By cheating, you're voting for a society of scammers, and you think you deserve more than the honest student because you're willing to eat honor instead of preserving it and growing it for future generations.
By cheating, you're voting for a society of scammers, and you think you deserve more than the honest student because you're willing to eat honor instead of preserving it and growing it for future generations.
It's not that I like or respect cheaters, it's that I'm just entirely unbothered by them. They're just students taking a high risk strategy and they'll sink or swim and I'm not angry about them or shedding any tears for them. Students who actually focus on trying to learn instead of trying to pass tests are screwed even if there wasn't a single cheater in the classroom. They won't go to the best schools or get the best jobs because they aren't cramming flash cards of likely test answers.
The group that focuses on pure learning, and engaging with the material, may not end up with the best marks, but they have a deep understanding, and delight in the subject that will serve them very well over their working career.
Equally though, not all courses are equally useful (to one person). I enjoyed oceanography, I went to class, did the work (mostly) and learned something. But I don't like boats (get seasick) so I've never "used" any of that knowledge. Ditto astronomy.
Comp Sci on the other hand consumed all my spare time. We gave ourselves extra tasks, read far beyond the textbook, and pushed the envelope. This would be our career and we were all in. Sometimes test scores suffered (I didn't actually study for tests) but I got a job (one I still have and love) and 30 years later I'm still applying those fundamentals I learned.
Maybe I don't have the highest paying job, but I'm where I was made to fit, and money can't tempt me away.
Those that cheat, well, you can fool some people some of the time, but it's a lot of work. And a career spans a long time.
Personally, I was an honors student until college, and I was often the one in my group of friends to figure out how to solve an exercise, yet I would often get average (or lower) results compared to some of my friends, because some of them were just great at drilling themselves until they could repeat every single style of solution quickly. I admit - that made me a little frustrated at the time, but 10 years later some of those folks that did really well in the exams are not doing as well in their careers because real life requires innovation and deep understanding, not just rapid application of past solutions.
I know many highly successful people didn’t go to university and this why is doesn’t matter.
This is like your ML model loading your test set into training without your consent.
So as a student, your best option is to actually prepare as many of the questions in the bank of old test so that you're ready for the exam.
So although you somehow cheat, you indeed review the course thoroughly by preparing the questions...
At least in my experience, my professors didn't make the old material available to other students, and neither did the fraternities/sororities.
No, educating people is about the governance structure de-individualising people making them all think its a similar way that both fosters uncritical love on the system as well as dependence.
Can you clarify what you meant by this? As it stands it sort of reads like you claiming actually smart people don't get into the best schools - which is absurd.
Other stuff once you understand it the exams are straightforward, if tedious. Antenna design was like that for me, I'd solve it geometrically in my head then work out which transforms and equations matched my solution. Other people just ground that stuff out along with all the rest. I hope no-one was twisted enough that ODE's made sense...
These are people who will eventually go into the workforce, into jobs that have certain expectations of individual knowlege and ability. You can't just coast forever on the people around you.
It's just that when you throw at them the 57th of the same exercise with some words swapped out, that desire is extinguished a little.
Humans do something amazing in response: they cooperate to reduce the damage done by the 58th such exercise.
Give them more interesting things to do and they will cooperate in more productive ways too!
----
I also disagree that you have to learn everything for yourself and stop relying on others. Granted, I only have a decade or so of full-time work behind me so far, but in all of it, I have been as productive as I have been thanks to the ability to rely on others.
I don't know how to pave roads, yet I rely on roads paved by others to even get into work. Well there, I don't know how to build refrigerators, but I trust it to keep my lunch safe. Even in performing my actual job, I'm not the sharpest at economics, so I often cross-check my reasoning with other people before going on to spend time on things.
I would be stuck in a cave looking for berries if I didn't rely on other people for skills I don't have, every second of the day.
Humans are built to survive by offloading work on each other.
Of course we rely on others for stuff. But you don’t take a math class to simply say “I’ll just skip the classes and have my neighbor take my tests. My goal is to learn as little as possible.” Why even take the class then?
In fact, the medical profession has practically adopted cheating as a formal practise: they call it grand rounds and it consists of sharing "answers to exam questions" (outcome of patient care) with their colleagues, so they don't have to go through the effort of discovering them on their own.
I suspect you aren't trying to argue about this situation, though.
I think you're asking about comparing the performance of the student who does know the material well, and the student who needs assistance with it. The answer is not to forbid assistance, it's to design tests where assistance becomes obvious.
