edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (04/15/87)
In article <6548@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: > >Besides, you're not a scientist, you're a student (or the hypothetical >cheater is.) When you become a scientist you can use other's work like >that to extend the field. You are not extending the field by writing a >bubble sort for an intro programming class so copying it out of the >ACM Algorithms is cheating. I agree with you in principle, the arguments I will make are to understand more fully these distinctions . Are not scientists, former students. When do they make the jump from student to scientist. Could not some of these students ( It is agreed that most are not) be acting in just this manner as a scientist? How does one tell? Do not graduate students, take classes, and do research? Why shouldn't they use what they know to accomplish a given task. >Do you understand the difference between learning a field and extending >it? Good. I understand it as you say, but I do not have such a clear cut notion as you seem to have. Is learning in a field not also extending it, should a scientist not learn before he trys to extend it? >My point was solid, if you want to do your homework like a scientist >does his/her research then you will give full credit, in writing, to >all ideas which are not your own. As I said before, anything less >is cheating (for a student or a scientist.) I must argue that a scientist does not give full credit to all the ideas that are not his own. What if the idea seem to come from within, but existed subconciously from what some one said to him sometime in his past. I do not think that it is possible that a scientist or a student cite all references. The only references that are cited are those that are concrete ( taken from papers, books ..) and those that he remembers. Cheating therefore seems to be the concious act of not giving credit, where credit should be given. If you have no concious knowledge of it what then? I would have to argue that most scientis cheat, but the definition as been alter to exclude what they do. But defining cheating as clear as you have seemed to define it, Reminds me of the Christian/heathen distinction. Some Christians will say if you are not a Christian then you are a heathen. I think it is arguable that some heathems might be Christians, and vice versa and they do not really know it. And there may even be some kind of scale (3/4 heathen and 1/4 Christian). Forgive me but, please try to explain it once more. You seem to have a clear understanding of it. I wish to, also. mark -- edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (04/15/87)
> Forgive me but, please try to explain it once more. You seem to > have a clear understanding of it. I wish to, also. > > mark No thank you, you have reduced the argument to a sophomoric level of "what can we know absolutely?" Nothing. Cheating is simply what you are "convicted" of in front of whatever due process mechanism is available to hear such cases. All one can outline for you is a way to avoid being brought before such committees, or be confident of your innocence if you are unjustly accused. To quote Clarence Darrow: "Justice has nothing to do with what goes on in the courtroom, Justice is what comes out of the courtroom." Save your nihilistic arguments for the academic review boards (they'll be most amused) and go ahead and copy everything you want and not document it. In the end, you're the one that gets cheated anyhow. Why do you think anyone really gives a shit if you learn a thing for your time and money if you are determined not to? I'd personally rather spend my time with *students* who appreciate the meaning of that term rather than miscreants with a "grade at any cost" attitude and silly rationalizations to back up their in fact self-serving attitudes. Put it this way: If you didn't learn anything, but got the grade, you probably cheated, yourself (hey, but thanks for the tuition money.) -Barry Shein, Boston University
edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (04/15/87)
In article <6567@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes:
:
:> Forgive me but, please try to explain it once more. You seem to
:> have a clear understanding of it. I wish to, also.
:>
:> mark
:
:No thank you, you have reduced the argument to a sophomoric level of
:"what can we know absolutely?"
If the desire to understand is "sophomoric" than so be it.
:Nothing. Cheating is simply what you are "convicted" of in front of
:whatever due process mechanism is available to hear such cases.
:
:To quote Clarence Darrow:
:
: "Justice has nothing to do with what goes on in the courtroom,
: Justice is what comes out of the courtroom."
Thank you. I now understand what you mean.
:Save your nihilistic arguments for the academic review boards (they'll
:be most amused) and go ahead and copy everything you want and not
:document it. In the end, you're the one that gets cheated anyhow. Why
:do you think anyone really gives a shit if you learn a thing for your
:time and money if you are determined not to? I'd personally rather
:spend my time with *students* who appreciate the meaning of that term
:rather than miscreants with a "grade at any cost" attitude and silly
:rationalizations to back up their in fact self-serving attitudes.
