4 ms·

Given that this was an ethics course, I think it's interesting/surprising that the professor doesn't seem to be trying to engage with what I'm guessing was the

by abeppu 3y ago

Given that this was an ethics course, I think it's interesting/surprising that the professor doesn't seem to be trying to engage with what I'm guessing was the course material in this discussion. "Am I the unethical one" the right question? How about "Under which formulations of normative ethics is my behavior wrong?" 1. Is it _good_ to catch cheating? If these are students who are just checking some distributional requirement box, does it matter if they actually understood the material? Potentially there is harm (delayed graduation, literal costs, etc) from failing students (or having them be subject to some other discipline). Perhaps under a consequentialist framing, catching cheaters isn't good. But does the professor have a deontological obligation to catch cheating, and to make a good-faith effort to have fair outcomes in which students who studied and understood the material receive better grades than cheaters? 2. Is the method of catching cheaters relevant? If catching cheaters is good for consequentialist reasons, isn't any effective means of catching cheaters (which does not cause other harms) also good? Certainly the objection that the professor was dishonest by uploading the bad test sounds like it's from a deontological / rules-oriented view.

AstralStorm 3y ago
1. Absolute good is problematic even for philosophers. Under consequentialist framework, catching cheaters would allow others or yourself to reeducate them, causing a lot of social repercussions, especially if the test contained safety instruction. The consequences of cheating are very complex, and ones of fostering cheating behavior even more so. 2. It is, in as much as you believe AI should provide accurate answers to others or force them to think for themselves instead. The professor is honest in deontological point of view in that they're not lying to a person, but are lying in general. Depending on deontology in question this may or may not be allowed.
paulsutter 3y ago
You're making it too abstract. The professor's actions are hilarious and fair game by any measure. Bravo, well played. It's such a good idea that I'm surprised its not already commonplace. As for consequences, thats up to university policy > I am in discussion with my Chair about exactly what response is appropriate for these students, but a zero on the final is the bare minimum, and an F in the class is likely for some, if not all of those who cheated.
- abeppu 3y ago
  > You're making it too abstract. A _philosophy professor_ asked a question about _ethics_.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  "Fair game" maybe? But we're talking about ethics. The professor intentionally taught students incorrect information when they were seeking out resources to help them learn the material. Maybe a student spent 2 days studying those incorrect answers. I don't know if there have been studies on this, but I suspect it's much more difficult to unlearn false information one has absorbed than it is to learn the correct information in the first place. In other words, the professor experimented on his students in a way that shows he's more interested in determining whether or not they were "cheating" (by his definition) than he is in helping them learn the material in a substantive way, and assessing whether he has adequately taught them. Any student failing the exam because they studied the poisoned material is just a testament to how much he failed as a teacher.
  - latency-guy2 3y ago
    > The professor intentionally taught students incorrect information when they were seeking out resources to help them learn the material. No, that is not true. That's your narrative. > Maybe a student spent 2 days studying those incorrect answers. I don't know if there have been studies on this, but I suspect it's much more difficult to unlearn false information one has absorbed than it is to learn the correct information in the first place. Furthering of your narrative, and appeal to authority even though the authority is lacking. > In other words, the professor experimented on his students in a way that shows he's more interested in determining whether or not they were "cheating" (by his definition) than he is in helping them learn the material in a substantive way, and assessing whether he has adequately taught them. Also, narrative building. > Any student failing the exam because they studied the poisoned material is just a testament to how much he failed as a teacher. And here is the outcome of your narrative, you've come to the conclusion that students cheating is actually a failure of the teacher - why? If students cheating was the failure of the teacher, why were other students completely capable of learning the material from lecture and supplemental material? Surely, the number of students failing the course would be 100% if the teacher failed to teach. We know that's not the case, so your premise is bunk from the get go. Maybe you could make the argument that the teacher is not good at teaching, or poorly taught their students, but then you'd need to find evidence that the other students who did not cheat had to go through alternative methods to learn/do well in the course. Unless you're the student in the classroom, or the teacher roleplaying in the comments here, I don't think you have that evidence. So I'll make a value judgement here and say that you're trolling by the canonical sense of the phrase.