This is laughably naive. Most of the cheaters I dealt with in my courses were masters students who had zero interest in learning. They were paying for the M.S. on their resume for job prospects or for visa reasons.
You’re right that some students will cheat on rote stuff because they just get bored. Where you’re wrong is thinking that’s the majority of the issue. Huge chunks of students are in college for entirely the wrong reasons.
Pretty sure stack overflow would be out of a use case if that was true.
The real answer is that in the real world people pay you to provide value. If what you are doing can be replaced by a google search, the value you are providing is nill, and you are probably making min wage. Real jobs are not contrived, and thus can't be cheated on in the same way. Sure you might have to look things up, but that's not the part they are paying you for (unlike in many exam settings)
I learnt to program using books (pascal, c, c++ etc) and that was slow. When I learned JavaScript every question was seconds from a clear answer. That's a MUCH faster way of doing things, and I for one am a fan.
Mind you that's all just syntax. Analytical thinking, data structures, program logic (ie, how to actually program) we're laid down in a CS degree 30 years ago. So it helps if the foundation is there.
This isn't either-or, unless you have a very specific job where you only do the same thing again and again until retirement. There are people who do specialize like that (e.g. developers of compilers or kernels), but most of us aren't them.
My experience says that the best programmers with the best skills are precisely the ones that the boss will take aside one day and say "Hey, Bob, we are about to tackle a really complicated problem and you are the best fit."
At which point, you are back to "relying on others", because your skills need updating and it will be the others you are going to learn from. It is a cycle, not a straightforward journey upwards on some kind of skill ladder.
I mean to need some skills, and the right birthright in general, but this is exactly what Capitalism is and the wealthy ruling classes seem to be doing excessively well at it. In the UK, some of the over-class have collectively banked £billions from government reserves -- under the guise of providing PPE -- for doing nothing more than knowing the right people and being prepared to cheat (ie be criminally corrupt).
Those involved, if they manage things well, could have a dynasty of extraordinarily wealthy offspring that going forward are likely to have the power to spread immeasurably more corruption.
Companies would fail if everyone worked in isolation.
Also, "cheating" may be viewed as "not re-inventing the wheel" (someone already made the proof for this theorem, just copy paste it from your smartphone), "not doing the same work twice" (your neigboor just solved the equation, why re-solve it ? ), and "using the fastest, most reliable solution" (your neigboor is better than you in Maths, just take his answers). This is similar to taking a library (ex : deep-equal) or framework (nextjs) or service (carrds, netlify) instead of doing it yourselves.
I agree that, the issue is mostly not the student but the school (and society):
1. Does the student really need to remember historical dates, or Maths equations, when nowadays he can just google them in 10sec ? (Aka : unnecessary use of memory)
2. Does the student really need to understand the notion by himselves ? For example, I don't know how to use quaternion myself, buy I know how to work with, in Unity. I also don't care about Pythagore theorem proof, I know it works, that's all I need (all Maths lover will condemn me).
The thing is that we believe that school focus on teaching. They don't. They are called schools, but behave a lot more like evaluation (grading) centers. And mostly evaluate (grade) memorization and servitude btw, not actual understanding.
To be clear, evaluation (grading) is what you in job interview and for pilot, to make sure he knows how to fly the plane.
Is evaluation a part of learning ? It is. But not the same type of evaluation.
"I am able to make a small game like ping pong from scratch ?" - evaluate yourselves, test your skills. If you have success, it means learning phase is completed.
When evaluation is part of learning: - You do it for yourselves, not for someone or something else (employer, school, teacher, parents, certification organism). That is called intresic motivation (vs extrinsic). - There may be or not be grading, but only you care about grading.
The employer doesn't care about how you grade to the tests he send to you, what he care about is that you've got the skills he need. And grading is just a means for that.
Everything the school does should be a means for making someone a good person for the society, a happy person, a person that can contribute to the society (a phrasing more large than employable).
What I have seen in my scolarity, is students and teacher focused on "passing exams", "getting good grades". But completly forgetting exams and grading "means to".
In a pure teaching environnement, grades and exams only purpose is to give a learning status indication to the student.
In school (in France national education), they also serve to give you right/priority on school entrances. And serve as social status indicator (the dumbs and the smarts).
Cheating in a pure learning environnement make no sense. If students cheat, it means your environnment contains more than just learning.