The above argument seemed to be aimed at me. I do not like the tone.
And it does not apply to me. I already have a BS, but I work full
time and I am presently studying a different discipline. The tone
of your argument is that of a "hanging judge" who angers at being
asked questions he does not agree with. If it was aimed at me I
pity the students who come in contact with you, except for their
chance to have a well rounded experience with all sorts of people.
mark
--
edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu
{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards
UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706gh@utai.UUCP (04/17/87)
In article <6567@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: >Put it this way: If you didn't learn anything, but got the grade, you >probably cheated, yourself (hey, but thanks for the tuition money.) Nice, but too simple. Every time one of these bozos goes out, proudly wearing their "approved" stamp from my university but screwing up their job because they aren't really qualified, the ones who suffer are my university's reputation and next year's graduates. When I punish someone for cheating, the ones who benefit are all those who didn't cheat. -- \\\\ Graeme Hirst University of Toronto Computer Science Department //// utcsri!utai!gh / gh@ai.toronto.edu / 416-978-8747
kent@xanth.UUCP (04/20/87)
In article <3910@utai.UUCP> gh@ai.UUCP (Graeme Hirst) writes: >In article <6567@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: >>Put it this way: If you didn't learn anything, but got the grade, you >>probably cheated, yourself (hey, but thanks for the tuition money.) > >Nice, but too simple. Every time one of these bozos goes out, proudly wearing >their "approved" stamp from my university but screwing up their job because >they aren't really qualified, the ones who suffer are my university's >reputation and next year's graduates. When I punish someone for cheating, >the ones who benefit are all those who didn't cheat. Well, I kind of like to run my classes (the few times I'm permitted to teach) on the old honor theory. Leave the room during tests, and wait in the hall in case there are questions; that sort of stuff. What I have seen over the last couple of years is a few real manipulators. These folks would never do any coding in group projects, just run the project. They always got max help from fellow students on any coding assignment, never produced a piece of working code for a really tough assignment in 4 years of education. I don't think it will be a surprise to anyone that these folks are all still unemployed as programmers, years after graduation. Job interviews for programming jobs are usually done by experienced programmers, and a few well chosen questions (I know, I've been the interviewer) can separate the chaff in just a couple of minutes. The ones who aren't caught that way and do get jobs can't understand why other folks are promoted over them, get the bigger bonuses and bigger raises. Folks who organize their lives around cutting corners end up losing. It is a shame that a school's reputation might stand or fall on the performance of one bad apple, but this is usually not the case. Folks out in the real world know the score, and won't condemn the school for the individual's failing. Your reputation is based on how the average of your graduates does, more than how the individual does. Just a few musings early in the morning. Kent. -- The Contradictor Member HUP (Happily Unemployed Programmers) // Yet // Another Back at ODU to learn how to program better (after 25 years!) \\ // Happy \// Amigan! UUCP : kent@xanth.UUCP or ...{sun,cbosgd,harvard}!xanth!kent CSNET : kent@odu.csnet ARPA : kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu Voice : (804) 587-7760 USnail: P.O. Box 1559, Norfolk, Va 23501-1559 Copyright 1987 Kent Paul Dolan. How about if we keep the human All Rights Reserved. Author grants free race around long enough to see retransmission rights, recursively only. a bit more of the universe?
