6 ms·

I'm a veteran. In my opinion this should probably result in dismissal (depending on exact circumstance which I'm not privy to). The main issue here is demonst

I'm a veteran. In my opinion this should probably result in dismissal (depending on exact circumstance which I'm not privy to). The main issue here is demonstration of a lack of character. You give in to temptation to take the easy way out. That might be not doing the proper maintenance on a vehicle, or maybe not going exactly through the checklist before you take off for a flight, or maybe you take a shortcut and think "you got it" before that recon mission, or maybe you don't quite make sure someone's gear is up to standard and it fails on them and kills them. Once you start taking shortcuts, you tend to keep taking them until it results in a colossal screw-up. When I got out of the army it actually took me a few years to get away from the "triple-checking" anxiety. Do I have my car keys? Ok. Wait do I have my keys? Ok good. "walking to my car" Do I have my keys? Ok hand is on the keys and I can feel them. Etc. Cheating means you'll eventually screw that up and forget your keys. Then you or someone else dies.

tyingq 6y ago
I'm also a veteran. I'd be more inclined to give them a second chance. There are likely more factors involved than lack of character here. I would at least try and see what the bigger picture was. If 70 were caught out in a very obvious way, there's probably a much bigger number cheating. And perhaps something about the environment that encourages the behavior. For example, watching yourself slip down the class ranking while knowing those ahead of you are cheating can be discouraging. Especially if you think it's being ignored. A few months of that might test your character pretty hard.
- adamc 6y ago
  This. When so many are caught cheating, "character" is not a sufficient explanation; there is something systemic going on.
  - OminousWeapons 6y ago
    Just because there are positive incentives to participate in bad behavior, doesn't mean the people engaging in that behavior are absolved of responsibility for their actions. Just because you suffer personal costs if you do not engage in bad actions, doesn't mean you get a free pass to do them. The fact that the cheating isn't literally universal does suggest that specific people are knowingly making bad choices while others decide to rise above temptation and make the right choices. That is on them, and they should accept the consequences. Full stop.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  There’s a lot of cheating in college. When I was a TA I knew of a situation where about half of a large class cheated, and I felt very bad because I gave the honest half bad grades. I expect this for any large class, so if you wish to embrace humanity broadly you may have to do more than 2nd or 20th chance. If what you say is a character test, then one should expect almost everyone in college to be dirty somehow.
  - rleigh 6y ago
    I studied and worked in academia in the UK for around 15 years, from undergrad to postdoc and then as a scientific software developer. I'm afraid to say I have little trust in current academic standards. The number of first-class honours degrees continues to rise while the academic rigour and teaching standards of courses continue to slide, and a big part of that is in tolerance of dishonesty. It's long past time that colleges and universities had a zero tolerance policy for this stuff; their reputations will suffer irreparably if they don't. If they haven't already. As someone who worked their ass off, graduated with first class honours and never cheated, rewarding cheating devalues the grades of honest students. It's absolutely unfair, and it needs properly policing. Good academics don't need to cheat. There is huge pressure not to fail people, and it is incredibly difficult to actually fail--I know only of a small handful of instances. In one case, they basically didn't show up for six months on a 1 year masters and did zero work, and even then it took months of handwringing to actually kick them out. But it shouldn't require months of agonising if the rules are clear and consistently and fairly enforced. The problem is that they are in a thrall to rich overseas students' cash, and they don't want to rock the boat. They even have special dumbed down Masters courses which are strictly for overseas students only. An academic friend of mine who was a fellow PhD student teaches on one, and he wasn't happy at the standard of the course or the academic conduct of the students. If they were on a regular course they should mostly have failed. And there's also the issue of league tables--being lax in grading and punishing cheating gets you a higher ranking in the league tables, so there's a strong disincentive to have high standards. At this point, I do think that universities need some sort of external intervention. If standards are to be upheld, academic misconduct must result in real consequences, i.e. being kicked out. Most universities have a session on academic misconduct for all new students, and they have to sign a statement saying they understand what academic misconduct is and that they understand that it is not permitted. That needs enforcing properly, no second chances. As for cheating on coursework, there's a simple answer to that: go back to closed examinations for all courses, and make the coursework component a minor part or remove it entirely. And structure the coursework to minimise cheating. For example, make every student's work unique so there is no possibility of using anyone else's work. As a scientist, lab work and written work were usually your own experiments and essays, so little chance for cheating. The real test for the cheaters is when they later have to perform in the real world. There is usually a clear difference between motivated and competent people who are independent thinkers and doers and lazy chancers who struggle, and it's quickly apparent which category people fall into despite their paper qualifications and CVs. Whether you're in a university or a company, there are people you can rely on who know their stuff and can deliver, and the people who can't.
- ZanyProgrammer 6y ago
  I'm a veteran as well, and it fits perfectly that officers get a slap on the wrist, while if a junior enlisted solider did something like this, they'd get fucked up big time.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    Ah, yes, I was enlisted, so I get your drift. But I wasn't suggesting anything in that space. Just that focusing on the group that happened to get caught isn't really fixing the problem.
  - VLM 6y ago
    > if a junior enlisted solider did something like this Exactly like this, I donno. But in spirit isn't the academy kind of officers basic training? And anyone who went thru basic knows that the recruits do the dumbest imaginable things and the drill sgts slowly and laboriously socialize them into being competent military personnel. Fresh off the bus recruits at basic can get away with the dumbest things imaginable, things that would instantly chapter a MOSQ soldier out of a line unit. Think of the stupidest thing you ever saw a recruit do with a rifle WRT common sense safety or maintenance requirements. Dumb lapses of discipline, incredible lack of foresight, etc. Frankly not much is expected of new 2nd LTs other than shut up, stay out of the way, and listen carefully to your platoon Sgt. Officers have a VERY slow and long maturation period compared to enlisted. Enlisted experience is here's a couple months to get MOSQ and then sink or swim. Not that basic trainees get away with being dumb, that's kinda the point. The officer cadets have just earned the most epic extra duty imaginable for a long time.
- AcerbicZero 6y ago
  Also a Vet - I'd be fine with giving them a second chance - as enlisted men. Once they've proven they can be soldiers, they're welcome to re-attempt becoming officers. The lack of quality officers was, and still is, one of the most egregious failings I encountered throughout my service.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    >Also a Vet - I'd be fine with giving them a second chance - as enlisted men. Once they've proven they can be soldiers, they're welcome to re-attempt becoming officers. The Army tried this, a cadet was killed, and the program ended (as far as I'm aware) [1]. >The lack of quality officers was, and still is, one of the most egregious failings I encountered throughout my service. Speaking as a (former) officer, I can't disagree, it was the reason I left. My personal opinion is that USMA/USNA/USAFA spend way, way too much time trying to pretend that they're "just another University", and not an institution that explicitly exists to do one thing: produce leaders for war. [1] https://www.stwnewspress.com/news/faith-honor-and-sacrifice-morris-influence-lives-on-long-after/article_b73140aa-254c-11e6-b07e-afd0b754b1a0.html https://www.stwnewspress.com/news/faith-honor-and-sacrifice-...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Zhenya 6y ago
Since there is no proof for the above conclusion I offer an counter hypothesis: There are people in the academy that did not get caught and will, in your conclusion, take even bigger shortcuts. However, these cadets have possibly learned a painful lesson that they can always use a reminder to do the right thing. Let them be significantly punished, and know this was an excellent bootcamp following the Honor Code.
ordu 6y ago
I can see your point, but it sounds like you believe in character as of something inborn, not acquired. To give no second chances means to filter people selecting for a proper character. From the other hand second chances might nurture a character. > Once you start taking shortcuts, you tend to keep taking them until it results in a colossal screw-up. So maybe for educational purposes academy needs to provoke cadets to take shortcuts and to make them into a colossal screw-ups? Educational environment is not a "real life". Their goal was to pass exam on calculus. They did everything they were able to do, including the cheating. It is the cheating in educational environment, in real life it would not be the cheating, it would be a healthy cooperation. Or maybe not so healthy, because they screwed it up, by sharing not right answers, but mistakes. It is hard to judge, because there is such thing as a psychological narrative, there is a psychological context for all this. Each cheated cadet had his own context, his own story that came to a cheating. In a high school I was ready to share my homework with my friends, and sometimes I got unacceptable marks because a teacher was able to see cheating and marked all with low grades. I got low marks not because I cheated, because I helped others to cheat. Was I demonstrating a lack of character, or a high morale character, who was ready to take additional risks to help his friends? It depends on my own narrative. From the one hand, it might be a lack of character, due to inability to say "no" to my friends. From the other hand, my friends might be more important for me than my grades. (Really I don't know what it was, because I know that I have troubles with saying "no", and at the same time I never bothered with grades, I knew that I would manage something acceptable, especially in math, I was good at it). This anecdote here is an attempt to demonstrate that it is hard sometimes to judge character by assessing behavior only. It is even more hard on artificial educational environment where rules could arbitrarily diverge from real life.
- dr_orpheus 6y ago
  > Educational environment is not a "real life" I very much agree with this point. I think the messaging that is being handed to students is very different than what happens in professional settings. Students are often given the message that they are on their own and if something is not achievable it is their own fault, with consequences being their own. There are very little outlets for students to ask for help, or changes in school workload. I have seen the cause of too much work to do and too little time with no feedback from professors as causing this kind of widespread cheating. Once you reach a professional environment with high risk (note, I have not been in the military but have worked on national defense aerospace programs) the messaging becomes if you are unsure of something or feel pressured to let something give you MUST ask for help or changes because the consequences are not your own and can be very widespread. Edit: grammar

tyingq 6y ago

I'm also a veteran. I'd be more inclined to give them a second chance. There are likely more factors involved than lack of character here. I would at least try and see what the bigger picture was. If 70 were caught out in a very obvious way, there's probably a much bigger number cheating. And perhaps something about the environment that encourages the behavior. For example, watching yourself slip down the class ranking while knowing those ahead of you are cheating can be discouraging. Especially if you think it's being ignored. A few months of that might test your character pretty hard.

adamc 6y ago
This. When so many are caught cheating, "character" is not a sufficient explanation; there is something systemic going on.
- OminousWeapons 6y ago
  Just because there are positive incentives to participate in bad behavior, doesn't mean the people engaging in that behavior are absolved of responsibility for their actions. Just because you suffer personal costs if you do not engage in bad actions, doesn't mean you get a free pass to do them. The fact that the cheating isn't literally universal does suggest that specific people are knowingly making bad choices while others decide to rise above temptation and make the right choices. That is on them, and they should accept the consequences. Full stop.
threatofrain 6y ago
There’s a lot of cheating in college. When I was a TA I knew of a situation where about half of a large class cheated, and I felt very bad because I gave the honest half bad grades. I expect this for any large class, so if you wish to embrace humanity broadly you may have to do more than 2nd or 20th chance. If what you say is a character test, then one should expect almost everyone in college to be dirty somehow.
- rleigh 6y ago
  I studied and worked in academia in the UK for around 15 years, from undergrad to postdoc and then as a scientific software developer. I'm afraid to say I have little trust in current academic standards. The number of first-class honours degrees continues to rise while the academic rigour and teaching standards of courses continue to slide, and a big part of that is in tolerance of dishonesty. It's long past time that colleges and universities had a zero tolerance policy for this stuff; their reputations will suffer irreparably if they don't. If they haven't already. As someone who worked their ass off, graduated with first class honours and never cheated, rewarding cheating devalues the grades of honest students. It's absolutely unfair, and it needs properly policing. Good academics don't need to cheat. There is huge pressure not to fail people, and it is incredibly difficult to actually fail--I know only of a small handful of instances. In one case, they basically didn't show up for six months on a 1 year masters and did zero work, and even then it took months of handwringing to actually kick them out. But it shouldn't require months of agonising if the rules are clear and consistently and fairly enforced. The problem is that they are in a thrall to rich overseas students' cash, and they don't want to rock the boat. They even have special dumbed down Masters courses which are strictly for overseas students only. An academic friend of mine who was a fellow PhD student teaches on one, and he wasn't happy at the standard of the course or the academic conduct of the students. If they were on a regular course they should mostly have failed. And there's also the issue of league tables--being lax in grading and punishing cheating gets you a higher ranking in the league tables, so there's a strong disincentive to have high standards. At this point, I do think that universities need some sort of external intervention. If standards are to be upheld, academic misconduct must result in real consequences, i.e. being kicked out. Most universities have a session on academic misconduct for all new students, and they have to sign a statement saying they understand what academic misconduct is and that they understand that it is not permitted. That needs enforcing properly, no second chances. As for cheating on coursework, there's a simple answer to that: go back to closed examinations for all courses, and make the coursework component a minor part or remove it entirely. And structure the coursework to minimise cheating. For example, make every student's work unique so there is no possibility of using anyone else's work. As a scientist, lab work and written work were usually your own experiments and essays, so little chance for cheating. The real test for the cheaters is when they later have to perform in the real world. There is usually a clear difference between motivated and competent people who are independent thinkers and doers and lazy chancers who struggle, and it's quickly apparent which category people fall into despite their paper qualifications and CVs. Whether you're in a university or a company, there are people you can rely on who know their stuff and can deliver, and the people who can't.
ZanyProgrammer 6y ago
I'm a veteran as well, and it fits perfectly that officers get a slap on the wrist, while if a junior enlisted solider did something like this, they'd get fucked up big time.
- tyingq 6y ago
  Ah, yes, I was enlisted, so I get your drift. But I wasn't suggesting anything in that space. Just that focusing on the group that happened to get caught isn't really fixing the problem.
- VLM 6y ago
  > if a junior enlisted solider did something like this Exactly like this, I donno. But in spirit isn't the academy kind of officers basic training? And anyone who went thru basic knows that the recruits do the dumbest imaginable things and the drill sgts slowly and laboriously socialize them into being competent military personnel. Fresh off the bus recruits at basic can get away with the dumbest things imaginable, things that would instantly chapter a MOSQ soldier out of a line unit. Think of the stupidest thing you ever saw a recruit do with a rifle WRT common sense safety or maintenance requirements. Dumb lapses of discipline, incredible lack of foresight, etc. Frankly not much is expected of new 2nd LTs other than shut up, stay out of the way, and listen carefully to your platoon Sgt. Officers have a VERY slow and long maturation period compared to enlisted. Enlisted experience is here's a couple months to get MOSQ and then sink or swim. Not that basic trainees get away with being dumb, that's kinda the point. The officer cadets have just earned the most epic extra duty imaginable for a long time.
AcerbicZero 6y ago
Also a Vet - I'd be fine with giving them a second chance - as enlisted men. Once they've proven they can be soldiers, they're welcome to re-attempt becoming officers. The lack of quality officers was, and still is, one of the most egregious failings I encountered throughout my service.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  >Also a Vet - I'd be fine with giving them a second chance - as enlisted men. Once they've proven they can be soldiers, they're welcome to re-attempt becoming officers. The Army tried this, a cadet was killed, and the program ended (as far as I'm aware) [1]. >The lack of quality officers was, and still is, one of the most egregious failings I encountered throughout my service. Speaking as a (former) officer, I can't disagree, it was the reason I left. My personal opinion is that USMA/USNA/USAFA spend way, way too much time trying to pretend that they're "just another University", and not an institution that explicitly exists to do one thing: produce leaders for war. [1] https://www.stwnewspress.com/news/faith-honor-and-sacrifice-morris-influence-lives-on-long-after/article_b73140aa-254c-11e6-b07e-afd0b754b1a0.html https://www.stwnewspress.com/news/faith-honor-and-sacrifice-...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Zhenya 6y ago

