My students cheated... a lot(crumplab.com)
crumplab.com
My students cheated... a lot
https://crumplab.com/articles/blog/post_994_5_26_22_cheating/index.html
1,458 comments
> HOW do you measure knowledge? And when you decide how, how do you scale it?
I have experienced good tests and bad tests. I studied in France, tests were open book with no multiple choice questions, only problems to solve. This approach scales badly and is a lot of work for the professor grading but it measures knowledge.
The problems were long, had few questions besides describing the problem and maybe a few questions to guide the student along the path to solving it. We had either 3 or 4 hours to solve those problems.
Those tests worked very well. I'd come out from one of those tests having often learned something new.
I was an exchange student in the US, tests involved multiple choice questions, they were closed books with questions around rote memory. While I did feel that some of the education in the US was valuable and interesting, I hated those tests, they didn't correlate as much with comprehension of the subject matter and more with learning facts that are more or less tangentially related to the subject matter. I still remember in a computer graphics tests being shocked by being asked when Opengl was first released, which companies were involved and other completely useless knowledge.
What's interesting to me is that there's much less opportunities to cheat with the former tests while the later tests are pretty much made for cheating. So, imho cheating is a symptom of bad tests.
I have experienced good tests and bad tests. I studied in France, tests were open book with no multiple choice questions, only problems to solve. This approach scales badly and is a lot of work for the professor grading but it measures knowledge.
The problems were long, had few questions besides describing the problem and maybe a few questions to guide the student along the path to solving it. We had either 3 or 4 hours to solve those problems.
Those tests worked very well. I'd come out from one of those tests having often learned something new.
I was an exchange student in the US, tests involved multiple choice questions, they were closed books with questions around rote memory. While I did feel that some of the education in the US was valuable and interesting, I hated those tests, they didn't correlate as much with comprehension of the subject matter and more with learning facts that are more or less tangentially related to the subject matter. I still remember in a computer graphics tests being shocked by being asked when Opengl was first released, which companies were involved and other completely useless knowledge.
What's interesting to me is that there's much less opportunities to cheat with the former tests while the later tests are pretty much made for cheating. So, imho cheating is a symptom of bad tests.
I don't know if it's popular in France, but another very simple idea that eliminates cheating entirely is oral exams. They're still done a lot in Italy. I once literally inverted a binary tree on a whiteboard :)
IMO oral exams and open-ended answers are the kinda things that really work better for their intended purpose, and everyone knows. But people still prefer multiple-choice because "they scale". The goal isn't simply measuring knowledge, it's doing so in an acceptable/shitty way, with (edit) limited resources.
Next semester, we plan to start doing "interviews" of students in which they explain their own code to us.
It obviously doesn't scale, so we'll use random sampling.
It obviously doesn't scale, so we'll use random sampling.
As a TA we did something similar: we asked them to self grade their own homework using a provided rubric, and then we spot checked 1/4 of the students (without replacement) to punish lying about what grade you deserve. We didn’t punish for a few disagreements over the rubric, but if it was blatant we checked their assignments every time in the future (and told them). I think if it was bad enough we could have reported them.
This saved a bunch of time on actually grading assignments and made us write a very clear and unambiguous rubric (which required a very clear homework) and also demonstrated to the students that grading was not arbitrary.
This saved a bunch of time on actually grading assignments and made us write a very clear and unambiguous rubric (which required a very clear homework) and also demonstrated to the students that grading was not arbitrary.
> It obviously doesn't scale
Peer teaching/grading potentially scale out.
Several universities [1] scale out personalized instruction and interactive grading by hiring students from previous cohorts and paying them either in course credit (taking a "course" that involves teaching students in the current cohort) or at a low rate (possibly subsidized by financial aid) comparable to other on-campus student jobs.
[1] "Scaling Introductory Courses Using Undergraduate Teaching Assistants", SIGCSE '17, https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017694
(I want a browser extension linking doi to google scholar btw)
Peer teaching/grading potentially scale out.
Several universities [1] scale out personalized instruction and interactive grading by hiring students from previous cohorts and paying them either in course credit (taking a "course" that involves teaching students in the current cohort) or at a low rate (possibly subsidized by financial aid) comparable to other on-campus student jobs.
[1] "Scaling Introductory Courses Using Undergraduate Teaching Assistants", SIGCSE '17, https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017694
(I want a browser extension linking doi to google scholar btw)
How do you justify the fact that only some of the students get the pleasure of an in-person grilling? Or, am I completely misunderstanding the process you're going to be using?
In my plan, each student is interviewed at least once. Ideally more than once by the same teacher, so the teacher can get to know them a little better, spot areas where the student needs more help, etc.
