data analysis, I find that cheating was more widespread at Bayveiw than at other universities. In other words, cheating was a major problem in the Bayview...