Since there is no proof for the above conclusion I offer an counter hypothesis: There are people in the academy that did not get caught and will, in your conclusion, take even bigger shortcuts. However, these cadets have possibly learned a painful lesson that they can always use a reminder to do the right thing. Let them be significantly punished, and know this was an excellent bootcamp following the Honor Code.

ordu 6y ago

I can see your point, but it sounds like you believe in character as of something inborn, not acquired. To give no second chances means to filter people selecting for a proper character. From the other hand second chances might nurture a character. > Once you start taking shortcuts, you tend to keep taking them until it results in a colossal screw-up. So maybe for educational purposes academy needs to provoke cadets to take shortcuts and to make them into a colossal screw-ups? Educational environment is not a "real life". Their goal was to pass exam on calculus. They did everything they were able to do, including the cheating. It is the cheating in educational environment, in real life it would not be the cheating, it would be a healthy cooperation. Or maybe not so healthy, because they screwed it up, by sharing not right answers, but mistakes. It is hard to judge, because there is such thing as a psychological narrative, there is a psychological context for all this. Each cheated cadet had his own context, his own story that came to a cheating. In a high school I was ready to share my homework with my friends, and sometimes I got unacceptable marks because a teacher was able to see cheating and marked all with low grades. I got low marks not because I cheated, because I helped others to cheat. Was I demonstrating a lack of character, or a high morale character, who was ready to take additional risks to help his friends? It depends on my own narrative. From the one hand, it might be a lack of character, due to inability to say "no" to my friends. From the other hand, my friends might be more important for me than my grades. (Really I don't know what it was, because I know that I have troubles with saying "no", and at the same time I never bothered with grades, I knew that I would manage something acceptable, especially in math, I was good at it). This anecdote here is an attempt to demonstrate that it is hard sometimes to judge character by assessing behavior only. It is even more hard on artificial educational environment where rules could arbitrarily diverge from real life.

dr_orpheus 6y ago
> Educational environment is not a "real life" I very much agree with this point. I think the messaging that is being handed to students is very different than what happens in professional settings. Students are often given the message that they are on their own and if something is not achievable it is their own fault, with consequences being their own. There are very little outlets for students to ask for help, or changes in school workload. I have seen the cause of too much work to do and too little time with no feedback from professors as causing this kind of widespread cheating. Once you reach a professional environment with high risk (note, I have not been in the military but have worked on national defense aerospace programs) the messaging becomes if you are unsure of something or feel pressured to let something give you MUST ask for help or changes because the consequences are not your own and can be very widespread. Edit: grammar