liberte@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu (04/25/87)
Here's a slightly different view on the cheating issue. I tend to take
a more global perspective on these things and ask "What is cheating anyway?"
Others have addressed this question so I won't add more directly.
Instead I'll ask another question. What is the purpose of education anyway?
My answer is that the purpose is to learn. Students are supposed to be
learning, but hopefully teachers are learning too. In fact, I would
go further and say that the purpose of life is to learn. But I digress.
Some people might argue that the
purpose of being in school is to get out - to make more money, things like
that. Students might learn something in the meantime, but that's incidental
or accidental. To people who have this attitude, cheating is a way to
get around the rules of the game. Cheating is like tax evasion.
However, getting the most out of the system is like finding loopholes
in the tax law irrespective of whether money is earned honorably.
Rules of what is cheating and what is not may be independent of what
is fair.
Some people might argue that the purpose of education is to teach
people a few things and then grade them according to how much they know.
This attitude assumes that grading is a fair measure of how much people
know and maybe that grading is useful for judging how much a person can learn.
Cheating, from this perspective, defeats the purpose of grading because
presumably the person graded doesn't really know as much as the grade
indicates. Furthermore, when grading on a curve, other peoples' grades
may be reduced by the increase in the cheater's grade. But that by itself
is not a good argument against grading on a curve.
(Side issue on grading:
To some extent I agree with the value of grading as a measure of knowledge,
but it is generally unreliable as a measure of ability to learn. Grading
on a curve measures knowledge relative to classmates rather than to
a more absolute (and therefore more objective) knowledge standard.
If education serves to grade people, what is the purpose of grading?
Considering all the different grading standards, I would not want to
trust grades to tell me much. You should consider where a grade came
from just as you should consider whose movie review you are reading.)
If the purpose of education is to learn, then avoidance of learning is
cheating. From this perspective, collaboration to solve a problem
may not be cheating, whereas getting hints from a TA may be considered
cheating. It all depends on whether learning is taking place.
There are different kinds of learning, of course. Learning how a
problem is solved is different from learning how to solve a problem.
The former is engineering while the latter is art and science.
To summarize, views on cheating relect views on the purpose of education.
To encourage healthy views on cheating, encourage healthy views of
education - and life in general.
Daniel LaLiberte 217-333-7937
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Department of Computer Science
1304 W Springfield
Urbana, IL 61801
liberte@a.cs.uiuc.edu
uiucdcs!liberte
{moderation in all things - including moderation}olson@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (olson) (05/10/87)
In article <170800003@uiucdcsb> liberte@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >Instead I'll ask another question. What is the purpose of education anyway? >My answer is that the purpose is to learn. Students are supposed to be >learning, but hopefully teachers are learning too. In fact, I would >go further and say that the purpose of life is to learn. But I digress. > ...... >To summarize, views on cheating relect views on the purpose of education. >To encourage healthy views on cheating, encourage healthy views of >education - and life in general. > > >Daniel LaLiberte 217-333-7937 Here, Here!! (or is that "Hear, Hear!"?) Todd Olson ARPA: olson@lasspvax.tn.cornell.edu ----- or ---- ARPA: olson@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra,...}!cornell!lasspvax!olson US Mail: Dept Physics, Clark Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-2501
jcz@sas.UUCP (05/15/87)
ollaberating on an assignment is not cheating - unless the assignment explicitly states otherwise. My sister got into an emotional tangle at UNC Chapel Hill one year when they got so SS-like that any collaberation on any assignment in any subject was considered cheating. Just asking a fellow student what the assignment was could get you in deep shit if that fellow or an eavesdropper reported you to the right authority. *Sigh* This sort of attitude puts an undue stress on honest people which is patently immoral - the basis, no doubt, for our assumed innocense in the courts. [ Sidebar - they would never do that at my alma m. good ol' NCSU because most students there NEED help with their reading. :-) ] Cheating is a problem only for cheaters. The end result is that they waste karma on piddlin' task and lose 'character'. Understanding that cheating is pointless is an important thing for Schools to teach. Teaching that cheating is simply criminal has no affect. Most cheaters probably know that. Learning how to achieve in the face of adversity, how to fail with grace, and the necessity for honesty - these are also learned in the Schools. -- --jcz John Carl Zeigler SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC 27511 (919) 467-8000 ...!mcnc!rti-sel!sas!jcz
hal@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Hal Perkins) (05/17/87)
>Cheating is a problem only for cheaters.
