An Open Letter To Schools That Continue To Ban Dual Boot Capable Macs

[GCoop]

Dear Schools That Continues To Ban Dual Boot Capable Macs,

Macintosh computers have recently switched processers, from Motorola/IBM based G4 and G5 processors, to Intel based processors, the same processors that are used by many computers that run Windows. 

In the past, one could run Windows on a Macintosh with a G4 or G5 processor only with a program called Virtual PC.  This program allowed a user to open up Windows as a seperate program, for lack of a better term, inside the Mac.  Many law schools disallowed this, and for good reason.  Not only would exam software that locked out functions of the operating system be ineffective (Windows was just another program running, and could be minimized, providing full access to the Macintosh OS), but also because the solution was extremely slow and buggy.

Now that Macs have Intel processors, those computers are capable of doing something unique.  Using free software available from Apple, users can install software called "Boot Camp."  This software allows a user to decide, when booting their computer, which operating system they want to boot into:  OS X or Windows.  If the user chooses OS X, they are exclusively operating in OS X.  If the user chooses Windows, none of the features of OS X are available to the user.  When a Mac with Boot Camp is booted into Windows, the computer is no different than any other Windows-based PC.

Another company has created a program called Parallels.  Much like the old Virtual PC, Parallels allows users to run an instance of the Windows operating system inside OS X.  Unlike Virtual PC, however, because the Mac is now based on an intel processor, there are fewer problems with speed, etc.  Still, the dangers are the same -- a user using exam software in Windows inside Parallels running inside OS X still have access to OS X.

Some schools have taken the availability of a program like Paralells as enough evidence to continue to disallow Macs in the classroom.  There would be no reason whatsoever to prevent a student from using Boot Camp, but schools that do not trust their students feel that banning Macs can prevent the risks of Virtualization software like VirtualPC or Parallels.  This is simply not the case.

Microsoft has recently introduced software called Virtual PC for Windows itself.  This software allows any user of a WINDOWS computer to install software that allows them to operate ANOTHER instance of Windows inside an already running copy of Windows.  In other words, Virtual PC for Windows creates the same risks as VirtualPC or Parallels for Mac.

A school that wants to prevent students from using virtualization software does not achieve its goal by banning Macintosh computers.  The only way to ensure that someone isn't running virtualization software is to check manually on each computer, to carefuly watch students during exams, or to ask exam software writers to write code that is capable of determining whether or not their software is running in a Virtual environment. 

Banning Mac computers, specifically those dual booted in Boot Camp into Windows, from exams is misguided.  It does not mitigate in any way the risks you are concerned with that led you to the initial ban.

Sincerely,

Snappy

[dcforlife]

Good post, but a few considerations you've left out.

1) There are a lot of other reasons, separate from fears of students bypassing exam software, that lead schools to ban Macs.

- minimum required hardware configurations: many schools promulgate such requirements, and may not be interested in adapting them for Mac hardware

- beta software: BootCamp, Parallels, and VMware Fusion (all ways to put Windows on a Mac) are in beta. Beta software, by definition, is incomplete, potentially unstable, and not ready for full release. As in the real world where regulatory agencies protect consumers from themselves, law schools are protecting students from using a product that isn't yet finalized. Apple itself warns not to use it with important information at this moment

- support: if the support staff is training on PCs only, it's a paradigm shift to teach them to support Windows running under a Mac. Schools may not be willing to spend the money to do this, and may not be interested in running a two-tier system where some students can get help and others are left in the cold. Apple is supporting BootCamp in the next release apparently, but that's only one of the many partners involved, some others being the law school support staff and the exam software company.

- liability/responsibility: continuing above... what happens if exam software fails on a Mac running Windows? Who supports it? Who is supposed to fix it? If the helpdesk won't, and Apple won't, and the exam company won't, are you, the student supposed to address the issue? Will you have to work with the professor to prove you need extra time and aren't cheating? At schools where exams MUST be taken on a laptop, will Mac users need a backup laptop or bluebook option of some sort, and will professors tolerate that?

- other software: many schools require users to run other software that may not work under the BootCamp scenario -- not everything is guaranteed to work. Schools certify their programs will work with their minimum hardware configs (see above) and may not be interested in testing the same on a Mac to certify it. A VPN client is a good example - some require specific PC network cards to operate correctly.



2) Microsoft's VirtualPC is just the latest - PC virtualization's been around for ages

VMware Workstation, for example, provides similar (and arguably much better) virtualization functionality, and it's been widely available since the late 90s. Macs may just have gotten it, and Microsoft may have just started making it, but it is not a new technology available to PC users.

Ethics policies and written agreements signed by students are used at a variety of schools to prohibit usage of virtual PCs, and the others just lump it under "bypassing the exam software". Also, tracking such usage is surprisingly easy -- virtual PCs have network adapters that are easily identifiable as "virtual" with one command. I'd submit that law schools which ban Macs are likely doing so for reasons more substantive than simply virtualization.

