2 ms·
Wow... we can't catch every criminal so we should just allow everyone to commit crimes. Every class I took in college made at least some attempt to prevent che
by JustLurking2022 3y ago
Wow... we can't catch every criminal so we should just allow everyone to commit crimes.
Every class I took in college made at least some attempt to prevent cheating but it can certainly be tough. Not every subject even lends itself to evaluation by in class exam - especially when the point is to teach people how to research the subject. To suggest that simply because schools are unable to catch every act they should essentially give up is the most backwards answer I can think of.
- crazygringo 3y agoAbsolutely not. Nowhere did I say if we can't catch "everyone" then catch no one. I literally gave an example of catching 85% as good policy. 50% is more than fine too, and even much lower depending on the situation. In fact, it's the very opposite -- I said if we're already catching almost nobody (think 1%) then incentives have been set up in a deeply unfair way. I added an "edit" to my comment that hopefully explains further. The point is to deter broadly. If that's not happening, then policy is total failure already. Because the point is deterrence, not individual cruelty.
- JustLurking2022 3y agoI don't think the enforcement is all that selective - any time I took an exam in a large hall, there were professors and TAs pacing around on the lookout. In smaller settings, it might have been just the professor but they all seemed to be trying to enforce the code. Many people may slip through the net but that's different than selective enforcement. If the rules have been communicated, I see no problem having a severe penalty as a deterrent. Also, you may consider that it's because you're a cheater that you think everyone else is doing it. I made it out of a couple elite colleges with a good GPA and no cheating.