edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (mark edwards) (04/21/87)
In article <11370002@hpldorp.HP.COM> kens@hpldorp.HP.COM (Ken Shrum) writes: >With regard to `fractional cheating' - the manner in which a student >performs/completes an assignment is either in accordance with >instructions or not. I see no gray area. If the student isn't >supposed to get outside help, use literature references, use >non-textbook references, etc. and then proceeds to anyway then >cheating has occurred. So lets see now. If we get a student who has read a certain book before taking the class and comes to this assignment with those stipulations, the student should disqualify himself and probably drop the class. To do otherwise would surely test his integrity as you put it. Once something has been read it quickly becomes meshed with other books. The only way to prove that the idea or whatever did not come from a certain book would be to reference the book again. What if the reference that you read was in a passage in a completely different book? The instructions are clear. There is no grey area. Following the instructions is not so clear. Humans are not perfect, their memories are not usually photographic, but reconstructive. If what you mean by no grey area, "doing the best one can to not violate these rules", then what you say is arguably possible. Then what you are doing is calling grey not grey. Meaning that you are redefining grey to mean something else. What I mean by grey is exactly "doing the best one can to not violate these rules". The instructions must be interpreted by everyone in the class, sometimes that means, even on the most integrity, as many ways as students in the class. At least it means their is more than one interpretation. >Taking a class multiple times (regardless of where), having better >background knowledge, or being able to spend additional time on the >class is neither cheating nor an unfair advantage over other students. Well, then I have to wish that all the classes that you take in the future, everyone in the class except you has taken it, that you are as bright as everyone else in the class, and the professor strongly believes in the bell curve grading system. I then wish that this luck follow you through your life. (Nothing personal, because this should not bother you. It is not an unfair disadvantage as you have stated above.) >As a closing note, it rather bothers me that people are looking for an >exact definition of what is cheating and what is not. Is this so that >they can abide by the letter of the law yet cheat anyway by finding >loopholes? We're talking personal integrity here, folks. The reason that we look for an exact definition is so we have a common ground on which to talk from. My definition of loopholes is fuzzy areas in the definition that could stand to be redefined. If we do not mean the same thing when we say a word, we can not argue and come to some ending point using that word. I try to use great integrity in everything I do. Of course it does not always come out that way, best intentions intended often have the worst results. Cheers, mark -- edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706
kens@hpldola.HP.COM (Ken Shrum) (04/24/87)
As usual, my fuzzy command of English gets me into trouble. Allow me to explain what I mean. The objective of taking a course is to learn. Grades are some indication of how much you've learned, although this doesn't necessarily hold with bell curve grading systems. It has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion that *ultimately* a cheater cheats noone but him/herself. Again, I realize that sometimes this is not true - degrees from school X where cheating is prevalent lose their value; in curve-graded courses someone elses decreased grade keeps them out of grad school, loses them their scholarship or reduces job offers. It is my experience, however, that *most* places recognize that grades are only an indicator, so that references and interviews must be used to find out what someone knows and how well they may use that knowledge. Re: disallowed references, etc. > So lets see now. If we get a student who has read a certain book > before taking the class and comes to this assignment with those > stipulations, the student should disqualify himself and probably > drop the class. My apologies, I had meant to imply that you shouldn't use such references during the course of completing the assignment. I have seen very few courses (some, though) that disallow certain prior knowledge. I mention background knowledge further on explicitly as not being cheating. Re: grey and non-grey. If instructions are ambiguous, by which I mean they may be legitimately interpreted in multiple ways, then *any* such interpretation may be allowed. By legitimate I mean that an impartial group would agree that yes, those instructions could be interpreted by an honest person in that manner. I hate this. I just want to assume that everyone's honest and treat them with respect and trust. Let me fall back on an argument of Pirsig's - you *know* when someone has cheated, just as you can discern which of two pictures you like better. It's not analytical, but it works. If there's doubt, let it go. If it appears to be a misunderstanding, give that person a second assignment and agree on the groundrules. > Well, then I have to wish that all the classes that you take in the > future, everyone in the class except you has taken it, that you are > as bright as everyone else in the class, and the professor strongly > believes in the bell curve grading system. I then wish that this > luck follow you through your life. (Nothing personal, because this > should not bother you. It is not an unfair disadvantage as you have > stated above.) You assume that I'm taking a course to get a grade. I'm taking it to learn. If they're all that good, I'll find out. If I care about the grade, I'll do as much work as I need to. And you're right, how well other people do in the course doesn't bother me, though I might wonder why they're there. > edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu Ken Shrum hpldola!kenh: