5 ms·

"some students said that they will sue the university if any serious punishment is meted out" [1] These are our future business and political leaders ensuring

"some students said that they will sue the university if any serious punishment is meted out" [1] These are our future business and political leaders ensuring unabated corruption continues for generations to come. It's world-views like these students' which explains why articles like this Onion spoof are sadly funny: http://www.theonion.com/articles/wealthy-teen-nearly-experiences-consequence,2551/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/wealthy-teen-nearly-experie... [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/education/students-of-harvard-cheating-scandal-say-group-work-was-accepted.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/education/students-of-harv...

genwin 14y ago
I can kinda see the students' point. If the exam was unreasonable as they claim (they claim it was completely unrelated to the lectures), it may be grounds for cheating rather than go through a lengthy costly path to correcting the exam or ousting the professor, perhaps unsuccessfully. Software developers (or their employers) do this all the time when they ignore frivolous patents.
- pdonis 14y ago
  Um, you're kidding, right? Of course the students are going to claim the exam wasn't fair; why would you believe them? (On reading the article linked to, the few specific exam questions that were described didn't seem to me to be unrelated to the course.) Also, even if the exam was "unrelated to the lectures", tough luck; they are paying a lot for a degree, on the understanding that the school makes the rules. If the school is being unfair, the correct response is not to cheat; it's to stop placing so much weight on a degree that really doesn't mean much. Finally, your suggested analogy between frivolous patents and a supposedely unfair exam is nonsense. The correct analogy would be between a business that ignores a patent because it is convinced the patent is unfounded and would not stand up to a court challenge, and an employer that ignores a C in Government from Harvard (for a job applicant who took the hit on an unfair exam rather than cheat) because it knows Harvard's grades are no longer an accurate reflection of a person's job potential.
  - genwin 14y ago
    If they accept "tough luck" they're not going to go much beyond minimum wage. It's a dog-eat-dog world. > business that ignores a patent because it is convinced the patent is unfounded and would not stand up to a court challenge Same thing here. The students may be convinced the cheating charge would not stand up to a court challenge, hence they threaten to sue. > an employer that ignores a C in Government from Harvard (for a job applicant who took the hit on an unfair exam rather than cheat) The applicant wouldn't get that far. The resume would be filtered out by software before the interview. The applicant would lose the job to the cheater. It's a dog-eat-dog world.
    - pdonis 14y ago
      So your argument is basically, it's a dog-eat-dog world, so it's OK to cheat to get ahead? I see. I don't agree, but I see. (Also, it's laughable to suggest that Harvard students are stuck with minimum wage if they don't cheat on exams. We're talking about Harvard; most employers won't even care what the applicant's GPA was.)
      - genwin 14y ago
        It's okay to sometimes cheat on an exam in the same way it's okay for software developers to ignore the dozens of patents they infringe on, instead of paying the holders. In the same way it's okay to sometimes exceed the speed limit without asking the police for a ticket. In the same way it's okay to buy stuff online tax-free and not pay use taxes on it in your own state. Everyone cheats. I said they won't get much past minimum wage if they take the attitude "tough luck". Successful people get used to knocking down the hurdles others endlessly throw at them, often unfairly.
        pdonis 14y ago
        > Everyone cheats. Well, yes, if you lump all the things you named together and call them all "cheating" without differentiating between them, yes, everyone "cheats". But I don't think everyone would agree that all the things you named should be lumped together. That's a subjective judgment, which means we probably won't get anywhere arguing about it--but see further comment below. > Successful people get used to knocking down the hurdles others endlessly throw at them, often unfairly. But the way you are putting it, anything I don't like or anything I don't want to comply with is just a "hurdle" that I'm justified in knocking down. By your logic, if I want my boss's job, it would be OK for me to murder him and then fill the vacant position; after all, he's just a "hurdle", right? Or if you don't think that would be OK, where do you draw the line? What principle lets me differentiate between things that are just "hurdles" that I'm allowed to knock down to be successful, and things that I'm not?

genwin 14y ago

I can kinda see the students' point. If the exam was unreasonable as they claim (they claim it was completely unrelated to the lectures), it may be grounds for cheating rather than go through a lengthy costly path to correcting the exam or ousting the professor, perhaps unsuccessfully. Software developers (or their employers) do this all the time when they ignore frivolous patents.

pdonis 14y ago
Um, you're kidding, right? Of course the students are going to claim the exam wasn't fair; why would you believe them? (On reading the article linked to, the few specific exam questions that were described didn't seem to me to be unrelated to the course.) Also, even if the exam was "unrelated to the lectures", tough luck; they are paying a lot for a degree, on the understanding that the school makes the rules. If the school is being unfair, the correct response is not to cheat; it's to stop placing so much weight on a degree that really doesn't mean much. Finally, your suggested analogy between frivolous patents and a supposedely unfair exam is nonsense. The correct analogy would be between a business that ignores a patent because it is convinced the patent is unfounded and would not stand up to a court challenge, and an employer that ignores a C in Government from Harvard (for a job applicant who took the hit on an unfair exam rather than cheat) because it knows Harvard's grades are no longer an accurate reflection of a person's job potential.
- genwin 14y ago
  If they accept "tough luck" they're not going to go much beyond minimum wage. It's a dog-eat-dog world. > business that ignores a patent because it is convinced the patent is unfounded and would not stand up to a court challenge Same thing here. The students may be convinced the cheating charge would not stand up to a court challenge, hence they threaten to sue. > an employer that ignores a C in Government from Harvard (for a job applicant who took the hit on an unfair exam rather than cheat) The applicant wouldn't get that far. The resume would be filtered out by software before the interview. The applicant would lose the job to the cheater. It's a dog-eat-dog world.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    So your argument is basically, it's a dog-eat-dog world, so it's OK to cheat to get ahead? I see. I don't agree, but I see. (Also, it's laughable to suggest that Harvard students are stuck with minimum wage if they don't cheat on exams. We're talking about Harvard; most employers won't even care what the applicant's GPA was.)
    - genwin 14y ago
      It's okay to sometimes cheat on an exam in the same way it's okay for software developers to ignore the dozens of patents they infringe on, instead of paying the holders. In the same way it's okay to sometimes exceed the speed limit without asking the police for a ticket. In the same way it's okay to buy stuff online tax-free and not pay use taxes on it in your own state. Everyone cheats. I said they won't get much past minimum wage if they take the attitude "tough luck". Successful people get used to knocking down the hurdles others endlessly throw at them, often unfairly.
      - pdonis 14y ago
        > Everyone cheats. Well, yes, if you lump all the things you named together and call them all "cheating" without differentiating between them, yes, everyone "cheats". But I don't think everyone would agree that all the things you named should be lumped together. That's a subjective judgment, which means we probably won't get anywhere arguing about it--but see further comment below. > Successful people get used to knocking down the hurdles others endlessly throw at them, often unfairly. But the way you are putting it, anything I don't like or anything I don't want to comply with is just a "hurdle" that I'm justified in knocking down. By your logic, if I want my boss's job, it would be OK for me to murder him and then fill the vacant position; after all, he's just a "hurdle", right? Or if you don't think that would be OK, where do you draw the line? What principle lets me differentiate between things that are just "hurdles" that I'm allowed to knock down to be successful, and things that I'm not?