[GCoop]

Funny you should post that.  Someone else just responded to almost all of these other "concerns":

http://maclawstudents.com/blog/speculation/boot-camp-and-cheating/

[nealric]

- beta software: BootCamp, Parallels, and VMware Fusion (all ways to put Windows on a Mac) are in beta. Beta software, by definition, is incomplete, potentially unstable, and not ready for full release.

I think you fail to understand what dual booting is. Once the mac is in windows, it is no longer running boot camp. The ONLY time it could fail is in getting windows to start booting in the first place. If there any problems with windows on a mac, it is ONLY because of issues with mac motherboards (or any integrated hardware that is on them).

- minimum required hardware configurations: many schools promulgate such requirements, and may not be interested in adapting them for Mac hardware
 

Mac hardware is not functionally different anymore. The minimum hardware requirements would apply exactly the same. Even then, min hardware requirements are mostly a joke. Any computer you can buy new today has easily quadruple the computing power a law student needs.

[dcforlife]

Funny you should post that.  Someone else just responded to almost all of these other "concerns":

http://maclawstudents.com/blog/speculation/boot-camp-and-cheating/

It's an interesting post, though I think there are several errors. And while I can see the tongue-in-cheek humor of the quotations around "concerns" in your reply, a la "gay marriage" and "War on Terror", they really are concerns, no quotations, that staff face in trying to provide law school students with a fair platform during their studies.

1. ... There just aren’t that many variables that can go wrong with a boot loader.

The bolded sentence pretty much gives that away. There is an enormous amount of things that can go wrong with a boot loader. A "payroll system" or "the next challenger to Oracle", are bizarre choices as examples, because they're not at all analogous... they're applications... a bootloader has to work to even GET to the application. Furthermore, BootCamp the product isn't "just a bootloader". It is also a collection of drivers and software for use in Windows. The drivers that Apple provides for the Windows side are, as of my last viewing, not WHQL certified. Drivers not certified for use with Windows often work just fine, but can also fail nastily. It means they don't follow the procedure Microsoft laid out to avoid a lot of problems.

And the author of the article can denigrate the term "beta", but it means what it says, and Apple clearly states that it will not support it at this time. Even when Apple does support it, it doesn't mean a law school will support it, nor the exam software maker.

I think a lot of things will change when it comes out of beta, but at the moment, that's what it is *shrug*. Can't point a finger at anyone but Apple for that.

2. “ExamSoft...

Fine for that company, but aren't there 3 others? Extegrity, I believe, only supports it provisionally for the precise reason that BootCamp is beta... again, Apple changing that designation would fix that problem.

3. ...any PC that meets the basic requirements to run SofTest will be allowed...

As for what PC will make it through the door, that really touches on a point I made. Schools set the hardware requirements. Often they are far greater than what this person casually suggests is the case (though that very well may be the case at their school).

And, no matter how lowbrow a PC configuration, it is still a PC. Macs are not PCs, no matter how much they can now act the part. The poster glosses over this, but the fact that Macs need an additional component to act like a PC is a big deal.

4. “Hardware vendors aren’t generally in the business...

This I'd definitely agree with. No reason schools should expect Apple to support the exam software as an independent app. But, Apple not supporting BootCamp leads some exam software vendors to not support their software in BootCamp, so that's where the link is probably formed.

5. “Because the state bar arbitrarily constrains exam takers, we’ll do the same thing.” Should students be restricted for three years because restrictions are placed on them for a few hours at the end of that three year period?

That's just the thing though -- it isn't always "arbitrary". Because this poster can simply write it off doesn't mean a tech support group for the bar can as easily. Individuals can be flexible and adapt quickly to changes, but organizations can't. It's naive to think that the restriction is simply "arbitrary" in nature. It just ain't that simple.

I think the poster fundamentally misunderstands the problem. It really isn't a case of law school tech departments being 100% lazy or stupid, or anti-Mac, or set in their ways and unwilling to change. In fact, the staff on the tech departments are 9 times out of 10 the ones who had the new technology in question before any of the law school students even heard of it. They *want* to be able to use it, but their job and profession require an attention to detail that exceeds the casual nature of an individual computer user. Their goal is to make sure everyone gets a fair chance with the technology they have and enjoys a similar experience. And, unfortunately, that standardization can take awhile.

I mean, again -- this software is *beta*. It just surprises me to see people get so up in arms about something that isn't even a final release. What else in life do we expect to be fully available and supported that isn't in a final state? Beta refrigerators? Beta televisions? Beta prescription medications? Apple will finalize the software, and it'll all go neatly from there. But at this point, it's just going to be a slow process.

[dcforlife]

I think you fail to understand what dual booting is. Once the mac is in windows, it is no longer running boot camp. The ONLY time it could fail is in getting windows to start booting in the first place. If there any problems with windows on a mac, it is ONLY because of issues with mac motherboards (or any integrated hardware that is on them).

I do understand what dual-booting is, and that isn't the case. Hardware separate from the motherboard can cause issues, as can the drivers (that last I checked weren't certified as I mentioned) which provide access to the hardware.