There's still a scaling problem, but I think it makes the ~200 student classes we have now more feasible than 100% autograding. I also like the other commenter's suggestion of coming back to interview certain students each time, if they need it.
There's still a scaling problem, but I think it makes the ~200 student classes we have now more feasible than 100% autograding. I also like the other commenter's suggestion of coming back to interview certain students each time, if they need it.
Is this about pleasure or about measuring knowledge?
A lot of stuff you learn and the way you learn it isn't necessarily pleasant, but frequently you still have to do it and you really discover 20 years later why it was needed.
A lot of stuff you learn and the way you learn it isn't necessarily pleasant, but frequently you still have to do it and you really discover 20 years later why it was needed.
No, it's about why only a subset of students get singled out for extra scrutiny, literally arbitrarily, as the selection procedure itself is defined as "random sampling."
random sampling is an effective method for inferring the same information about the larger population that is being measured in the smaller sample, to a certain degree of confidence based on the sample size and known distribution of what is being measured. These concepts are fundamental to statistics.
In college, viva-voce is a significant part of non-theory exams. It’s another matter it was not run well by many colleges but I always loved those chit chat sessions with some of the good professors. Some professors treat it like a boring Q&A which reduces its effectiveness.
I think you might be who the top response is responding to. You seem to have inside knowledge that saving money is the top priority without considering any real-world resource constraints.
The top response is the one that brought the constraint of "scale" into this discussion, and that's what I'm addressing. Maybe you should bring your objections to them rather than to me. "Real-world resource constraints" is just a euphemism for "wanting to save money" in this case. I'll edit it to clarify that I mean the same.
And I'm not passing judgement on the choice made, nor saying the constraints aren't there, nor saying anyone should do anything different. I'm just pointing out that the scalability constraint will affect the test possibilities, which will affect the quality of the measurement. Feel free to disagree with this all you want.
EDIT: Also, I do happen to have some inside knowledge by having worked in higher education for about a decade, starting in the mid 00s. Coincidentally, most of my work was on cost-saving measurements, designing a few algorithms that allowed universities to reduce their teacher headcount (first at a university, then at a software vendor), so yes, the #1 goal there was saving money. But I don't think having done this affects my answer, nor I do think that I deserve special treatment. I'm merely answering to a chain of comments.
And I'm not passing judgement on the choice made, nor saying the constraints aren't there, nor saying anyone should do anything different. I'm just pointing out that the scalability constraint will affect the test possibilities, which will affect the quality of the measurement. Feel free to disagree with this all you want.
EDIT: Also, I do happen to have some inside knowledge by having worked in higher education for about a decade, starting in the mid 00s. Coincidentally, most of my work was on cost-saving measurements, designing a few algorithms that allowed universities to reduce their teacher headcount (first at a university, then at a software vendor), so yes, the #1 goal there was saving money. But I don't think having done this affects my answer, nor I do think that I deserve special treatment. I'm merely answering to a chain of comments.
Wanting to save money also falls under availability of staffing trained to do this. Considerations of if the massive increase of expense and diversion of people from other economic endeavors is worthwhile.
Good hunch, but in my experience, availability of trained staff was never really an issue in practice. Hiring well trained university faculty was always purely an economical problem. Universities often already have a trained surplus of faculty employees working in a highly reduced capacity. Especially in the last 10-15 years where distance learning became commonplace, a lot of faculty was replaced by low-paid part-time quasi-teachers, which would be more than happy to be offered a permanent position. To further demonstrate that this is an economical problem: those quasi-teachers often have different job titles other than "teacher", depending on the jurisdiction, in order to evade laws and evade the reach of (often very powerful) faculty unions.
Oral exams have an entire other bunch of issues.
Just looking at the professor side, beside time, I imagine it would be very difficult for to grade with same meter an arrogant student, a dismissive one, a smelly one, an eloquent one, or even the first and the last one in the same session.
... a male student, a female student, an attractive student ...
And yes, this is actually a well-known problem in Italy - with (typically male) professors being routinely accused (and occasionally convicted) of favouring attractive (and typically female) students.
And yes, this is actually a well-known problem in Italy - with (typically male) professors being routinely accused (and occasionally convicted) of favouring attractive (and typically female) students.
if you think that a written text is a great equalizer, it's not.
But it is much more than a oral one.
I don't agree with this. They have different failure modes, but I believe that in aggregate an oral exam affords the candidate the fairer shot, given the minimal assumption that the professor is in good faith.
If I say something imprecisely or if I make a non-fundamental mistake, an oral setting gives me the chance to correct myself and prove to the examinator that I have a strong grasp of the material regardless.
