If you work on Chegg's "advanced physics", you've possibly helped people cheat on exams I've written! I recommend you don't admit to doing any such thing. In terms of the damage you've done, you're worse than an actual cheater.

@knzhou If OP is indeed one of the people helping people cheat in exams, they "are worse than an actual cheater". +100 - not only did these cheaters not get out of their study fees what they paid for (an education), such an enabler devaluated the degree of the honest students, the degree of the cheaters is worthless as they cannot do in a real job what they profess to be able to do, so their employers are being cheated, too. Everything around lost, except OP. Really, do not put Chegg on a CV. There are not many jobs with lower reputation, and some of them are still more honest.

If a website claims to offer help on practice problems, has a strict policy of account revocation if a tutor helps a student cheat on the exam, how exactly do we blame a tutor assisting in a solution?

@LoneAcademic If Chegg makes those claims, I'd say those claims are contradictory to most academics' experience with that site. That sort of disclaimer might be enough protection against standards like "beyond a reasonable doubt" but that's not the standard that people reviewing resumes are held to. I think most people are familiar with the concept that people lie on the internet.

Somewhat related: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/165912/…

Don't get me wrong I hate Chegg and everything they do. But I think you're all laying a lot of blame on the wrong people. LoneAcademic isn't one of the executives of Chegg who came up with this business model or one of the venture capitalists who backed it, nor are they the people who made it so that if you're a smart poor student in India you can make money helping lazy rich kids cheat but you can't move to the US and take those classes yourself. Don't put helping people cheat on your CV for academic jobs, but I think the comments saying OP is worse than the cheaters is entirely backwards.

@knzhou Are they worse than the actual cheater if they had no knowledge that their services were being used for cheating? I suppose from a consequentialist POV they are worse, but if you factor in intention things are much less clear.

@NoahSnyder Exactly my point. I get paid to provide help to the students on the problems. Quite often, students ask great questions like the physical picture of integral theorems, which indicates that all questions are not made for cheating purposes. If chegg has strict laws against answering take home test problems, how is a tutor who helped a student in solving an integral worse than the student himself, specifically if he is having to do it simply for paying his bills during graduate school, not to build a lavish lifestyle with that hard earned money?

If students use Chegg so much to cheat, Chegg could make a whole bunch of money as a plagiarism detector for teachers.

I have a programming gig on Fiver. I get four or five contacts a week from students asking me to cheat on their assignments for them, and one or two a month asking me to sit tests for them. I have no doubt there are other people on there who will do these things, but it seems unreasonable to blame me for either the cheating students or the people who help me cheat just because people use the same platform to cheat. I don't see how Chegg is different.

@NoahSnyder Once Rockets Go Up Who Cares Where They Come Down

@yters That sounds a lot like extortion.

@JackAidley I would say the difference is that Fiver is known as a programming gig service, although you can encounter people using it to cheat (I'm assuming this, personally I don't know Fiver at all), whereas Chegg is known as a cheating service, but you can encounter people using it to study legitimately. One can't prove that OP assisted in cheating, but they are nonetheless associated with a site that educators are most familiar with as a cheating hub.

Note that many people (outside the US at least) don't know what chegg is.

@J... well not in an obvious way, of course. There are plagiarism detection services out there, and so Chegg just needs to sell them the datasets. It's not Chegg's fault what those services do with the datasets.

@yters Once rockets are up...

@CaptainEmacs: "... so their employers are being cheated, too". I would not worry too much about that. The employers who understand who they hire will see during the interview that the graduate is weak. If they just rely on the name of the school, well too bad for them.