6 ms·

You rejected ethical behaviour 'on principle', you even seem proud of that. Have you kept doing that in life? Do you feel like an impostor, presumably with your

You rejected ethical behaviour 'on principle', you even seem proud of that. Have you kept doing that in life? Do you feel like an impostor, presumably with your degree that you didn't think you could acquire without cheating, or couldn't be bothered? A surprising number of the replies to your comment also seem to think cheating like that at university is perfectly fine.

brianpgordon 8y ago
It was undoubtedly unethical behavior. But it's like... well it's like the story of Toshihide Iguchi, who accumulated over a billion dollars of trading losses and hid them successfully for 12 years. Sure you throw the guy in prison, but you have to hand it to him that what he managed to do is pretty damn impressive. After his release, finance CCOs might even want to hire him to audit their traders. You can get off your high horse about not being able to acquire your degree without cheating, too. I never once cheated at any point in college, but if I had spent more time working on sick electronics projects and less time memorizing the years of significant 15th century battles, I'd be more qualified technically, not less. The ethics of it are problematic as I've said, but you seem to be going farther and implying something about his ability as well.
quadcore 8y ago
My humble opinion. University is about learning (not, for example, status). Learning is something strictly personal. There is nothing fundamentally universally wrong to cheat at an exam beside the fact you may be harming yourself. Now since we need a little order for various secondary reasons, we promoted exam cheating to illegal and that's ok. We need order. But there is nothing someone should feel guilt for imho, assuming the person knows she may be harming herself.
- feanaro 8y ago
  I agree with this. I would further suggest that the modern conflation of two orthogonal functions (teaching and certification) in universities is rather misguided. These would be better served by two separate types of institution.
  - all2 8y ago
    > These would be better served by two separate types of institution. For a long time, they were. A technical school certifies someone to do something. A university teaches you how to think about hard things (supposed to, anyway).
- yesenadam 8y ago
  I wasn't talking about law, I was talking about ethics. "There is nothing fundamentally universally wrong to cheat at an exam beside the fact you may be harming yourself." I don't understand that, I have no idea where you got that. Or what those words "fundamentally" and "universally" add. I say it's wrong, you say "Oh, but it's not fundamentally, universally wrong".. As if it's clear what that means. For example: You may have harmed the people who didn't get good enough marks because you cheated your way into higher marks. Then you may harm people in your career that you're not qualified for, besides stopping properly qualified people from doing their jobs. I don't want an airlane pilot or doctor that bought their degree or cheated in exams, thanks. Anyway, it seems ridiculous that I have to explain to people why cheating's bad. Well, I don't know, maybe you are in a country where it's normal, perfectly fine, accepted, everyone does it. Where I come from, people don't have to have it explained to them why it's bad.
  - zzo38computer 8y ago
    Yes, cheating is bad. But if you want to be interviewed to the job you need to see if is qualify to the job; some people can be good even if you have not went to the university or other schools, and even if you answered the exam it does not mean you are better at that particular job than another candidate but only that you know the answer of questions (or successfully cheating without being caught) and can be good at examsmanship. If you are good at mathematics, you will invent a new theorem! If you are good at music, you will compose a new music! If you are good at chess, you can win! If you are good at exam answering, you can earn some more marks (guessing at answers if you do not know the answer)!
  - quadcore 8y ago
    I guess you are right. It's ethically wrong but not morally wrong.
    - yesenadam 8y ago
      I guess you are right. It's ethically wrong but not morally wrong. Huh? I don't see a significant difference between 'ethically wrong' and 'morally wrong', no idea why you would say that.
- zzo38computer 8y ago
  Yes. Learning is yourself. (University is also supposed to be about learning, although this is only partially true as it is implemented.) They have exam you can test, but that is difference from learning, although if you know the answer then you can see if you know the subject being learned. But you do not have to learn only that way; you can do many thing such as to read a book, figure out by yourself, or in this case, to attend the lecture. If you have a question because you do not understand the lecture, then you should ask, and that is how you can learn. Also, examsmanship is not same as learning the other subject, but, still you can learn examsmanship too. Noticed I mentioned before, I might to accept if the stuff you did for the cheating is subject of the class anyways such that it mean is good at it, then perhaps you can earn "SG" (meaning that, you pass regardless of what is your mark). But still, memorization is not the same as learning. That is one thing that the test is not always so good; whether or not is "ethic" and/or legal is independence from that, because if you understand, then you can do, but if you know the word but don't actually know what is the significance, then you might answer the question same like that one but not the difference question that you can actually use. (I remember once on one exam, the last question I did not know, and cheated off of someone who also didn't know and was cheating off of me (I don't know if they were cheating on other questions too or not, only that it is for last question), so in this case we cheat off of each other. Of course it is no good compared to all of the effort they mentioned above, but still you can see, you can be cheating off of each other the same question. I think this is the only instance of cheating on exams I have done, although once I tried to use the "coughing code" (without telling anyone!!!) just to see if I can, and not because I actually wanted to cheat, because I don't want to cheat.)