Written exams, especially multiple choice and closed-answer quizzes reward people who regurgitate the notes, oral exams and written long-form open questions reward actual knowledge.
Of course the "better" methods require a greater time investment, and I can't really blame professors who choose not to employ them. But it's quite clearly a tradeoff.
If I say something imprecisely or if I make a non-fundamental mistake, an oral setting gives me the chance to correct myself and prove to the examinator that I have a strong grasp of the material regardless.
Written exams, especially multiple choice and closed-answer quizzes reward people who regurgitate the notes, oral exams and written long-form open questions reward actual knowledge.
Of course the "better" methods require a greater time investment, and I can't really blame professors who choose not to employ them. But it's quite clearly a tradeoff.
> If I say something imprecisely or if I make a non-fundamental mistake, an oral setting gives me the chance to correct myself and prove to the examinator that I have a strong grasp of the material regardless
This is just even further proving the point, which is that in an oral context this means that the animosity of the examiner is much more significant than in a written one, which by definition implies that the oral one cannot be fairer than the written one.
You yourself are saying that you "have the chance to correct yourself". This is either because you will self-correct yourself on recognizing a specific (perhaps subconscious) face or gesture from the examiner, or because the examiner will directly tell you that you are wrong. Both cases present ample opportunity for unfair discrimination. In the first case, perhaps a person is less skilled at reading people, or perhaps the examiner just has a better poker face. In the second case, you are now at the whim of the examiner to decide based on your body language whether "you are making a non-fundamental mistake and deserve a second chance" or just "have no idea of the material and don't deserve a second chance". And, compared to the written exam, there is absolutely no record of the context that drew the examiner to such conclusion -- which is also kind of important, since evidently the written exam is also subject to some discrimination.
This is just even further proving the point, which is that in an oral context this means that the animosity of the examiner is much more significant than in a written one, which by definition implies that the oral one cannot be fairer than the written one.
You yourself are saying that you "have the chance to correct yourself". This is either because you will self-correct yourself on recognizing a specific (perhaps subconscious) face or gesture from the examiner, or because the examiner will directly tell you that you are wrong. Both cases present ample opportunity for unfair discrimination. In the first case, perhaps a person is less skilled at reading people, or perhaps the examiner just has a better poker face. In the second case, you are now at the whim of the examiner to decide based on your body language whether "you are making a non-fundamental mistake and deserve a second chance" or just "have no idea of the material and don't deserve a second chance". And, compared to the written exam, there is absolutely no record of the context that drew the examiner to such conclusion -- which is also kind of important, since evidently the written exam is also subject to some discrimination.
This isn't how oral exams work, though.
Nobody expects you to be 100% on point, it's just impossible; it's not like the spoken variant of a written exam. The kind of "correction" I mean is more along the lines of what would happen during a normal conversation. Imagine I was asked to write a recursive algorithm and I forgot the base case. It's not a fundamental mistake, but the professor might interject to make sure I actually know about termination, inductive sets, etc., which is actually great if you understand the material deeply, because it gives you a chance to prove that you actually just forgot.
Obviously this is assuming good faith by the examiner, but if you aren't willing to assume that, there aren't very many examination formats that are going to work very well.
Nobody expects you to be 100% on point, it's just impossible; it's not like the spoken variant of a written exam. The kind of "correction" I mean is more along the lines of what would happen during a normal conversation. Imagine I was asked to write a recursive algorithm and I forgot the base case. It's not a fundamental mistake, but the professor might interject to make sure I actually know about termination, inductive sets, etc., which is actually great if you understand the material deeply, because it gives you a chance to prove that you actually just forgot.
Obviously this is assuming good faith by the examiner, but if you aren't willing to assume that, there aren't very many examination formats that are going to work very well.
Is not a question about good faith or not. He may be showing completely unintentional bias. But the point is that the oral one gives you a shitton more opportunities to play that bias. If you even try to say that the oral exam is just "a normal informal conversation" rather than something following a very strict protocol you might as well just give up any appearance of fairness. How much role bias would play on such a conversation is just outside the scale.
It's not the examiner deciding "you deserve a second chance or not". In a normal oral exam everyone gets a "I don't think that's correct" or "please explain that to me" kind of response on a wrong answer. They don't silently scribble a note to distract a point from your score or something like that.
How you deal with that is really where your score comes from. Because if you know what you're talking about you'll correct it and while doing so show that you know a lot of related things. While if you have no idea you can't guess yourself out of that type of question.
How you deal with that is really where your score comes from. Because if you know what you're talking about you'll correct it and while doing so show that you know a lot of related things. While if you have no idea you can't guess yourself out of that type of question.
