4 ms·

I am completely aghast. This professor is considering only what path will avoid the most hassle and difficulty for himself. Any duty he might owe honest stude

by Dove 15y ago

I am completely aghast. This professor is considering only what path will avoid the most hassle and difficulty for himself. Any duty he might owe honest students, fellow faculty, or even society at large doesn't seem to figure into it. He seems to see no problem at all with effectively selling high grades to cheaters, so long as there's no risk or hassle involved for him. And because he gets to use a term like Nash Equilibrium to describe it, he's not even ashamed. Profoundly dishonorable.

beej71 15y ago
Nonsense. At the end of TFA he lists the ways he is going to effectively combat the problem at the source, as opposed to the previously wasteful and costly way he tried before.
- Dove 15y ago
  No, he doesn't argue that he's going to effectively combat the problem. He lists a few categories of assignments in which he thinks the incentive to cheat will be reduced, only one of which actually makes it harder. And he says he doesn't think he can teach everything effectively that way. I am all for embracing structurally cheat-proof methods, but his focus is on personal efficiency first.
lutorm 15y ago
He works for the University. If the employer is not interested in rewarding him (or even penalizing him) for doing something that not only is stressful but that takes tons of time away from his useful work, why should he? An example of what you are doing in your job for coworkers and society at large while being penalized for it by your employer would be appropriate here.
- Dove 15y ago
  If the employer is not interested in rewarding him (or even penalizing him) for doing something that not only is stressful but that takes tons of time away from his useful work, why should he? Because it is the right and honorable thing to do in his position. If doing the right thing were always easy and profitable, we'd have no need for morals. There are lots of situations where people are encouraged and rewarded for doing the wrong thing in their line of work. There are state prosecutors whose compensation depends on how many criminals they successfully prosecute, so they take cases where the law is obviously unjust but they can win (when using their discretion to safeguard justice is supposed to be part of the job). There are salesmen whose compensation depends entirely on how many units they are able to sell, so they lie to customers. There are soldiers who are ordered to engage in immoral acts. It is an essential part of their duty to refuse those orders, but that decision certainly does not come without stress and cost. I worked in defense contracting, and sometimes served as an engineering liason to various national defense organizations. There was occasionally immense social pressure on me to make our products look better than they were . . . but--and never mind that it would have been in my employer's interest--that would have been wrong. I could go on. The point is this: in most circumstances in life, there are ways to make money or make life less stressful by doing the wrong thing. You can argue that that's the fault of the people at the top of the system -- they've set up the incentives wrong. I agree; having a just society literally means that the incentives point toward right behavior. But that is their problem, not yours. Your duty is to do the right thing, regardless of the circumstances. Academia has a role in both teaching and certifying knowledge, and is paid by students for the certification, not by industry for its accuracy. There is certainly moral hazard in that, and it deserves a systemic fix. That is no excuse for succumbing to it, for throwing up one's hands, blaming the system, and unleashing remorseless cheaters on fellow faculty and society.
  - hackinthebochs 15y ago
    This is a common misconception. The professor is there to perform research, only incidentally to teach. It's not his responsibility to police students. It's the responsibility of the entire system to have policies in place that effectively prosecute cheating. When that system fails it is not his moral obligation to carry that burden himself.
    - Dove 15y ago
      I disagree. The incidentiality of the teaching doesn't enter into it. As long as he is giving grades, he has a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to detect and deter cheating. (I do think the strategy he described -- spending two hours per student trying to force a confession -- is unreasonable. Detection, notification, and escalation to school enforcement is a reasonable approach. Giving up and blaming the system is not.) I agree that it is the responsibility of the school to have systems in place that provide the right incentives. But it is also the responsibility of the professors to defend the academic integrity of the school as much as they are involved with it. Moral responsibility does not always add up to 100%.
      - hackinthebochs 15y ago
        >he has a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to detect and deter cheating. I can agree with this. But in the face of an administration that is bent on turning a blind eye, or even punishing the teacher, he has no obligation to carry the burden of defending the integrity of the institution himself. Putting a reasonable effort into detecting cheating is his responsibility. It is not his responsibility to ensure that the students are properly prosecuted.
        Dove 15y ago
        I don't know about that. There's still the rest of society to consider. Which is to say, there's still his personal professional integrity. I guess it depends on the circumstance. If the school knowingly encourages cheating for profit, I would think integrity demands playing whistleblower. In fact, I'd apply that to any organization knowningly doing something shady -- bring it to light or accept guilt as an accomplice. If the school believes in academic integrity, but the compensation for teachers results in perverse incentives, it is important to do the right thing anyway--defend the academic integrity of the school, work on fixing the system, and in the mean time put social pressure on other teachers to do the right thing until the system is fixed. I agree that it's not the professor's responsibility to pursue the matter beyond his influence at the school. If there's an office of academic honesty, but it's lax, the best he can do is lobby to improve it. But inasmuch as professors have absolute control over the grades they distribute, I do think they have a responsibility to be fair with them. I can see leaving an institution over a lack of academic honesty. I can see working to reform or improve one. I can see failing a student for cheating, but washing your hands of it when the school does nothing further. What I cannot see is saying to society at large, "On my reputation as an expert, this student can do calculus," when you aren't sure it's true, for the sake of a less stressful workplace and a higher salary.

by Dove 15y ago

beej71 15y ago

Nonsense. At the end of TFA he lists the ways he is going to effectively combat the problem at the source, as opposed to the previously wasteful and costly way he tried before.