Alas, this isn't true.
The real problem is that it also hurts the students who do their own
work, and whose grades can suffer if someone else cheats. If it weren't
for this, there would be no real reason to attempt to track down these
problems, which are painful and time consuming for all involved.
Hal Perkins
Cornell CSmmtowfig@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU (Mark Mehdi Towfigh) (05/18/87)
In article <863@gvax.cs.cornell.edu> hal@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Hal Perkins) writes: >>Cheating is a problem only for cheaters. > >Alas, this isn't true. > >The real problem is that it also hurts the students who do their own >work, and whose grades can suffer if someone else cheats. Actually, cheating is a problem for people who care more about grades than what they learn in the course. Cheaters are those people who care SO much about these grades that they turn to desparate acts to get the grades they want. I personally don't care about what other people think of my grades too much; I'd rather pay attention to what I'm learning and let good grades follow, and if I get a good grade, it's not the end of the world, just an indication I should be working harder.
das@CS.UCLA.EDU (05/22/87)
In article <305@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU> mmtowfig (Mark Mehdi Towfigh) writes: >In article <863@gvax.cs.cornell.edu> hal (Hal Perkins) writes: > Re: Cheating is a problem only for cheaters. >>Alas, this isn't true. >>The real problem is that it also hurts the students who do their own >>work, and whose grades can suffer if someone else cheats. > >Actually, cheating is a problem for people who care more about grades >than what they learn in the course. Not exactly -- cheaters can hurt even those who do not care about grades, just learning. Here's a scenario: Fred squeaks by with a C.S. degree from XYZ U., having relied heavily on the (sometimes unknowing) assistance of others. He gets a programming job with a small company. He's not a very good programmer, but his background from XYZ U. looked good. Ricky, from ABC U., had a similar (but honest) record as good as Fred's, and he's a good programmer. Some time later, Ethel, who also graduated from XYZ U. with a similar (but honest) record to Fred's applies to the same company. She's in competition with Lucy, from ABC U., who appears almost as good. For many small companies, I'll bet Lucy will get the job, because the people hiring will say "XYZ U. has laxer standards than ABC U. (compare Fred to Ricky), so we should favor the student from ABC U." Thus, a cheater has hurt other students from his school in the competition for jobs, because he has cheapened the reputation of his school's graduates. A small company that has hired few programmers in the past may have little else to go on than that reputation. -- David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, {sdcrdcf,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!das -- David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, {sdcrdcf,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!das
gilbert@aimmi.UUCP (05/23/87)
In article <305@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU> mmtowfig@phoenix.UUCP (Mark Mehdi Towfigh) writes: >................................... Cheaters are those people who care >SO much about these grades that they turn to desparate acts to get the >grades they want. I personally don't care about what other people think >of my grades too much; I'd rather pay attention to what I'm learning >and let good grades follow, and if I get a good grade, it's not the >end of the world, just an indication I should be working harder. Has anyone every thought that perhaps cheating MUST be endemic in a competitive society where the rewards do not come for being GOOD (i.e learning what you're meant to), but for being BETTER than everyone who's after the same job/graduate place/college place etc. A bell-curve system for marking is GUARANTEED to make people resort to cheating, as being good may not be enough to beat those who are slightly better on the course, but not necessarily better at real world tasks. The thing about any race is that people only remember WHO came first, not HOW they came first. Can you imagine setting Driving or Music examinations in this way? Or how about sports instructor exams? Here there are clear criteria for competence - you cannot pass merely by being one of the best, nor are you automatically failed for being one of the worst in the current test population (examiner expectations apart). In a criterion-based examination, everyone who meets the standard passes. Unfortunately the design of such examinations requires educational expertise which is rarely encouraged by the authorities in higher education. I've helped on