gwl@rruxa.UUCP (04/20/87)
>In article <3910@utai.UUCP> gh@utai.UUCP (Graeme Hirst) writes: >In article <6567@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: >>Put it this way: If you didn't learn anything, but got the grade, you >>probably cheated, yourself (hey, but thanks for the tuition money.) > >Nice, but too simple. Every time one of these bozos goes out, proudly wearing >their "approved" stamp from my university but screwing up their job because >they aren't really qualified, the ones who suffer are my university's >reputation and next year's graduates. When I punish someone for cheating, >the ones who benefit are all those who didn't cheat. Isn't that the truth! And this can carry over to yet another hot topic in the CS world these days.......... the tremendous demand for a CS education and the various responses to that demand by the universities who offer a CS degree. I started with a small program (under 100 students, both undergrad and graduate) and graduated with 18 others my senior year. I waited a few years before heading back for an MS. Talk about how quickly things change! My first year or so back with the CS department I didn't really notice what was going on. Then I discovered that I had come back to find that the CS program was the largest on campus, with somewhere near a total enrollment of 1500!!! And the size of the faculty had not grown anywhere near that rate. Needless to say it became quite obvious to me that they had opened the doors wide open in an attempt to obtain as much money as possible from this recent popularity of the field. Everyone is well aware of the lack of PhD's in CS to start with, but combined with the explosive demand for a CS education this leaves a university with one of two choices. Either the enrollment of the program must be limited (MIT, Berkeley, and others), or the faculty must be supplemented with Adjuncts and Teaching Assistants. The problem with the later approach is (in my opinion) a watered down program. While on the other hand the first approach must have some very well thought out criteria for acceptance into the program. Otherwise a potentially brilliant Computer Scientist may be nipped in the bud. Who can blame the smaller institutions from trying to cash in on the CS madness. Sure the MITs, Stanfords, CMUs, Cal Berkeleys, etc... of this world can well afford to limit enrollment, but for many a small institution this is a tremendous opportunity. Yet, there is something wrong here. How is it possible to let anyone enter the program who meets the minimum criteria, stretch the limited resources of a CS department, and still expect to turn out quality graduates?
ark@alice.UUCP (04/21/87)
In article <853@xanth.UUCP>, kent@xanth.UUCP writes: > I don't think it will be a surprise to anyone that these folks are all still > unemployed as programmers, years after graduation. Job interviews for > programming jobs are usually done by experienced programmers, and a few well > chosen questions (I know, I've been the interviewer) can separate the chaff > in just a couple of minutes. The ones who aren't caught that way and do get > jobs can't understand why other folks are promoted over them, get the bigger > bonuses and bigger raises. Yes indeedy. Isn't it a shame that such questions are illegal? Let me be more specific. Shortly after I started working at Bell Labs I got to start interviewing employment candidates. Thus I got to read the guidlines for interviewers. These guidelines listed a number of questions that it was illegal to ask an employment candidate: questions about marital status ``where do you live?'' questions ``of a testing nature'' unless such questions have been proven to be non-discriminatory. The third category, mandated by Affirmative Action, is the real zinger. It was the consensus of people I spoke to at that time that one simply could not ask questions of the form ``Can you solve this problem?'' Since we haven't been hiring much lately, I haven't interviewed a candidate in some time. However, I don't think this situation has changed.