I don’t know. For example, in music examination, the outcomes change drastically if you blind the examiner from seeing the student or knowing their name. Unless you see something different in the world of music, I’d say the examination is happening at the same level of “good faith”ness.
How would you blind oral examination so that the examiner is unable to distinguish the student’s gender/race/identity?
How would you blind oral examination so that the examiner is unable to distinguish the student’s gender/race/identity?
> For example, in music examination, the outcomes change drastically if you blind the examiner from seeing the student or knowing their name.
FWIW, the study that "proved" that appears to have been a pretty bad study. So, in reality, no: people are not terribly prejudiced, and things don't change significantly when you blind the examination.
FWIW, the study that "proved" that appears to have been a pretty bad study. So, in reality, no: people are not terribly prejudiced, and things don't change significantly when you blind the examination.
Should be technically possible these days, if we wanted to.
I still think we are conflating the objectives of
1. Teaching students skills and knowledge they need and want, and
2. Rationing access to jobs, status, etc.
I still think we are conflating the objectives of
1. Teaching students skills and knowledge they need and want, and
2. Rationing access to jobs, status, etc.
All students in a class cannot take an oral exam simultaneously. This means that either:
* everyone gets the same questions meaning later students can cheat by asking earlier students what was on the test, or
* everyone gets different questions meaning much more effort to design the exam and big risks that some students will get easier questions and others will get harder questions
* everyone gets the same questions meaning later students can cheat by asking earlier students what was on the test, or
* everyone gets different questions meaning much more effort to design the exam and big risks that some students will get easier questions and others will get harder questions
Most of the oral tests I have taken have the questions posted by the lecturer before the exam? I don't understand why it would be a problem for students to say what the question was
> I don't know if it's popular in France, but another very simple idea that eliminates cheating entirely is oral exams.
As an introvert, I am very happy not to have had too many oral exams during my studies (in France ;) ). I think I agree with you in principle, but to me that would have been torture.
As an introvert, I am very happy not to have had too many oral exams during my studies (in France ;) ). I think I agree with you in principle, but to me that would have been torture.
You get used to it. I've had the typical weekly oral exam during 2 years in the French "classe prépa", and it was torture at first. I can definitely say that it changed me, made me less stressed about these kind of situation, even years later at work.
I was a student in France and during the two years of high schools I had a bunch of blackboard exams and yeah, you kinda have to learn the material. Of course it also helps to be confortable in such situations, but we had enough of them to get trained in that
You had enough of them to get trained in that. And it might have taken you just few enough to get comfortable for it not to affect your grades in such a way that you dropped out. I had a friend in university that would just completely fall apart in any kind of such situation, even when it wasn't for an exam and even when it was a group presentation setting and it wasn't just him up there. Written exams were completely fine though. Did he not deserve to get a CS degree and just work in some company where he doesn't have to become a team lead or architect where he'd need to speak and present and instead steadily and happily work in his corner, talk to his immediate peers and crank out solutions?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that presenting to other humans is (a) a skill that most people can learn (to at least "acceptable" levels of proficiency) & (b) a skill that most people should learn, because it's a huge part of working in the field.
I understand it's incredibly uncomfortable.
I'm a pretty serious introvert and got the shakes and sweat dripping off my hands the first few times I did it. But with exposure and effort to self-improve, it's doable. I didn't like it, but I'm incredibly thankful I was forced to work on it.
I understand it's incredibly uncomfortable.
I'm a pretty serious introvert and got the shakes and sweat dripping off my hands the first few times I did it. But with exposure and effort to self-improve, it's doable. I didn't like it, but I'm incredibly thankful I was forced to work on it.
Ah yes, the good old fallacy: "I could do it, so it's doable". It's doable by you. That doesn't mean it's doable by someone who is not you, even though they might be otherwise deserving.
It's like LeBron James saying "I learned to dunk, so anybody can dunk!" - but basketball is not just about dunking, and not everyone is LeBron.
It's like LeBron James saying "I learned to dunk, so anybody can dunk!" - but basketball is not just about dunking, and not everyone is LeBron.
Talking to other people is not dunking a basketball 3m into the air.
Frankly, I've been in oral exams, in Romania they're (were?) part of a national exam at the end of highscool. You just have to practice.
If hundreds of thousands of highschoolers in a rather poor country could figure out how to do it (any generally not flunk due to the oral part), for sure university students can do it.
Anyone not able to do it will not really be able to pass any interview, persuade peers that their idea is good, etc.
Frankly, I've been in oral exams, in Romania they're (were?) part of a national exam at the end of highscool. You just have to practice.