yholio 8y ago
Ethics is not something that gets decided by the Dean and laid down in a code of academic ethics. The University is just a part of society and it has it's own perverse and quite unethical practices; for example, the tendency to grab one's money and time and not provide any substantial education in return. Furthermore, the university might be perfectly aware that it provides crap services and that fraud is rampant, yet enforce it's own rules selectively just to the point where fraud is hidden away and not damaging to it's reputation. So while I agree with you in the abstract, I believe it's hard for people in the western system to relate and make moral judgements about the experiences of a student in post-communist Eastern Europe, where the rules were often gray. Fellow students were cheating on a grand scale, and up to that point, I had the same principled attitude towards cheating as yourself. Part of the reasons for creating "the system" was my revolt towards what I saw around me - the tacit acceptance that those with good cheating skills, which I lacked and did not develop early in my academic career, should be allowed to cheat their way to a degree, while I was supposed to memorize garbage. Sure, my "rebellion" was unethical and compounded the social problem around me. But what could I realistically do, could I have changed anything? At least I saved me from myself, because otherwise I would have dropped-out. In the grand scheme of things, impeccable ethics is often a luxury and could have the exact opposite effect, letting only those with no ethics whatsoever to graduate.
- brianpgordon 8y ago
  If you sign a code of ethics swearing you won't cheat and you do anyway, that's unethical. Even without an actual signature, the social contract is implicit. The fact that the university exploits athletes and postdocs is unrelated. You can break out the "I did what I had to do to survive" argument but then you're just conceding the point that you abandoned ethics out of necessity or simple mercenary desire for a better position. I don't think it's a huge deal and wouldn't personally let it negatively affect a hiring decision provided you made the right noises about how it was dumb in retrospect and you were young, etc, but your comment here is pretty much the opposite of that. Who could possibly employ someone with your attitude? Even a gas station wouldn't want to hire a cashier who steals money from the register when they can get away with it just because the petroleum industry is destroying the environment, or whatever.
feanaro 8y ago
Why isn't it fine, though? What serious damage did his actions cause? Which important societal construct rests solely on the assumption that no students cheat and, once this is violated by a single student, comes crashing down? I would suggest that if such a construct exists, then maybe the problem is its very conception and this is what should be rethinked. I think the implication that he should feel like an impostor for cheating on two exams is a very large over-reaction on your part.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "Which important societal construct rests solely on the assumption that no students cheat " Society does not depend on wether or not a few students cheat. But society definitely depends on the social and moral contract that we do not cheat, and that it is wrong. If most of us cheated, the system would definitely fall apart. Have you ever visited a developing nation? Where outside of small villages it seems like everyone is cheating at everything, all the time? It's like pouring sand into the gears of an engine: everything starts to break down. I would not hire someone who admitted cheating during an interview unless they talked at length at their remorse, how they learned from it, how they grew from the experience, and there were exceptional circumstances.
  - effie 8y ago
    > It's like pouring sand into the gears of an engine: everything starts to break down. While true in general, cheating in that environment is also sometimes necessary to get on with your life unharmed. And sometimes cheating the system is actually regarded highly by the fellow citizens, because the people do not believe in the imposed system. Cheating is not beneficial to the system, but it often is to the people. Now, what is more ethical, doing what benefits the people or doing what benefits such system?
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      "And sometimes cheating the system is actually regarded highly by the fellow citizens, because the people do not believe in the imposed system. " If you live a totally corrupt system, maybe. But functional societies are based on the notion that cheating is bad, immoral, and nobody should do it. "Now, what is more ethical, doing what benefits the people or doing what benefits such system?" - ha ha ... this sounds like how psychopaths in prison justify their crimes! "I robbed the bank because the bank is evil, now who's more important, the people or the evil bank?" No way around this one: cheating is bad.