DavidWoof 3y ago
I feel like you're missing something basic. The professor classifies this as a "cheating site", and his entire article assumes this classification, but the site portrays itself as a study aid. If we skip the editorializing, what the professor actually did was seed misinformation on the Internet to see who would fall for it. Would you feel differently if he had edited the Wikipedia page for his subject to see which students used it as a study aid? The equation of "you found this info on the Internet instead of in the approved course material and therefore you're cheating" doesn't seem completely solid to me.
- prox 3y ago
  The pirate bay might describe itself as a software sharing website, it’s kind of a moot point what they describe themselves as in that sense. The students are still responsible for what they take in outside of the materials provided. Wikipedia is even at the best of times not always correct. I see lot of people waving the responsibility of students away. The students took a chance, knowing fully well what the site is and does, and they got burned. Own it and take the burn.
  - Plasmoid 3y ago
    Reading a copy of a previous test is not considered cheating. If the site had copies of upcoming tests that would be cheating. But previous tests might as well be considered public knowledge.
  - ineedasername 3y ago
    I honestly didn’t know it was a cheating site. I use it with my grade school kids to help them, find novel exercises on the topics they’re working on, etc. I can’t be the only one who uses it as the resource it presents itself to be.
- asielen 3y ago
  Agreed, also college kids are trained to study old tests to get into college. SAT prep and AP test prep is basically all previous test review. I think it somewhat depends on how the test was presented on the site. Was it presented as a previous test or was it presented as "top secret" upcoming test? I remember a few college tests that had questions straight from the book example questions. Is it cheating that I remembered them?
PragmaticPulp 3y ago
> But does the professor have a deontological obligation to catch cheating, and to make a good-faith effort to have fair outcomes in which students who studied and understood the material receive better grades than cheaters? Most courses are either graded on a curve or the material is adjusted in difficulty to target a certain level of challenge. When cheaters come in and destroy that curve and inject false signal into the difficulty feedback loop, the non-cheaters suffer from increased difficulty. So yes, there is some obligation to keep the playing field fair and accurate. Given that grades can have an impact on real-world outcomes (e.g. admission to a desired graduate program) then it’s possible that allowing cheating can have broad impacts beyond the students. Imagine if you took some 4.0GPA students under the assumption that they actually learned what they claim, then discover that they have no idea what they’re doing because they cheated the whole way. Also, the mind boggles at the suggestion that catching cheaters is bad because they might face some consequences for their dishonesty.
- BeetleB 3y ago
  > Most courses are either graded on a curve or the material is adjusted in difficulty to target a certain level of challenge. Thankfully not the case where I went to university. The bar was clearly set in the first lecture: If your overall score is 90+%, you get an A. 80-90%, a B, and so on. Doesn't matter what your peers do. University is (or should be) about learning, not about competition with peers. When I read the article, my mind was clear: He is not the unethical one. That's assuming no curve. If he is curving, I'm all for any method that messes up the curve, because curves are (generally) a bad idea.
  - nodogoto 3y ago
    The person you responded to accounts for uncurved classes in their argument, that cheaters in uncurved classes "inject false signal into the difficulty feedback loop". If the average assignment grades are very high the professor will be inclined to make the assignments more challenging. Cheating disrupts the professor's ability to accurately determine how well their students are grasping the material and adjust accordingly.

