Higher Ed IT instructor / Lawyer here. I mostly don't in terms of how academia does it? I think the issue is "attribution" vs "you're supposed to be original."

Higher Ed IT instructor / Lawyer here. I mostly don't in terms of how academia does it? I think the issue is "attribution" vs "you're supposed to be original." It's funny, because of course in law, literally only the first thing matters and the second is completely unnecessary and not part of the equation -- when it comes to adjudicating real life matters. I find that this stretches over to the academic work I do and how I grade it. I generally try to do something like -- look, show me via writing (and frequently other media, screenshots, whatever) that you've done work in looking at this stuff. But I don't really need or expect you to "come up with something new." -- mostly because, what could "new" possibly mean here?