Dove 15y ago
No, he doesn't argue that he's going to effectively combat the problem. He lists a few categories of assignments in which he thinks the incentive to cheat will be reduced, only one of which actually makes it harder. And he says he doesn't think he can teach everything effectively that way. I am all for embracing structurally cheat-proof methods, but his focus is on personal efficiency first.

lutorm 15y ago

He works for the University. If the employer is not interested in rewarding him (or even penalizing him) for doing something that not only is stressful but that takes tons of time away from his useful work, why should he? An example of what you are doing in your job for coworkers and society at large while being penalized for it by your employer would be appropriate here.

Dove 15y ago
If the employer is not interested in rewarding him (or even penalizing him) for doing something that not only is stressful but that takes tons of time away from his useful work, why should he? Because it is the right and honorable thing to do in his position. If doing the right thing were always easy and profitable, we'd have no need for morals. There are lots of situations where people are encouraged and rewarded for doing the wrong thing in their line of work. There are state prosecutors whose compensation depends on how many criminals they successfully prosecute, so they take cases where the law is obviously unjust but they can win (when using their discretion to safeguard justice is supposed to be part of the job). There are salesmen whose compensation depends entirely on how many units they are able to sell, so they lie to customers. There are soldiers who are ordered to engage in immoral acts. It is an essential part of their duty to refuse those orders, but that decision certainly does not come without stress and cost. I worked in defense contracting, and sometimes served as an engineering liason to various national defense organizations. There was occasionally immense social pressure on me to make our products look better than they were . . . but--and never mind that it would have been in my employer's interest--that would have been wrong. I could go on. The point is this: in most circumstances in life, there are ways to make money or make life less stressful by doing the wrong thing. You can argue that that's the fault of the people at the top of the system -- they've set up the incentives wrong. I agree; having a just society literally means that the incentives point toward right behavior. But that is their problem, not yours. Your duty is to do the right thing, regardless of the circumstances. Academia has a role in both teaching and certifying knowledge, and is paid by students for the certification, not by industry for its accuracy. There is certainly moral hazard in that, and it deserves a systemic fix. That is no excuse for succumbing to it, for throwing up one's hands, blaming the system, and unleashing remorseless cheaters on fellow faculty and society.
- hackinthebochs 15y ago
  This is a common misconception. The professor is there to perform research, only incidentally to teach. It's not his responsibility to police students. It's the responsibility of the entire system to have policies in place that effectively prosecute cheating. When that system fails it is not his moral obligation to carry that burden himself.
  - Dove 15y ago
    I disagree. The incidentiality of the teaching doesn't enter into it. As long as he is giving grades, he has a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to detect and deter cheating. (I do think the strategy he described -- spending two hours per student trying to force a confession -- is unreasonable. Detection, notification, and escalation to school enforcement is a reasonable approach. Giving up and blaming the system is not.) I agree that it is the responsibility of the school to have systems in place that provide the right incentives. But it is also the responsibility of the professors to defend the academic integrity of the school as much as they are involved with it. Moral responsibility does not always add up to 100%.
    - hackinthebochs 15y ago
      >he has a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to detect and deter cheating. I can agree with this. But in the face of an administration that is bent on turning a blind eye, or even punishing the teacher, he has no obligation to carry the burden of defending the integrity of the institution himself. Putting a reasonable effort into detecting cheating is his responsibility. It is not his responsibility to ensure that the students are properly prosecuted.
      - Dove 15y ago
        I don't know about that. There's still the rest of society to consider. Which is to say, there's still his personal professional integrity. I guess it depends on the circumstance. If the school knowingly encourages cheating for profit, I would think integrity demands playing whistleblower. In fact, I'd apply that to any organization knowningly doing something shady -- bring it to light or accept guilt as an accomplice. If the school believes in academic integrity, but the compensation for teachers results in perverse incentives, it is important to do the right thing anyway--defend the academic integrity of the school, work on fixing the system, and in the mean time put social pressure on other teachers to do the right thing until the system is fixed. I agree that it's not the professor's responsibility to pursue the matter beyond his influence at the school. If there's an office of academic honesty, but it's lax, the best he can do is lobby to improve it. But inasmuch as professors have absolute control over the grades they distribute, I do think they have a responsibility to be fair with them. I can see leaving an institution over a lack of academic honesty. I can see working to reform or improve one. I can see failing a student for cheating, but washing your hands of it when the school does nothing further. What I cannot see is saying to society at large, "On my reputation as an expert, this student can do calculus," when you aren't sure it's true, for the sake of a less stressful workplace and a higher salary.