If hundreds of thousands of highschoolers in a rather poor country could figure out how to do it (any generally not flunk due to the oral part), for sure university students can do it.
Anyone not able to do it will not really be able to pass any interview, persuade peers that their idea is good, etc.
I've been in plenty of oral exams too, in Italy. That doesn't mean I ever enjoyed them or felt they did me justice.
> Anyone not able to do it will not really be able to pass any interview, persuade peers that their idea is good, etc.
I strongly disagree there. Orals are a situation of complete knowledge and power imbalance between two parties. That is not the case when it comes to persuasion.
As for interviews - yeah, they are similar, and that's why interviews also are seen as very problematic. A lot of people who can be perfectly productive in day-to-day situations, simply don't do well in interviews. We should be striving to correct that, not accept it as inevitable.
> Anyone not able to do it will not really be able to pass any interview, persuade peers that their idea is good, etc.
I strongly disagree there. Orals are a situation of complete knowledge and power imbalance between two parties. That is not the case when it comes to persuasion.
As for interviews - yeah, they are similar, and that's why interviews also are seen as very problematic. A lot of people who can be perfectly productive in day-to-day situations, simply don't do well in interviews. We should be striving to correct that, not accept it as inevitable.
I think the way those examinations were set up helped a lot in getting confortable (or at least good enough): like it was a weekly event, just three students and the teacher in one room, each student working on its own question(s); the teachers were more or less helpful, but most would guide us along, not leaving us stuck at our blackboard for the whole duration.
But if one, even if those situation really can't do it, they'd have to switch to a course/class without any oral examination to get their degrees, but I think it's way better to learn as a student than as a professional (and yes, like the sibling comment, I think most people _can_ learn to an acceptable degree)
> work in his corner, talk to his immediate peers and crank out solutions
Do such post really exists?
But if one, even if those situation really can't do it, they'd have to switch to a course/class without any oral examination to get their degrees, but I think it's way better to learn as a student than as a professional (and yes, like the sibling comment, I think most people _can_ learn to an acceptable degree)
> work in his corner, talk to his immediate peers and crank out solutions
Do such post really exists?
I think you should quote more of that sentence and then I can say that yes, definitely these do exist:
The big thing here being "talk to his immediate peers". The guy I was describing was completely fine working w/ us, his friends. Put him in front of an audience and he's got a problem. Of course it'd be hard to get a job in the first place, but a lot of places also did exist at least back then where no coding (neither take home, nor whiteboard) were part of the hiring process. Of course you won't make that guy a consultant at Accenture, he's gonna fall apart.
where he doesn't have to become a team lead or architect where he'd need to speak and present and instead steadily and happily work in his corner, talk to his immediate peers and crank out solutions?
The big thing here being "talk to his immediate peers". The guy I was describing was completely fine working w/ us, his friends. Put him in front of an audience and he's got a problem. Of course it'd be hard to get a job in the first place, but a lot of places also did exist at least back then where no coding (neither take home, nor whiteboard) were part of the hiring process. Of course you won't make that guy a consultant at Accenture, he's gonna fall apart.
> I think you should quote more of that sentence
well, that would have made the requisites for the posts harder to meet :)
well, that would have made the requisites for the posts harder to meet :)
There's only so many issues someone can have until people in general will decide to give them a "fuck off, I don't care" treatment.
You don't have that for verbal communication with other people, but I'm sure if digged far enough you would have the same reaction to something else that other people think is acceptable.
Just how accommodating should the standard test be?
If the answer is "infinitely", I think you won't find any test that satisfies it
You don't have that for verbal communication with other people, but I'm sure if digged far enough you would have the same reaction to something else that other people think is acceptable.
Just how accommodating should the standard test be?
If the answer is "infinitely", I think you won't find any test that satisfies it
I studied engineering in Italy and all my exams were both written (with exercises, multiple choice didn't exist at all) and oral. No way you could cheat or not engage with the materials.
HN is very much opposed to whiteboard interviews. I can't see this being a popular alternative.
After a class on data structures and algorithms, a white board interview asking you to invert a binary tree is very different from the same interview when you apply for a job.
I might miss the irony in your words but...
Job interviews and eduction tests have different objectives, I hope.
Isn't assessing skill/ knowledge/ aptitude the objective of both?
The only thing they have in common is "assessing". An exam for a course seeks to assess mastery of the subject matter of the course. An interview for a job seeks to assess skills / aptitude for a particular job.
This.
Moreover, an exam for a course is, to some extent, an assessment on how the course was delivered. And an interview for a job has a much larger scope.