a course where the students' department complained that too many students where getting almost full marks! Looks like no-one is interested in the development of courses which can be taught effectively and absorbed completely. This only reinforces the case for the sociologists' argument that the purpose of education in modern society (state-socialist, capitalist and tin-pot corrupt dictatorships all included) is not primarily to pass on essential knowledge, but to preserve a stratified society by pumping out cohorts with the proper discriminating labels. The problem with the attitude of the author whose posting I'm following up is that, while it is highly commendable and for me the ONLY sane attitude to learning, there are few occupations in life where this attitude will bring its just reward. Smooth talking bullsh*tting and self-ascribed ability seem to get people much further than real talent in this world. P.S. The above is intended as a description of society and not a reflection of my attitudes towards life (positive!), my current state of happiness (very!), the labels I left college with (why fill in the rest of the CV? :-)) or a party-political or religious orientation (no off the shelf beliefs!). My intention is to encourage USENET readers to try to analyse phenomena like cheating in their wider social context. Ask not whether it is moral (motherhood and apple-pie), nor whether it dooms the soul of the miscreant (so what?), but whether it makes good sense within the cheater's social context. If it does, and you are an educator, you should be in a good position to redefine this social context if you really do care about the inevitable effects of competitive education. -- Gilbert Cockton, Scottish HCI Centre, Ben Line Building, Edinburgh, EH1 1TN JANET: gilbert@uk.ac.hw.aimmi ARPA: gilbert%aimmi.hw.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk UUCP: ..!{backbone}!aimmi.hw.ac.uk!gilbert
edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (mark edwards) (05/27/87)
In article <32@aimmi.UUCP> gilbert@aimmi.UUCP (Gilbert Cockton) writes: >In article <305@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU> mmtowfig@phoenix.UUCP (Mark Mehdi Towfigh) writes: >>................................... Cheaters are those people who care >>SO much about these grades that they turn to desparate acts to get the >>grades they want. I personally don't care about what other people think >>of my grades too much; I'd rather pay attention to what I'm learning >>and let good grades follow, and if I get a good grade, it's not the >>end of the world, just an indication I should be working harder. > >The thing about any race is that people only remember WHO came first, >not HOW they came first. Can you imagine setting Driving or Music >examinations in this way? Or how about sports instructor exams? >Here there are clear criteria for competence - you cannot pass merely >by being one of the best, nor are you automatically failed for being >one of the worst in the current test population (examiner expectations >apart). In a criterion-based examination, everyone who meets the >standard passes. I know the topic has been beaten to death, but I couldn't resist making this final observation. Now most of you have seen the movie "Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Kahn". The movie starts out with a test called the "kobiyashi maru", star fleet personnel who take this test are not suppose to win. It is a test on how well they do under impossible conditions. Well, Admiral Kirk took it a couple of times, and he beat it the last time. He beat it by reprogramming the computer, or in other words he cheated. His remarks were that "he doesn't like to lose". This scene is sure to bring a smile or some other positive emotion/ feeling to anyone who sees it. The watchers are not embarassed that Admiral Kirk cheated, they admire him for it. I guess what this shows is that in some situations cheating is part of the game. Just where it applicable is another problem though. Another movie that has "cheating" in one way or another is Michael Fox's "The Secret of My Success". He also cheats in an innovative way. We also admire him for doing it. mark -- edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706
lccarson@watcgl.UUCP (06/16/87)
Yes, Kirk "cheated" on the Kobiyashi maru "test" in Star Trek, but I'm sure we all can recognize, if not define, the difference between genuine (as opposed to literal) cheating and lateral thinking. Redefining the problem statement to arrive at an innovative solution is generally a good, creative approach to problem-solving -- the exception to this, ironically, is in academic situations. On an exam, that is indeed "cheating". How do we teach creativity then? Linda Carson lccarson@watmath lccarson@waterloo.csnet