by abeppu 3y ago

AstralStorm 3y ago

1. Absolute good is problematic even for philosophers. Under consequentialist framework, catching cheaters would allow others or yourself to reeducate them, causing a lot of social repercussions, especially if the test contained safety instruction. The consequences of cheating are very complex, and ones of fostering cheating behavior even more so. 2. It is, in as much as you believe AI should provide accurate answers to others or force them to think for themselves instead. The professor is honest in deontological point of view in that they're not lying to a person, but are lying in general. Depending on deontology in question this may or may not be allowed.

paulsutter 3y ago

You're making it too abstract. The professor's actions are hilarious and fair game by any measure. Bravo, well played. It's such a good idea that I'm surprised its not already commonplace. As for consequences, thats up to university policy > I am in discussion with my Chair about exactly what response is appropriate for these students, but a zero on the final is the bare minimum, and an F in the class is likely for some, if not all of those who cheated.

abeppu 3y ago
> You're making it too abstract. A _philosophy professor_ asked a question about _ethics_.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
pcthrowaway 3y ago
"Fair game" maybe? But we're talking about ethics. The professor intentionally taught students incorrect information when they were seeking out resources to help them learn the material. Maybe a student spent 2 days studying those incorrect answers. I don't know if there have been studies on this, but I suspect it's much more difficult to unlearn false information one has absorbed than it is to learn the correct information in the first place. In other words, the professor experimented on his students in a way that shows he's more interested in determining whether or not they were "cheating" (by his definition) than he is in helping them learn the material in a substantive way, and assessing whether he has adequately taught them. Any student failing the exam because they studied the poisoned material is just a testament to how much he failed as a teacher.
- latency-guy2 3y ago
  > The professor intentionally taught students incorrect information when they were seeking out resources to help them learn the material. No, that is not true. That's your narrative. > Maybe a student spent 2 days studying those incorrect answers. I don't know if there have been studies on this, but I suspect it's much more difficult to unlearn false information one has absorbed than it is to learn the correct information in the first place. Furthering of your narrative, and appeal to authority even though the authority is lacking. > In other words, the professor experimented on his students in a way that shows he's more interested in determining whether or not they were "cheating" (by his definition) than he is in helping them learn the material in a substantive way, and assessing whether he has adequately taught them. Also, narrative building. > Any student failing the exam because they studied the poisoned material is just a testament to how much he failed as a teacher. And here is the outcome of your narrative, you've come to the conclusion that students cheating is actually a failure of the teacher - why? If students cheating was the failure of the teacher, why were other students completely capable of learning the material from lecture and supplemental material? Surely, the number of students failing the course would be 100% if the teacher failed to teach. We know that's not the case, so your premise is bunk from the get go. Maybe you could make the argument that the teacher is not good at teaching, or poorly taught their students, but then you'd need to find evidence that the other students who did not cheat had to go through alternative methods to learn/do well in the course. Unless you're the student in the classroom, or the teacher roleplaying in the comments here, I don't think you have that evidence. So I'll make a value judgement here and say that you're trolling by the canonical sense of the phrase.

DavidWoof 3y ago

I feel like you're missing something basic. The professor classifies this as a "cheating site", and his entire article assumes this classification, but the site portrays itself as a study aid. If we skip the editorializing, what the professor actually did was seed misinformation on the Internet to see who would fall for it. Would you feel differently if he had edited the Wikipedia page for his subject to see which students used it as a study aid? The equation of "you found this info on the Internet instead of in the approved course material and therefore you're cheating" doesn't seem completely solid to me.

prox 3y ago
The pirate bay might describe itself as a software sharing website, it’s kind of a moot point what they describe themselves as in that sense. The students are still responsible for what they take in outside of the materials provided. Wikipedia is even at the best of times not always correct. I see lot of people waving the responsibility of students away. The students took a chance, knowing fully well what the site is and does, and they got burned. Own it and take the burn.
- Plasmoid 3y ago
  Reading a copy of a previous test is not considered cheating. If the site had copies of upcoming tests that would be cheating. But previous tests might as well be considered public knowledge.
- ineedasername 3y ago
  I honestly didn’t know it was a cheating site. I use it with my grade school kids to help them, find novel exercises on the topics they’re working on, etc. I can’t be the only one who uses it as the resource it presents itself to be.
asielen 3y ago
Agreed, also college kids are trained to study old tests to get into college. SAT prep and AP test prep is basically all previous test review. I think it somewhat depends on how the test was presented on the site. Was it presented as a previous test or was it presented as "top secret" upcoming test? I remember a few college tests that had questions straight from the book example questions. Is it cheating that I remembered them?

PragmaticPulp 3y ago

> But does the professor have a deontological obligation to catch cheating, and to make a good-faith effort to have fair outcomes in which students who studied and understood the material receive better grades than cheaters? Most courses are either graded on a curve or the material is adjusted in difficulty to target a certain level of challenge. When cheaters come in and destroy that curve and inject false signal into the difficulty feedback loop, the non-cheaters suffer from increased difficulty. So yes, there is some obligation to keep the playing field fair and accurate. Given that grades can have an impact on real-world outcomes (e.g. admission to a desired graduate program) then it’s possible that allowing cheating can have broad impacts beyond the students. Imagine if you took some 4.0GPA students under the assumption that they actually learned what they claim, then discover that they have no idea what they’re doing because they cheated the whole way. Also, the mind boggles at the suggestion that catching cheaters is bad because they might face some consequences for their dishonesty.

BeetleB 3y ago
> Most courses are either graded on a curve or the material is adjusted in difficulty to target a certain level of challenge. Thankfully not the case where I went to university. The bar was clearly set in the first lecture: If your overall score is 90+%, you get an A. 80-90%, a B, and so on. Doesn't matter what your peers do. University is (or should be) about learning, not about competition with peers. When I read the article, my mind was clear: He is not the unethical one. That's assuming no curve. If he is curving, I'm all for any method that messes up the curve, because curves are (generally) a bad idea.
- nodogoto 3y ago
  The person you responded to accounts for uncurved classes in their argument, that cheaters in uncurved classes "inject false signal into the difficulty feedback loop". If the average assignment grades are very high the professor will be inclined to make the assignments more challenging. Cheating disrupts the professor's ability to accurately determine how well their students are grasping the material and adjust accordingly.