21 ms·

After spending 9 years in school, I have very little regard for Professors that both don't understand how this generation of kids work, nor understand that take

After spending 9 years in school, I have very little regard for Professors that both don't understand how this generation of kids work, nor understand that take home finals in technical fields such as math have zero merit. The smart kids are always going to be penalized because the cheating kids are going to ask for help. In other words, this kid got caught. We can discuss if this kid should have known that he was cheating or not (and I believe that there is good evidence that modern kids have a difficult time grasping the idea of original work). That is both a process and a procedure that colleges should teach kids. Ethics 101 should be a required course. (Then again, Allen and Gates bought DOS from Seattle Computing Products and sold it as their own.) My problem is the other 50% of the kids that find a friend that can help them, and thereby cheat but have no avenue to be caught. Simple solution is to have tests in class on a sample of the work done during the quarter/semester. If you can't do this, then you don't understand how to test for knowledge While this won't stop cheating, it should bring it down dramatically. The best way to slow cheating is to not give an opportunity to cheat in the first place.

stdbrouw 14y ago
> and I believe that there is good evidence that modern kids have a difficult time grasping the idea of original work Where can I find that good, non-anecdotal evidence?
- tossacct 14y ago
  stdbrouw, here's your link :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty#Academic_dishonesty_today http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty#Academic_di... The following is for anyone who hasn't heard of wikipedia: Wikipedia is often a good place to begin research. It can often provide a set of words that you can use to look for scholarly works that can provide "good, non-anecdotal data". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty This article features words like: Plagiarism, fabrication, deception, cheating, bribery, sabotage, professorial sabotage, and personation. These may help you in your search for "good, non-anecdotal evidence". Wikipedia also provides links to "good, non-anecdotal evidence" from time to time, and calls these links "references". These references can often be accessed online, but sometimes require you to access a physical book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty#References http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty#References The things that you read in wikipedia are not necessarily the truth. Wikipedia has information and mis-information on many topics.
  - stdbrouw 14y ago
    Thanks for the resources, but it was a rhetorical question. The "modern kids" theologic talks about don't necessarily cheat more than people used to, which is what they were implying. In fact, right there in that Wikipedia article, with a reference to back it up: "In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, cheating was widespread at college campuses in the United States, and was not considered dishonorable among students."
    - tossacct 14y ago
      Part of the text of your citation is available on google books. It seems like an academic memoir to me - lots of personal accounts, some quotes from period books on cheating, little else. Certainly not scientific. Here's a quote: >>>Certainly not all - and probably not most - college students cheated and plagiarized. It has neither data nor studies. It is Sue Carter Simmons' professional opinion. That said, I agree with you that modern kids don't necessarily cheat more than non-modern kids do. I agree that parts of theologic's comment were directed at "modern kids" and the teachers of these modern kids. I can see how a reasonable person (you, stdbrouw) could infer that theologic was saying that modern kids have different cheating habits than non-modern kids. I submit that there is another reasonable person (myself) that does not infer that theologic was saying that modern kids have different cheating habits than non-modern kids. Let me explain: >>> The best way to slow cheating is to not give an opportunity to cheat in the first place This is the last line of theologic's comment. The proposed "best way to slow cheating" works equally well for modern and non-modern kids, it does not target either group. The other references to modern kids inherently do not explicitly say anything about non-modern kids. There is no comparison or contrast, which leaves room for you and I to make our opposing inferences. To be fair, if theologic had said something explicit about non-modern kids, I would tend to agree with your inference.
      - theologic 14y ago
        Schab in 1991 reported that cheating trends had significantly increased in surveys over 3 decades. I can't remember where I read the idea that lack of ownership may be fueling the rise of cheating, and my google-fu is weak tonight. I like to remind the young ones here, however, that in the old days it was hard to cheat because you had to find a library or a smart friend that would help you. If you were really unlucky, you asked your Dad, who would inevitably give you the wrong answer. It was easier to simply do the work.
jeremyarussell 14y ago
In the past ethics 101 was taught by parents, somewhere along the way they became incapable of raising kids properly. Anyone with proper work ethic will understand that this kid was asking for someone to walk him through or do his question. Not get an idea fleshed out. I would think it's still a parents job to guide a kid properly in the realm of ethics, maybe we should place more responsibility of the children onto the parents. (mind you this I'm not touching the fact that they really can't prove the kid is who he is, I'm just referring to the ethics aspect.)
- stuaxo 14y ago
  Which bit of the past is this, certainly not during the era of the robber baron industrialists ... maybe between now and then - or before then ..?
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    There have always been unethical people. That doesn't mean ethics has never been taught.
  - jeremyarussell 14y ago
    My point wasn't about the quality of ethics, but that it's being left to schools and not the, you know, parents. --I suppose since I used the word properly I invited an argument of quality. I did mainly mean to refer to to the who and not the how well though.
    - illuminate 14y ago
      "My point wasn't about the quality of ethics, but that it's being left to schools and not the, you know, parents." Your mistake lies in assuming that parents before were somehow a better source of "ethics" than parents now. History books are always exceedingly kind to prior generations.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "In the past ethics 101 was taught by parents, somewhere along the way they became incapable of raising kids properly." Appeals to false nostalgia are not evidence for your claims.
bunderbunder 14y ago
> Simple solution is to have tests in class on a sample of the work done during the quarter/semester. If you can't do this, then you don't understand how to test for knowledge Possible counterexample: The absolute best math professor (in terms of success educating, not how fun his classes were) I had was legendary for his exams. They usually only had a couple questions. But 3 hours were allotted to take them - not as take-home exams; he would arrange special evening test sessions. Everyone did the test on a computer in Mathematica. Internet access was not available. Mathematica was necessary; the questions were designed to reflect real-life problems someone in a math-related field might be asked to solve, and like in the real world the nature of the problem was such that doing the actual calculation by hand would not have been practical. We really needed that time to figure out how to solve the problems. And I think there's no way the professor could have managed exams that tested our knowledge as deeply without creating problems that required that kind of time to solve. That said, I agree that take-home exams are problematic. As an option for trying to come up with exams that ask students to think rather than just regurgitating knowledge, I think they might once have been quite effective. But they're terribly unsuited to the Google era.
chollida1 14y ago
> (Then again, Allen and Gates bought DOS from Seattle Computing Products and sold it as their own.) Not really sure where you're going with this. Google bought most of its docs suite and sells it as their own. The bought their analytics and claim it as their own. Doesn't pretty much any company that buys another company sell the acquired products under own banner at some point?
- theologic 14y ago
  Microsoft told IBM that they had an OS when they didn't. The boys sold a dream, and lied about it. Allen ran down the street and bought it from SCP. They sold what they didn't own to build an empire.