When you create extrinsic motivation (carrot and stick), it override intrinsic motivation. And you end up with student doing the homework ONLY if it is graded (carrot) or if not doing it is punishable (stick). And not because it give them a learning opportunity.
Schools (I am still referring to France national education) believe that humans dislike learning. This is false. Babies loves learning. School is teaching us that learning should be hard and painful.
If you do teaching, you don't need a carrot or a stick, because authentic learning is fun by itselves !
(I don't want to make this text longer, but this make me question if schools are just doing big mistakes, or if they have been designed in a way that favour something else than learning (eq : have there been malicious intention ?)).
I also agree with you that in an ideal world we would not need the gatekeeper role and tests would only help the students on how far along their learning journey they are. However, reality means we do need gatekeeping, we need to test that a student has sufficient knowledge to perform a certain task, because literally lives can depend on it, e.g. we would not let people drive on the roads without an exam or let a doctor operate someone without proven knowledge that they can do it.
Because of the gatekeeping requirements and the interests of students they will optimize for outcomes, that might mean they learn some subjects in depth, but it will also mean they learn some subjects with the bare minimum to pass (and that is fine).
Unfortunately the students who optimize for outcomes generally outweigh the students who want to learn (at least vocally). I think everyone who taught will be able to tell you that students are incredibly conservative towards changes, even if they improve their learning outcomes (give us recipe instructions, not try to get us to figure out things for ourselves), because it might mean more work.
And I agree that ideally (and practically) we should need much less carrot and stick, but saying we will never need them is quite unrealistic IMO.
During my schooling years, I observed that people most driven to cheating were the ones who could not absorb enormous amounts of material needed to pass an exam. I never had problems with that, so I wasn't tempted to cheat, but I also noticed that a year later, I barely remembered anything from what I have learnt so painfully to pass.
This isn't a good preparation for a job in modern world, where if you do something, you always have Google (or StackOverflow etc.) at your hand. And people who have a good ability to put 2 and 2 together tend to be more successful at such jobs.
Scammer implies there is a victim. Who is the mark here? The college that charges huge tuition despite having a huge endowment? The professor who is being paid a salary to tech courses ppl are uninterested in? The employer for requiring degrees for jobs that don't need them? If cheating became so widespread that degrees stopped mattering, employers would have to find other ways.
Humans (and other primates) have an innate desire for fairness. Ethics helps guide human interactions. If you don’t think interpersonal ethics are important, it’s hard to have a functioning society.
If someone realizes that they have become an agent of a much larger system tasked with the grunt work of a harmful and illegitimate process like college education as a career credential, and if that person wants to avoid being evil, they need not lift a finger. It is easier not to do the paperwork than to do it!
You're at 'cheating = bad', which is the level of a 5 year old naive little boy.
Try upgrading that system instead of pointing fingers. You only have one life to live and all that.
> Agreeing to follow specific rules and then silently not following them is lying. Do you consider that to be okay too?
Students are hardly in a position where they can express their views freely. Do you consider laying out rules and punishing anyone who voices objections okay too?
Things are never just black and white.
Read any introduction to moral philosophy for an explanation of why that is.
Scrum is a gc (group chat)
Yes it is? Cheating is cheating. You can get caught cheating, but you're still cheating if you're aren't.
In real world you have to weigh in the risk of getting caught, but if no one can ever know (very very improbable) you didn’t cheat according to them. And make it even more absurd - after cheating you can cheat again by saying I didn’t cheat.
This is applicable to a lot of things like crime, faking it, copying it, you name it.
Cheating is a symptom of something worse. Viewing studies as a means to get a diploma, rather than a means to get an education. This is a deep issue, that stems from things like using the threat of failing a test to get people to engage.
The educational system presents itself as a bunch of hoops to jump through to get a successful life. Parents tend to see it the same way. Society often does aswell. This ruins a lot of the intrinsic value of education.
Universities used to be the place where the best brains of the country studied and advanced science itself afterwards. Nowadays, with university r&d budgets slashed and those that remain in r&d being forced to waste half their time chasing grants and another quarter in administrative bullcrap, it's a place to weed out people with adhd or otherwise disadvantaged so employers can pick up the "creme de la creme" without violating a ton of anti discrimination law or the risk of hiring a dud. It's obvious when large companies require a BSc for an accountant or other paper pushers of all things.
Students know this and optimize accordingly - as usual, when something becomes a KPI it becomes useless.