I had an electrical engineering final as an in person oral exam. One question. One hour to solve on whiteboard. It was a hard class to begin with and I got a hard question. I did well, but definitely expected to fail.
Totally agree.
I might a bit partial to that, because I tend to underperform multiple choice tests for overthinking, but I've really the impression that open ended questions test knoledge much better and make it more difficult to cheat.
Beside that, having almost nothing to do with cheating, another good thing in the French system is the continuous grading: labs were graded, projects were graded, small intermediate tests were graded, so you really do not study for just the exam (actually often you do not study at all for the exam).
(beware: my experience is limited to a single grande école I attended).
I went to INSA in the early aughts and we didn't really have continuous grading, labs (TPs) were graded but the biggest part of the grades (les partiels - exam week) happened twice a year (or 4 times a year during the first two years of prépa intégré).
I do know that since then they've moved to a continuous grading system. I'm not sure if that's the same with other grande écoles but I do know that my friends in other grand écoles had a similar system of 2-4 partiels a year.
I do know that since then they've moved to a continuous grading system. I'm not sure if that's the same with other grande écoles but I do know that my friends in other grand écoles had a similar system of 2-4 partiels a year.
I'm currently grading an open book test as you describe. It turns out that someone put their attempt at answers on chegg.com shortly after I posted the test. The temptation to use chegg is too great for students to resist. When chegg has the wrong solution (which is often the case), students will doubt themselves and will go with the wrong chegg answer.
To be clear, the only goal of chegg.com is to help students cheat. The world would be a better place if chegg and its copies did not exist.
To be clear, the only goal of chegg.com is to help students cheat. The world would be a better place if chegg and its copies did not exist.
My solution to this is to use version control and have them record an explanation of their work. If they copy from chegg they also have to forge a commit history, as well as explain the code line by line. I’d like to see them do that without learning anything.
This is a common thing in computer art e.g. demoscene competitions too.
What about seeding the system and putting your own (bad) answers up there ahead of time?
Why is it a foregone assumption that the important attribute of education is "measuring knowledge"?
Because we have a limited number of everything and we have to compare people.
I suspect that a "certificate of course completion" (or, if you prefer, "a course grade") does not actually requiring comparing individuals A and B.
It does, however, require gauging that individual X, for any individual X who have taken the course, said individual X have acquired enough knowledge to consider "having passed".
Anything beyond "pass/fail" is merely trying to stack-rack students and impose un-needed competition. But it is good for the gamification of knowledge acquisition, so perhaps not entirely bad.
It does, however, require gauging that individual X, for any individual X who have taken the course, said individual X have acquired enough knowledge to consider "having passed".
Anything beyond "pass/fail" is merely trying to stack-rack students and impose un-needed competition. But it is good for the gamification of knowledge acquisition, so perhaps not entirely bad.
The more we can split up "Teaching people useful things" and "Rationing access to status objects" the better off we are.
Many (most?) people learn your A to get to your B.
That's a good reason to split it up, that people don't understand there could be anything else to pursue education for.
Yeah I came from uk undergrad to us grad school and was shocked to see that even some advanced undergrad classes, with grad students in them, were tested by infantile multiple choice questions (this was at harvard). It almost makes one wonder whether the us dominates academia to the extent it does because of the foreign influx.
> I was an exchange student in the US, tests involved multiple choice questions, they were closed books with questions around rote memory.
As a US citizen, many tests were open book essay style, especially once we got to college.
In public school however, lots of "standardized" multiple choice tests that were used to grade the school. Some of those tests also include an essay portion.
Teachers in the US aren't paid to do grading, they typically do it at home in their own time, thus very few essay style tests.
As a US citizen, many tests were open book essay style, especially once we got to college.
In public school however, lots of "standardized" multiple choice tests that were used to grade the school. Some of those tests also include an essay portion.
Teachers in the US aren't paid to do grading, they typically do it at home in their own time, thus very few essay style tests.
I never gave a fuck about grades. For some courses I had below average marks, for others I was the best.
I studied because I wanted to genuinely understand how things work and how I can solve problems and how, beginning with one ideea I can extend it or come up with an entirely different idea.
And I know I will get downvoted for saying this, but for me, programming without having a solid understanding of CS background and how computers work it would make me just a code monkey, able just to do what I saw in tutorials and copy pasting SO answers without understanding them. Which can be fine, lower level work is ok and highly needed. But wouldn't make me as good as someone who knows his stuff from a to z.
I hate it when I hear someone considering himself a programmer after he modified a WordPress theme or did a 3 weeks boot camp.
Why should this field be hold to much lower standards than medicine, physics, math, chemistry?
I never heard someone bragging that he is a doctor after watching YouTube videos, which happens often with writing and architecting software.
