3 ms·

Many years ago I was a visiting part-time lecturer (a.k.a. lowest of the low). I was given the syllabus summary from the prospectus, and then had to write a syl

Many years ago I was a visiting part-time lecturer (a.k.a. lowest of the low). I was given the syllabus summary from the prospectus, and then had to write a syllabus; prepare teaching material; write tests/exams; and mark submissions. The institution was far from elite; they used to send staff on recruitment drivs in faraway places, because (a) overseas students get to come th this country when otherwise they wouldn't get a visa; and (b) they pay more. The result was that many of the students were rich, and assumed they didn't have to work. Many didn't have basic qualifications for doing the work. So they cheated extensively (there was no web and no WhatsApp; they just copied one-another's coursework submissions). I asked my experienced colleagues what to do. They said that I could report the cheating to the school; but I would then be tied up in exam boards all summer, for which I wouldn't be paid. Also I could expect to have to fight charges of racism. Alternatively I could explain to them the difference between helping one-another out (good) and plagiarism (bad). Guess which choice I took! Basically, the institution didn't care about plagiarism; they didn't care about the unfairness to honest students; and I don't think they cared whether the students learned anything. By the next year, I didn't care either. I just delivered the material, and went home.

nikanj 4y ago
Meanwhile graduates from these institutions lament how employers only want A-list schools
- jonmb 4y ago
  Which is amusing since students from those A-list schools are also cheating.
  - nikanj 4y ago
    But the A-list schools have a brand to protect, and at least try to curb the cheating. The bottom-of-the-barrel diploma mills don’t give a damn, as long as they don’t face the threat of losing official status.
    - jonmb 4y ago
      Agreed they have a brand to protect and that we shouldn't expect much from any university that could be described as a diploma mill. Though I'm not confident that A-list schools are any better at curbing the cheating than an average university. Just looking at some of the replies in this thread from people who were students and TAs at A-list schools, and from other conversations I've seen about this, they describe that cheating is rampant at prestigious schools too.
    - rvba 4y ago
      It is an interesting question: When we look at the "best" schools really the best since they teach so well? Or maybe they are the best, since they got a brand early and simply collect the best candidates? Those best candidates would be the best students/more successful in later life even if they went to a mediocre university? Obviously the better universities probably are better at teaching, but I still wonder how much depends on the quality of students that they accept. Also in the absolute top universities, lots of students come from "old" wealth - and are destined to inherit money and positions from their parents. Obviously it doesnt make sense to send a kid to a bad university, because it is probably bad (bad teachers, bad students), but I wonder if those "good" universities are really that good due to own actions.
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        > Obviously the better universities probably are better at teaching I wasn't taught very much at university. There were a few lectures a week, and a weekly tutorial. I think there's a difference between the UK and US undergraduate experience: I suspect that US students expect something like school, but better. So you get showbiz professors with charisma. In the UK, at least in research universities, teaching undergraduates is a boring side-job, unless they are showing potential as postgrad students (who can be put to work helping the professor's research). The purpose of a batchelor's degree, then, is to train you to study on your own, which is a prerequisite for postgrad study. I happen to think that's a good thing; I don't think universities should be providing vocational training. That should be done by another kind of institution. A good batchelor's degree - any good batchelor's degree - is then evidence that you can work and learn under your own steam. I've never been to university in the USA; I'm guessing, based on how US and UK students describe their experiences, and on the differing styles of US and UK professors on Youtube, TV etc.

nikanj 4y ago

Meanwhile graduates from these institutions lament how employers only want A-list schools

jonmb 4y ago
Which is amusing since students from those A-list schools are also cheating.
- nikanj 4y ago
  But the A-list schools have a brand to protect, and at least try to curb the cheating. The bottom-of-the-barrel diploma mills don’t give a damn, as long as they don’t face the threat of losing official status.
  - jonmb 4y ago
    Agreed they have a brand to protect and that we shouldn't expect much from any university that could be described as a diploma mill. Though I'm not confident that A-list schools are any better at curbing the cheating than an average university. Just looking at some of the replies in this thread from people who were students and TAs at A-list schools, and from other conversations I've seen about this, they describe that cheating is rampant at prestigious schools too.
  - rvba 4y ago
    It is an interesting question: When we look at the "best" schools really the best since they teach so well? Or maybe they are the best, since they got a brand early and simply collect the best candidates? Those best candidates would be the best students/more successful in later life even if they went to a mediocre university? Obviously the better universities probably are better at teaching, but I still wonder how much depends on the quality of students that they accept. Also in the absolute top universities, lots of students come from "old" wealth - and are destined to inherit money and positions from their parents. Obviously it doesnt make sense to send a kid to a bad university, because it is probably bad (bad teachers, bad students), but I wonder if those "good" universities are really that good due to own actions.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      > Obviously the better universities probably are better at teaching I wasn't taught very much at university. There were a few lectures a week, and a weekly tutorial. I think there's a difference between the UK and US undergraduate experience: I suspect that US students expect something like school, but better. So you get showbiz professors with charisma. In the UK, at least in research universities, teaching undergraduates is a boring side-job, unless they are showing potential as postgrad students (who can be put to work helping the professor's research). The purpose of a batchelor's degree, then, is to train you to study on your own, which is a prerequisite for postgrad study. I happen to think that's a good thing; I don't think universities should be providing vocational training. That should be done by another kind of institution. A good batchelor's degree - any good batchelor's degree - is then evidence that you can work and learn under your own steam. I've never been to university in the USA; I'm guessing, based on how US and UK students describe their experiences, and on the differing styles of US and UK professors on Youtube, TV etc.