Mac hardware is not functionally different anymore. The minimum hardware requirements would apply exactly the same. Even then, min hardware requirements are mostly a joke. Any computer you can buy new today has easily quadruple the computing power a law student needs.

I definitely agree with the overkill. My point was more that law schools understand what a certain set of PC specifications translate to in performance. They may not be interested in determining a set of specs for optimal performance both in Windows and in Mac.

And while the general hardware is converging, one of the examples I gave was specific hardware. See, for example, GW's page: http://www.law.gwu.edu/Admitted+JD+Applicants/Notebook+Computer+Requirement.htm . A Mac running BootCamp would not be permitted because permitted computers must have a wireless card listed on that page. All I can find from Apple are various references to Airport... but if the MacBook isn't running a chipset listed on that screen, then you're out of the game.

[GCoop]

The real answer here is to treat people like adults and not use any kind of exam software.  If your hardware fails, then have a paper/pen or loaner backup strategy, but ... treat people like adults.

A school specifiying that laptops that computers have wireless cards only with specific chipsets is just moronic.  Support one of the standards (b/g/a whatever) and let it be.  I am skeptical of that level of specificity; it makes me wonder if the school gets a kickback on purchases of their "recommended configuration, direct from this link to our 'preferred vendor'"

You say that Apple's require non certified drivers, but many PCs ship with uncertified drivers as well.  This is neither unique nor different.  The fact of the matter is, a Mac booted into Windows XP Pro from Boot Camp is no different than a generic PC booted into Windows XP Pro.  That the initial boot comes from EFI and not BIOS plays no role in any of the software running in the OS. 

Banning Macs from law schools/law school exams is merely lazy.

[P.U.S.H]

No comment about the topic... just wanted to say I love the screen name Snappy

[GCoop]

That link to the GW computer specs page is pathetic.  Such strict requirements for providing support at all mean that almost everyone is forced to buy their recommended config from Dell.  It smells like something's up.

Compare it to Michigan's computer policy:

http://www.law.umich.edu/currentstudents/informationtechnology/laptops/specs.htm

Totally open.  Recommendations, yeah.  But not dire warnings about not having a certain specific wireless network card.  GW requires 802.11b w/ LEAP support.  That should be it.  Don't specify 10% of the available products that can meat this requirement, insisting I use one of those.

Michigan's policies allow people to bring almost anything that meets minimum requirements.  There are thousands of systems that qualify.

GW's policies lock you into a limited universe of choices, making it easy to just buy it through them.

Color me skeptical.

Furthermore, I'm not making that choice, but if I were in a position to choose between a school with a policy like Michigan's and a school with a policy like GW's, the attitude expressed by the IT staff in the GW policy tells me I should be choosing the other school.  With all else equal, my $125,000 goes to the school with the more open policy everytime.

[dcforlife]

The real answer here is to treat people like adults and not use any kind of exam software.  If your hardware fails, then have a paper/pen or loaner backup strategy, but ... treat people like adults.

I guess I agree and don't agree. I think that people should be treated like adults, but what's to be done about the guy who chats with a friend back home giving him the answers? I guess they could kill wireless during exams or something

A school specifiying that laptops that computers have wireless cards only with specific chipsets is just moronic.  Support one of the standards (b/g/a whatever) and let it be.  I am skeptical of that level of specificity; it makes me wonder if the school gets a kickback on purchases of their "recommended configuration, direct from this link to our 'preferred vendor'"

That's one way to think about it, and perhaps the case, but the other way to think about it is a page out of Apple's book. When you use the exact same hardware in a computer, you know exactly what to expect, and you limit your range of problems. It isn't absurd or pathetic... it's a good way to streamline support. When was the last time you could go buy all the components for a computer and then install an Apple OS on it? I vaguely remember when Apple leased out its OS and other manufacturers built the hardware, but that certainly isn't the case now. Restricting hardware makes for easier support, as anyone with an Apple can attest (or a videogame console -- that'd be another example).

You say that Apple's require non certified drivers, but many PCs ship with uncertified drivers as well.  This is neither unique nor different.  The fact of the matter is, a Mac booted into Windows XP Pro from Boot Camp is no different than a generic PC booted into Windows XP Pro.  That the initial boot comes from EFI and not BIOS plays no role in any of the software running in the OS.

I wasn't saying the PCs didn't do that, though I would say it isn't a prevelant process. Windows even has drivers for 5-year old hardware in my PC made by a manufacturer that doesn't exist any more. There are certified drivers for VMware virtualized hardware that doesn't even physically exist. Not certifying drivers is lazy. My point in mentioning it in the context of Apple was intended to initially show that the BootCamp suite isn't "just a bootloader" and later to clarify that it wasn't just issues with an Apple motherboard that could cause a problem.

Banning Macs from law schools/law school exams is merely lazy.

I disagree, which I suppose is obvious, but I certainly understand how it appears that way.