I studied because I wanted to genuinely understand how things work and how I can solve problems and how, beginning with one ideea I can extend it or come up with an entirely different idea.
And I know I will get downvoted for saying this, but for me, programming without having a solid understanding of CS background and how computers work it would make me just a code monkey, able just to do what I saw in tutorials and copy pasting SO answers without understanding them. Which can be fine, lower level work is ok and highly needed. But wouldn't make me as good as someone who knows his stuff from a to z.
I hate it when I hear someone considering himself a programmer after he modified a WordPress theme or did a 3 weeks boot camp.
Why should this field be hold to much lower standards than medicine, physics, math, chemistry?
I never heard someone bragging that he is a doctor after watching YouTube videos, which happens often with writing and architecting software.
> I studied because I wanted to genuinely understand how things work and how I can solve problems and how, beginning with one idea I can extend it or come up with an entirely different idea.
> programming without having a solid understanding of CS background and how computers work it would make me just a code monkey, able just to do what I saw in tutorials and copy pasting SO answers without understanding them
Other people genuinely want to understand how things work, and getting a CS degree is not the only way to get there.
> programming without having a solid understanding of CS background and how computers work it would make me just a code monkey, able just to do what I saw in tutorials and copy pasting SO answers without understanding them
Other people genuinely want to understand how things work, and getting a CS degree is not the only way to get there.
> Other people genuinely want to understand how things work, and getting a CS degree is not the only way to get there.
Yes, except ...
University courses are always going to have a mixture of people with different motives. One of those motives is going to be a desire to go into research, while another is going to be earning credentials to prove they have an understanding of their field before they embark upon their career. Then there are the people who take the courses with a pure desire to learn how things either in a structured environment or to learn along with like-minded people, without pursuing it as a career path. That runs the gamut from needing university credentials, to the credentials being nice to have, to not needing the credentials at all. Yet, in each case, the desire to learn is genuine.
Then there are the people who are cheating the system by treating the university as a credential mill, the means to an end, where the end has little to do with furthering their understanding. Some of them are upfront about this. I remember one of my high school peers saying they chose their discipline based upon how much money they would earn and how well they would perform. Some choose to deceive themselves about this, largely by griping about how poor instruction is or how irrelevant the course material is while putting little effort into the courses. Whichever way you look at it, these people are problematic when they step over the line by cheating. They go from being passive leeches on the system to actively destructive forces.
There are genuine advantages to learning in a university environment. For some it is structure. For some it is being able to work with their peers. For some, it is having access to professionals in their chosen field. All of these can contribute to understanding, if the learner chooses to do so. I have known very few professors who would turn away someone who was genuinely interested in learning. For the most part, they were more inclined to side with the students who would benefit from learning in a university environment, but were struggling to keep up with the demands of those who would not!
Yes, except ...
University courses are always going to have a mixture of people with different motives. One of those motives is going to be a desire to go into research, while another is going to be earning credentials to prove they have an understanding of their field before they embark upon their career. Then there are the people who take the courses with a pure desire to learn how things either in a structured environment or to learn along with like-minded people, without pursuing it as a career path. That runs the gamut from needing university credentials, to the credentials being nice to have, to not needing the credentials at all. Yet, in each case, the desire to learn is genuine.
Then there are the people who are cheating the system by treating the university as a credential mill, the means to an end, where the end has little to do with furthering their understanding. Some of them are upfront about this. I remember one of my high school peers saying they chose their discipline based upon how much money they would earn and how well they would perform. Some choose to deceive themselves about this, largely by griping about how poor instruction is or how irrelevant the course material is while putting little effort into the courses. Whichever way you look at it, these people are problematic when they step over the line by cheating. They go from being passive leeches on the system to actively destructive forces.
There are genuine advantages to learning in a university environment. For some it is structure. For some it is being able to work with their peers. For some, it is having access to professionals in their chosen field. All of these can contribute to understanding, if the learner chooses to do so. I have known very few professors who would turn away someone who was genuinely interested in learning. For the most part, they were more inclined to side with the students who would benefit from learning in a university environment, but were struggling to keep up with the demands of those who would not!
> Then there are the people who are cheating the system by treating the university as a credential mill, the means to an end, where the end has little to do with furthering their understanding.
Is this really an issue? I eventually feel into that bucket. Went to university for EE since I figured I could teach myself CS easily, whereas learning EE without a lab would be harder. I quickly realized I hate a very large portion of EE (anything outside semiconductors) and for most of my courses I did the bare minimum to get an A with minimal understanding.
> They go from being passive leeches on the system to actively destructive forces.