brianpgordon 8y ago

It was undoubtedly unethical behavior. But it's like... well it's like the story of Toshihide Iguchi, who accumulated over a billion dollars of trading losses and hid them successfully for 12 years. Sure you throw the guy in prison, but you have to hand it to him that what he managed to do is pretty damn impressive. After his release, finance CCOs might even want to hire him to audit their traders. You can get off your high horse about not being able to acquire your degree without cheating, too. I never once cheated at any point in college, but if I had spent more time working on sick electronics projects and less time memorizing the years of significant 15th century battles, I'd be more qualified technically, not less. The ethics of it are problematic as I've said, but you seem to be going farther and implying something about his ability as well.

quadcore 8y ago

My humble opinion. University is about learning (not, for example, status). Learning is something strictly personal. There is nothing fundamentally universally wrong to cheat at an exam beside the fact you may be harming yourself. Now since we need a little order for various secondary reasons, we promoted exam cheating to illegal and that's ok. We need order. But there is nothing someone should feel guilt for imho, assuming the person knows she may be harming herself.

feanaro 8y ago
I agree with this. I would further suggest that the modern conflation of two orthogonal functions (teaching and certification) in universities is rather misguided. These would be better served by two separate types of institution.
- all2 8y ago
  > These would be better served by two separate types of institution. For a long time, they were. A technical school certifies someone to do something. A university teaches you how to think about hard things (supposed to, anyway).
yesenadam 8y ago
I wasn't talking about law, I was talking about ethics. "There is nothing fundamentally universally wrong to cheat at an exam beside the fact you may be harming yourself." I don't understand that, I have no idea where you got that. Or what those words "fundamentally" and "universally" add. I say it's wrong, you say "Oh, but it's not fundamentally, universally wrong".. As if it's clear what that means. For example: You may have harmed the people who didn't get good enough marks because you cheated your way into higher marks. Then you may harm people in your career that you're not qualified for, besides stopping properly qualified people from doing their jobs. I don't want an airlane pilot or doctor that bought their degree or cheated in exams, thanks. Anyway, it seems ridiculous that I have to explain to people why cheating's bad. Well, I don't know, maybe you are in a country where it's normal, perfectly fine, accepted, everyone does it. Where I come from, people don't have to have it explained to them why it's bad.
- zzo38computer 8y ago
  Yes, cheating is bad. But if you want to be interviewed to the job you need to see if is qualify to the job; some people can be good even if you have not went to the university or other schools, and even if you answered the exam it does not mean you are better at that particular job than another candidate but only that you know the answer of questions (or successfully cheating without being caught) and can be good at examsmanship. If you are good at mathematics, you will invent a new theorem! If you are good at music, you will compose a new music! If you are good at chess, you can win! If you are good at exam answering, you can earn some more marks (guessing at answers if you do not know the answer)!
- quadcore 8y ago
  I guess you are right. It's ethically wrong but not morally wrong.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    I guess you are right. It's ethically wrong but not morally wrong. Huh? I don't see a significant difference between 'ethically wrong' and 'morally wrong', no idea why you would say that.
zzo38computer 8y ago
Yes. Learning is yourself. (University is also supposed to be about learning, although this is only partially true as it is implemented.) They have exam you can test, but that is difference from learning, although if you know the answer then you can see if you know the subject being learned. But you do not have to learn only that way; you can do many thing such as to read a book, figure out by yourself, or in this case, to attend the lecture. If you have a question because you do not understand the lecture, then you should ask, and that is how you can learn. Also, examsmanship is not same as learning the other subject, but, still you can learn examsmanship too. Noticed I mentioned before, I might to accept if the stuff you did for the cheating is subject of the class anyways such that it mean is good at it, then perhaps you can earn "SG" (meaning that, you pass regardless of what is your mark). But still, memorization is not the same as learning. That is one thing that the test is not always so good; whether or not is "ethic" and/or legal is independence from that, because if you understand, then you can do, but if you know the word but don't actually know what is the significance, then you might answer the question same like that one but not the difference question that you can actually use. (I remember once on one exam, the last question I did not know, and cheated off of someone who also didn't know and was cheating off of me (I don't know if they were cheating on other questions too or not, only that it is for last question), so in this case we cheat off of each other. Of course it is no good compared to all of the effort they mentioned above, but still you can see, you can be cheating off of each other the same question. I think this is the only instance of cheating on exams I have done, although once I tried to use the "coughing code" (without telling anyone!!!) just to see if I can, and not because I actually wanted to cheat, because I don't want to cheat.)