stdbrouw 14y ago

> and I believe that there is good evidence that modern kids have a difficult time grasping the idea of original work Where can I find that good, non-anecdotal evidence?

tossacct 14y ago
stdbrouw, here's your link :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty#Academic_dishonesty_today http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty#Academic_di... The following is for anyone who hasn't heard of wikipedia: Wikipedia is often a good place to begin research. It can often provide a set of words that you can use to look for scholarly works that can provide "good, non-anecdotal data". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty This article features words like: Plagiarism, fabrication, deception, cheating, bribery, sabotage, professorial sabotage, and personation. These may help you in your search for "good, non-anecdotal evidence". Wikipedia also provides links to "good, non-anecdotal evidence" from time to time, and calls these links "references". These references can often be accessed online, but sometimes require you to access a physical book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty#References http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty#References The things that you read in wikipedia are not necessarily the truth. Wikipedia has information and mis-information on many topics.
- stdbrouw 14y ago
  Thanks for the resources, but it was a rhetorical question. The "modern kids" theologic talks about don't necessarily cheat more than people used to, which is what they were implying. In fact, right there in that Wikipedia article, with a reference to back it up: "In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, cheating was widespread at college campuses in the United States, and was not considered dishonorable among students."
  - tossacct 14y ago
    Part of the text of your citation is available on google books. It seems like an academic memoir to me - lots of personal accounts, some quotes from period books on cheating, little else. Certainly not scientific. Here's a quote: >>>Certainly not all - and probably not most - college students cheated and plagiarized. It has neither data nor studies. It is Sue Carter Simmons' professional opinion. That said, I agree with you that modern kids don't necessarily cheat more than non-modern kids do. I agree that parts of theologic's comment were directed at "modern kids" and the teachers of these modern kids. I can see how a reasonable person (you, stdbrouw) could infer that theologic was saying that modern kids have different cheating habits than non-modern kids. I submit that there is another reasonable person (myself) that does not infer that theologic was saying that modern kids have different cheating habits than non-modern kids. Let me explain: >>> The best way to slow cheating is to not give an opportunity to cheat in the first place This is the last line of theologic's comment. The proposed "best way to slow cheating" works equally well for modern and non-modern kids, it does not target either group. The other references to modern kids inherently do not explicitly say anything about non-modern kids. There is no comparison or contrast, which leaves room for you and I to make our opposing inferences. To be fair, if theologic had said something explicit about non-modern kids, I would tend to agree with your inference.
    - theologic 14y ago
      Schab in 1991 reported that cheating trends had significantly increased in surveys over 3 decades. I can't remember where I read the idea that lack of ownership may be fueling the rise of cheating, and my google-fu is weak tonight. I like to remind the young ones here, however, that in the old days it was hard to cheat because you had to find a library or a smart friend that would help you. If you were really unlucky, you asked your Dad, who would inevitably give you the wrong answer. It was easier to simply do the work.

