4 ms·

>> It's not that you need those credentials to model in Excel. > Rather, you're signaling that you have a proven capability to work long hours, deal with bulls

by hurin 12y ago

>> It's not that you need those credentials to model in Excel. > Rather, you're signaling that you have a proven capability to work long hours, deal with bullshit, work "within the system", etc. It's not about intelligence. I'm going to argue the opposing part for a bit here: So OP's response should be (something along these lines): HA, there you admit it's putting up with bullshit! But if it's bullshit what's wrong with cheating on it as long as I get to where I want (within the system)! Rather I would suggest the premise that there is an ethical guideline to behaviour should rest, on our ability to validate the consequences of this behaviour. So in the embezzlement behaviour clearly there is a deceived party and someone suffers. In the student cheating behaviour perhaps there is a deceived party (the future employer) - but it's not clear whether someone suffers or not, are biology 101 grades a good indicator of anything (i.e. future performance), should students caught copying biology 101 exams be exorcised from their academic institution with prejudice? My take on it is that least in the US there is an overtly-strong caveat for this kind of thing (i.e. even copying assignments), while we are generally accepting of various other forms of deceit (i.e. sociopathy). That said in my personal experience standardized tests are a good deal better than attendance grades, participation grades, national honor society, club activities or whatever other bs people have to put up with in highschool.

cpwright 12y ago
> In the student cheating behaviour perhaps there is a deceived party (the future employer) - but it's not clear whether someone suffers or not, are biology 101 grades a good indicator of anything (i.e. future performance), should students caught copying biology 101 exams be exorcised from their academic institution with prejudice? The future employer might be deceived, but the other students who did not cheat are the real injured parties. They will have a lower GPA either in relative to the cheaters (no curve); or possibly absolutely if the class is graded on a curve.
- hurin 12y ago
  >The future employer might be deceived, but the other students who did not cheat are the real injured parties. They will have a lower GPA either in relative to the cheaters (no curve); or possibly absolutely if the class is graded on a curve. I'm not promoting cheating on tests - but.., I do think the value of a class is primarily in the education and not the grade; therefore in my opinion students aren't being cheated, because they all learn as much as they want to learn. Where as if the grade were the value - people should not have been forced into such a course in the first place! Although, obviously the system (or mostly employers) need some objective metrics for assessment and they have made them (perhaps poorly in some aspects but what systems aren't?)
defen 12y ago
You can't cheat once you're in the workplace (at least, not in the same "directly copy other people's work" or "look up the answers during the test" way). So if you cheat your way through school, you haven't really proven that you have what it takes to do the things your degree indicates. To use the biology 101 example - if you can't spend 10 hours/week studying/learning material that you don't really care about and that is irrelevant to your life, how are you going to spend 60-80 hours a week doing that in your excel-modeling job?

by hurin 12y ago

cpwright 12y ago

> In the student cheating behaviour perhaps there is a deceived party (the future employer) - but it's not clear whether someone suffers or not, are biology 101 grades a good indicator of anything (i.e. future performance), should students caught copying biology 101 exams be exorcised from their academic institution with prejudice? The future employer might be deceived, but the other students who did not cheat are the real injured parties. They will have a lower GPA either in relative to the cheaters (no curve); or possibly absolutely if the class is graded on a curve.

hurin 12y ago
>The future employer might be deceived, but the other students who did not cheat are the real injured parties. They will have a lower GPA either in relative to the cheaters (no curve); or possibly absolutely if the class is graded on a curve. I'm not promoting cheating on tests - but.., I do think the value of a class is primarily in the education and not the grade; therefore in my opinion students aren't being cheated, because they all learn as much as they want to learn. Where as if the grade were the value - people should not have been forced into such a course in the first place! Although, obviously the system (or mostly employers) need some objective metrics for assessment and they have made them (perhaps poorly in some aspects but what systems aren't?)

defen 12y ago

You can't cheat once you're in the workplace (at least, not in the same "directly copy other people's work" or "look up the answers during the test" way). So if you cheat your way through school, you haven't really proven that you have what it takes to do the things your degree indicates. To use the biology 101 example - if you can't spend 10 hours/week studying/learning material that you don't really care about and that is irrelevant to your life, how are you going to spend 60-80 hours a week doing that in your excel-modeling job?