yholio 8y ago

Ethics is not something that gets decided by the Dean and laid down in a code of academic ethics. The University is just a part of society and it has it's own perverse and quite unethical practices; for example, the tendency to grab one's money and time and not provide any substantial education in return. Furthermore, the university might be perfectly aware that it provides crap services and that fraud is rampant, yet enforce it's own rules selectively just to the point where fraud is hidden away and not damaging to it's reputation. So while I agree with you in the abstract, I believe it's hard for people in the western system to relate and make moral judgements about the experiences of a student in post-communist Eastern Europe, where the rules were often gray. Fellow students were cheating on a grand scale, and up to that point, I had the same principled attitude towards cheating as yourself. Part of the reasons for creating "the system" was my revolt towards what I saw around me - the tacit acceptance that those with good cheating skills, which I lacked and did not develop early in my academic career, should be allowed to cheat their way to a degree, while I was supposed to memorize garbage. Sure, my "rebellion" was unethical and compounded the social problem around me. But what could I realistically do, could I have changed anything? At least I saved me from myself, because otherwise I would have dropped-out. In the grand scheme of things, impeccable ethics is often a luxury and could have the exact opposite effect, letting only those with no ethics whatsoever to graduate.

brianpgordon 8y ago
If you sign a code of ethics swearing you won't cheat and you do anyway, that's unethical. Even without an actual signature, the social contract is implicit. The fact that the university exploits athletes and postdocs is unrelated. You can break out the "I did what I had to do to survive" argument but then you're just conceding the point that you abandoned ethics out of necessity or simple mercenary desire for a better position. I don't think it's a huge deal and wouldn't personally let it negatively affect a hiring decision provided you made the right noises about how it was dumb in retrospect and you were young, etc, but your comment here is pretty much the opposite of that. Who could possibly employ someone with your attitude? Even a gas station wouldn't want to hire a cashier who steals money from the register when they can get away with it just because the petroleum industry is destroying the environment, or whatever.

feanaro 8y ago

Why isn't it fine, though? What serious damage did his actions cause? Which important societal construct rests solely on the assumption that no students cheat and, once this is violated by a single student, comes crashing down? I would suggest that if such a construct exists, then maybe the problem is its very conception and this is what should be rethinked. I think the implication that he should feel like an impostor for cheating on two exams is a very large over-reaction on your part.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"Which important societal construct rests solely on the assumption that no students cheat " Society does not depend on wether or not a few students cheat. But society definitely depends on the social and moral contract that we do not cheat, and that it is wrong. If most of us cheated, the system would definitely fall apart. Have you ever visited a developing nation? Where outside of small villages it seems like everyone is cheating at everything, all the time? It's like pouring sand into the gears of an engine: everything starts to break down. I would not hire someone who admitted cheating during an interview unless they talked at length at their remorse, how they learned from it, how they grew from the experience, and there were exceptional circumstances.
- effie 8y ago
  > It's like pouring sand into the gears of an engine: everything starts to break down. While true in general, cheating in that environment is also sometimes necessary to get on with your life unharmed. And sometimes cheating the system is actually regarded highly by the fellow citizens, because the people do not believe in the imposed system. Cheating is not beneficial to the system, but it often is to the people. Now, what is more ethical, doing what benefits the people or doing what benefits such system?
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    "And sometimes cheating the system is actually regarded highly by the fellow citizens, because the people do not believe in the imposed system. " If you live a totally corrupt system, maybe. But functional societies are based on the notion that cheating is bad, immoral, and nobody should do it. "Now, what is more ethical, doing what benefits the people or doing what benefits such system?" - ha ha ... this sounds like how psychopaths in prison justify their crimes! "I robbed the bank because the bank is evil, now who's more important, the people or the evil bank?" No way around this one: cheating is bad.