Here's the video of the prof addressing the class on the matter: Pretty heavy stuff yo. Honestly, I'm siding with the prof on this one, even if it may be a complete bluff that he used his advanced statistical analysis to pinpoint about a third of the class who may have had a part with the cheating. It's a pretty good tactic on getting the cheaters to identify themselves and 'fess up. I feel a bit of sympathy for the students who did study and performed well on the test, because the new test they have to do is completely untested, the people who wrote it don't know which questions test well and which ones work in a test setting, so the make-up test could be either really difficult, or easier than the original, or the difficulty level could stay the same. But if you studied for the first test, you're damn sure going to study for the second one, so in the end, those students who were honest the first time around have more studying time and could potentially do better. What sucks is the promise of the cheaters who confessed not having any negative repercussions. I think that they should get away with a slap on the wrist at the very least, that 4 hour ethics course is garbage compared to what kind of trouble some students get in for breaching the code of academic integrity. I think a mark on their transcript, or maybe even getting a zero as their midterm mark would be something that should be done. This is obviously a huge deal and sets the university name back quite a bit. So if you're one of the honest students, you're essentially getting put in the same group with the other cheaters, and if applying for a job, the employer's not going to see the difference, and will just apply this incident for everyone who graduated in that year.