4 ms·

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

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.
- theamk 3y ago
  Professor had provided class lectures, study guides, textbooks, past homeworks and many other materials. They were all correct, and properly endorsed by professor. The policy explicitly says "that looking at other tests without the instructor’s permission counts as cheating". Students who ignored _all_ professor-provided materials and went to cheating websites to study answers that are "obviously wrong to anyone who had paid attention in class" got what they deserve.

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.
theamk 3y ago
Professor had provided class lectures, study guides, textbooks, past homeworks and many other materials. They were all correct, and properly endorsed by professor. The policy explicitly says "that looking at other tests without the instructor’s permission counts as cheating". Students who ignored _all_ professor-provided materials and went to cheating websites to study answers that are "obviously wrong to anyone who had paid attention in class" got what they deserve.