jeremyarussell 14y ago

In the past ethics 101 was taught by parents, somewhere along the way they became incapable of raising kids properly. Anyone with proper work ethic will understand that this kid was asking for someone to walk him through or do his question. Not get an idea fleshed out. I would think it's still a parents job to guide a kid properly in the realm of ethics, maybe we should place more responsibility of the children onto the parents. (mind you this I'm not touching the fact that they really can't prove the kid is who he is, I'm just referring to the ethics aspect.)

stuaxo 14y ago
Which bit of the past is this, certainly not during the era of the robber baron industrialists ... maybe between now and then - or before then ..?
- tedunangst 14y ago
  There have always been unethical people. That doesn't mean ethics has never been taught.
- jeremyarussell 14y ago
  My point wasn't about the quality of ethics, but that it's being left to schools and not the, you know, parents. --I suppose since I used the word properly I invited an argument of quality. I did mainly mean to refer to to the who and not the how well though.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "My point wasn't about the quality of ethics, but that it's being left to schools and not the, you know, parents." Your mistake lies in assuming that parents before were somehow a better source of "ethics" than parents now. History books are always exceedingly kind to prior generations.
illuminate 14y ago
"In the past ethics 101 was taught by parents, somewhere along the way they became incapable of raising kids properly." Appeals to false nostalgia are not evidence for your claims.

bunderbunder 14y ago

> Simple solution is to have tests in class on a sample of the work done during the quarter/semester. If you can't do this, then you don't understand how to test for knowledge Possible counterexample: The absolute best math professor (in terms of success educating, not how fun his classes were) I had was legendary for his exams. They usually only had a couple questions. But 3 hours were allotted to take them - not as take-home exams; he would arrange special evening test sessions. Everyone did the test on a computer in Mathematica. Internet access was not available. Mathematica was necessary; the questions were designed to reflect real-life problems someone in a math-related field might be asked to solve, and like in the real world the nature of the problem was such that doing the actual calculation by hand would not have been practical. We really needed that time to figure out how to solve the problems. And I think there's no way the professor could have managed exams that tested our knowledge as deeply without creating problems that required that kind of time to solve. That said, I agree that take-home exams are problematic. As an option for trying to come up with exams that ask students to think rather than just regurgitating knowledge, I think they might once have been quite effective. But they're terribly unsuited to the Google era.

chollida1 14y ago

> (Then again, Allen and Gates bought DOS from Seattle Computing Products and sold it as their own.) Not really sure where you're going with this. Google bought most of its docs suite and sells it as their own. The bought their analytics and claim it as their own. Doesn't pretty much any company that buys another company sell the acquired products under own banner at some point?

theologic 14y ago
Microsoft told IBM that they had an OS when they didn't. The boys sold a dream, and lied about it. Allen ran down the street and bought it from SCP. They sold what they didn't own to build an empire.