4 ms·

It amazes me that you cannot see it from his perspective. He tried to catch cheaters and was punished by the school system for it. He earned less money for tr

by ohashi 15y ago

It amazes me that you cannot see it from his perspective. He tried to catch cheaters and was punished by the school system for it. He earned less money for trying to enforce a no cheating policy. Would you work twice the amount of time for less pay? Most of us probably wouldn't. It seems like a prudent financial decision for him. The problem seems systemic, he throws his hands in the air and gives up because he cannot do anything alone and is punished. Others either came to the same conclusion or don't know/care cheating is happening to begin with. I don't think I can simply blame him for the calculations he went through in making his decision.

justin_vanw 15y ago
Since you asked, I would refuse to work anywhere that I was expected to stand aside and ignore fraud, or where I was punished for doing what everyone would agree is the right thing, in this case trying to catch and identify cheaters in compliance with the rules of the institution. I would rail against it every day and try to change the system by doing the right thing and calling out other faculty for not doing so, publicly. It is likely that I would fail, but as I will sometimes announce loudly in the Milo office "I've got something to say! It's better to burn out than fade away!'
- ohashi 15y ago
  That's nice. But you're not him. Even you recognize a high likelihood of failure. He doesn't want to fight that losing battle, I cannot blame him.
- neworder 15y ago
  >I would refuse to work anywhere that I was expected to stand aside and ignore fraud, or where I was punished for doing what everyone would agree is the right thing (...) You don't always have that much choice, do you? >I would rail against it every day and try to change the system by doing the right thing and calling out other faculty for not doing so, publicly. Yeah. You will not simply fail, you'll get screwed by the system at the first opportunity. If you really want to "buck the system", cool down and watch some episodes of "The Wire". This series portays exactly and reallisticaly the inner workings of corrupt institutions and what happens to "lone wolves" trying to beat or change the system (spoiler - they get screwed by superiors and peers alike and achieve absolutely nothing). I'm not saying it's impossible to transform the system from within. But trying to do it single-handedly is fighting a losing battle that is doomed to alienate your coworkers.
  - justin_vanw 15y ago
    I don't think I'd be 'screwed by the system', and no I don't think I'll be taking my lessons from some TV cops and robbers show. Do you have any clue how hilariously bad this advice you are giving is?
    - neworder 15y ago
      "The Wire" is not "some TV cops and robbers show", but a complex narrative that depicts exactly the kind of situtations we're talking about (yes, it's styled as police drama, but it's much more than that).
vacri 15y ago
He earned less money for trying to enforce a no cheating policy. No, his pay was increased by less than in previous years. He didn't actually earn less. Would you work twice the amount of time for less pay? He didn't work twice the time. 32 lecture hours is an indicator of the workload - he spends far more on the course than just contact hours. The problem seems systemic, he throws his hands in the air and gives up because he cannot do anything alone and is punished. He still got a pay increase. Not as much as he would have liked, but it's not exactly horrible punishment. In one aspect he's just as guilty as his cheaters - he is more concerned for the big bux at the end than in doing his job properly: "If doing things properly means I get paid less, screw that". EDIT: it's important to note that he also reports on the changed dynamic of the class, not just the dollars. That being said, it's interesting that the dollars come first.
- robtoo 15y ago
  his pay was increased by less than in previous years. He didn't actually earn less. If his pay increase was less than inflation, then many people would say he did actually earn less.
  - Panos 15y ago
    It was less than inflation, I am just confirming that :-)
- ohashi 15y ago
  He made less money if you consider opportunity cost. He could have made more by not pursuing the cheating. He also spent a lot more time, lowering the amount he earned divided by the amount of time spent at the job.

by ohashi 15y ago

justin_vanw 15y ago

Since you asked, I would refuse to work anywhere that I was expected to stand aside and ignore fraud, or where I was punished for doing what everyone would agree is the right thing, in this case trying to catch and identify cheaters in compliance with the rules of the institution. I would rail against it every day and try to change the system by doing the right thing and calling out other faculty for not doing so, publicly. It is likely that I would fail, but as I will sometimes announce loudly in the Milo office "I've got something to say! It's better to burn out than fade away!'

ohashi 15y ago
That's nice. But you're not him. Even you recognize a high likelihood of failure. He doesn't want to fight that losing battle, I cannot blame him.
neworder 15y ago
>I would refuse to work anywhere that I was expected to stand aside and ignore fraud, or where I was punished for doing what everyone would agree is the right thing (...) You don't always have that much choice, do you? >I would rail against it every day and try to change the system by doing the right thing and calling out other faculty for not doing so, publicly. Yeah. You will not simply fail, you'll get screwed by the system at the first opportunity. If you really want to "buck the system", cool down and watch some episodes of "The Wire". This series portays exactly and reallisticaly the inner workings of corrupt institutions and what happens to "lone wolves" trying to beat or change the system (spoiler - they get screwed by superiors and peers alike and achieve absolutely nothing). I'm not saying it's impossible to transform the system from within. But trying to do it single-handedly is fighting a losing battle that is doomed to alienate your coworkers.
- justin_vanw 15y ago
  I don't think I'd be 'screwed by the system', and no I don't think I'll be taking my lessons from some TV cops and robbers show. Do you have any clue how hilariously bad this advice you are giving is?
  - neworder 15y ago
    "The Wire" is not "some TV cops and robbers show", but a complex narrative that depicts exactly the kind of situtations we're talking about (yes, it's styled as police drama, but it's much more than that).

vacri 15y ago

He earned less money for trying to enforce a no cheating policy. No, his pay was increased by less than in previous years. He didn't actually earn less. Would you work twice the amount of time for less pay? He didn't work twice the time. 32 lecture hours is an indicator of the workload - he spends far more on the course than just contact hours. The problem seems systemic, he throws his hands in the air and gives up because he cannot do anything alone and is punished. He still got a pay increase. Not as much as he would have liked, but it's not exactly horrible punishment. In one aspect he's just as guilty as his cheaters - he is more concerned for the big bux at the end than in doing his job properly: "If doing things properly means I get paid less, screw that". EDIT: it's important to note that he also reports on the changed dynamic of the class, not just the dollars. That being said, it's interesting that the dollars come first.

robtoo 15y ago
his pay was increased by less than in previous years. He didn't actually earn less. If his pay increase was less than inflation, then many people would say he did actually earn less.
- Panos 15y ago
  It was less than inflation, I am just confirming that :-)
ohashi 15y ago
He made less money if you consider opportunity cost. He could have made more by not pursuing the cheating. He also spent a lot more time, lowering the amount he earned divided by the amount of time spent at the job.