berggeo@nucsrl.UUCP (04/21/87)
In response <6816@alice.UUCP>, ark@alice.UUCP writes: >In article <853@xanth.UUCP>, kent@xanth.UUCP writes: >> I don't think it will be a surprise to anyone that these folks are all still >> unemployed as programmers, years after graduation. Job interviews for >> programming jobs are usually done by experienced programmers, and a few well >> chosen questions (I know, I've been the interviewer) can separate the chaff >> in just a couple of minutes. The ones who aren't caught that way and do get >> jobs can't understand why other folks are promoted over them, get the bigger >> bonuses and bigger raises. > >Yes indeedy. Isn't it a shame that such questions are illegal? > >Let me be more specific. Shortly after I started working at Bell Labs >I got to start interviewing employment candidates. Thus I got to read >the guidlines for interviewers. These guidelines listed a number of >questions that it was illegal to ask an employment candidate: > > questions about marital status > > ``where do you live?'' > > questions ``of a testing nature'' unless such questions have > been proven to be non-discriminatory. > >The third category, mandated by Affirmative Action, is the real zinger. >It was the consensus of people I spoke to at that time that one simply >could not ask questions of the form ``Can you solve this problem?'' > >Since we haven't been hiring much lately, I haven't interviewed a >candidate in some time. However, I don't think this situation has changed. > Are you sure that this is just not your firm's policy or the legal department's interpretation of the law? I know for a fact that students at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management here at Northwestern are routinely asked to solve case-based problems as part of interviews by prospective employers. It seems to be a favorite of consulting firms. George Berg EECS Department Northwestern University berggeo@nucsrl.UUCP
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (04/22/87)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.4 of Mon Mar 23 1987 on bu-cs (berkeley-unix) >In article <3910@utai.UUCP> gh@utai.UUCP (Graeme Hirst) writes: >In article <6567@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: >>Put it this way: If you didn't learn anything, but got the grade, you >>probably cheated, yourself (hey, but thanks for the tuition money.) > >Nice, but too simple. Every time one of these bozos goes out, proudly wearing >their "approved" stamp from my university but screwing up their job because >they aren't really qualified, the ones who suffer are my university's >reputation and next year's graduates. When I punish someone for cheating, >the ones who benefit are all those who didn't cheat. Ok, before my name is smeared all over this network... Of course I agree that cheating does harm. If you read my whole note you would see that this statement was simply addressed to the conscience of those who have gotten away with cheating. -Barry Shein, Boston University
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (04/22/87)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.4 of Mon Mar 23 1987 on bu-cs (berkeley-unix) From: ark@alice.UUCP >Yes indeedy. Isn't it a shame that such questions are illegal?... > > questions ``of a testing nature'' unless such questions have > been proven to be non-discriminatory. > >The third category, mandated by Affirmative Action, is the real zinger. >It was the consensus of people I spoke to at that time that one simply >could not ask questions of the form ``Can you solve this problem?'' Oh come on. Is it illegal? Or is the AT&T bureaucracy just brain-dead? Mind you, this is the same bureaucracy which takes two weeks to come and fix my 3B5 because the first week is spent denying I have a service contract and the second week is spent losing the original service request. I don't think AT&T's bureaucracy can be used as an example of anything. I don't believe that determining a person's qualifications for a job is "illegal". I do believe that using it to discriminate against racial minorities is illegal. I do believe that you might have to justify which you were doing, so what else is new? You might get audited by the IRS also, life's a bitch, then you die. -Barry Shein, Boston University
kyle@xanth.UUCP (04/22/87)
> The third category, mandated by Affirmative Action, is the real zinger. > It was the consensus of people I spoke to at that time that one simply > could not ask questions of the form ``Can you solve this problem?'' ?!? You have GOT to be kidding! Presumably the employer wants to hire this person to solve "this problem" or a related class of problems, otherwise why question the applicant about it? What does this have to do with discrimination? Is the employer supposed to hire the dimwit, THEN find out it can't solve the problem, fire it, and shell out severance pay?? Please, someone tell me this is just a horrible nightmare... kyle jones, old dominion university ARPA: kyle@xanth.cs.odu.edu CSNET: kyle@odu.csnet UUCP: kyle@xanth.uucp -or- {sun,harvard,mit-eddie}!xanth!kyle
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (04/22/87)
>Oh come on. Is it illegal? Or is the AT&T bureaucracy just brain-dead? > >Mind you, this is the same bureaucracy which takes two weeks to come >and fix my 3B5 because the first week is spent denying I have a >service contract and the second week is spent losing the original >service request. > >I don't think AT&T's bureaucracy can be used as an example of anything. How about using it as an example of bureaucracy in action? On the other hand, maybe not. After all they fixed your thing after only 2 weeks. Most respectfully, -Tom tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Intelligent responses welcome. Flames to /dev/null. They only make me angrier and aggravate my ulcer.)