I really don't see how that makes me a passive leech. I agree that cheating is actively harmful to the peers that don't cheat, but someone that doesn't engage is a net gain to the others in my book. By not attending any optional tutorials/office hours it gives other peers more focus time with the professor/TA.
Is this really an issue? I eventually feel into that bucket. Went to university for EE since I figured I could teach myself CS easily, whereas learning EE without a lab would be harder. I quickly realized I hate a very large portion of EE (anything outside semiconductors) and for most of my courses I did the bare minimum to get an A with minimal understanding.
> They go from being passive leeches on the system to actively destructive forces.
I really don't see how that makes me a passive leech. I agree that cheating is actively harmful to the peers that don't cheat, but someone that doesn't engage is a net gain to the others in my book. By not attending any optional tutorials/office hours it gives other peers more focus time with the professor/TA.
The most trivial example, the requirement for assessment will put a load onto the course staff. While a correct answer presented in the conventional way is a typically easy to assess, an incorrect answer or an answer presented in a non-conventional way is much more difficult to assess.
The people I worked with typically wanted to see students succeed. It went well beyond the mechanics of delivering instruction and assessing work. They considered what they were doing and put time into modifying their practices when students did not appear to be engaged. For a handful of students, it would be successful. In the vast majority of students, it would flop since the disinterested ones were rarely receptive. Some cases may have been similar to yours, where it sounds like you were focusing on other subjects. Some students appeared to be, ahem, more interested in the non-academic merits of university life. It is difficult to tell what the breakdown is since those students were always the most distant. But either way those passive students were a drain. They simply weren't as much of a drain as the cheaters.
The people I worked with typically wanted to see students succeed. It went well beyond the mechanics of delivering instruction and assessing work. They considered what they were doing and put time into modifying their practices when students did not appear to be engaged. For a handful of students, it would be successful. In the vast majority of students, it would flop since the disinterested ones were rarely receptive. Some cases may have been similar to yours, where it sounds like you were focusing on other subjects. Some students appeared to be, ahem, more interested in the non-academic merits of university life. It is difficult to tell what the breakdown is since those students were always the most distant. But either way those passive students were a drain. They simply weren't as much of a drain as the cheaters.
Most of what people learn is from the day-to-day, not what they are actually studying. What does that tell you? Instead of ad hominem for 'non-academic merits of university life' perhaps they are not in fact being instructed properly. This makes sense because graduate school is such a grind for personal research instead of actually educating other people.
Teachers need to design their programs around actual learning principles like: Deep Processing, Chunking, Building Associations, Dual Coding, Deliberate Practice.
Teachers need to design their programs around actual learning principles like: Deep Processing, Chunking, Building Associations, Dual Coding, Deliberate Practice.
IMO even CS degrees are worth much these days. I know too many CS graduates that can't grasp the basics, and their work suffers from it. For a recent example (which I hope doesn't get picked apart): even with help they can't guesstimate the complexity of simple algorithms they write.
Genuine interest is a requirement, a degree isn't. Anyone wanting to measure knowledge is even more fucked than we assume.
Genuine interest is a requirement, a degree isn't. Anyone wanting to measure knowledge is even more fucked than we assume.
> Other people genuinely want to understand how things work, and getting a CS degree is not the only way to get there.
It's not the only way, but it is certainly a good way (at least for some).
In my case, I didn't really know what I didn't know. Before studying CS, I had this vague idea of programming as an activity I liked, but it never really "clicked" in the larger sense, as it was woven with magic that I didn't understand at the time. We make programs using Code::Blocks? Well, who made Code::Blocks, and how did they make Code::Blocks without using Code::Blocks?
After studying CS, it just felt like all those mysteries disappeared. Everything made sense, connected into a coherent whole by various mathematical links.
Of course, there's still a lot of things I don't know, and even more that I don't know I don't know. Every now and then, I run into a new concept that teaches me things that I've kinda wondered about, but couldn't put properly into words. Reading about such topics, and seeing the journey unravel, that another person took in order to discover what I'm getting on a silver platter, is one of the most rewarding things in the world.
It's not the only way, but it is certainly a good way (at least for some).
In my case, I didn't really know what I didn't know. Before studying CS, I had this vague idea of programming as an activity I liked, but it never really "clicked" in the larger sense, as it was woven with magic that I didn't understand at the time. We make programs using Code::Blocks? Well, who made Code::Blocks, and how did they make Code::Blocks without using Code::Blocks?
After studying CS, it just felt like all those mysteries disappeared. Everything made sense, connected into a coherent whole by various mathematical links.
Of course, there's still a lot of things I don't know, and even more that I don't know I don't know. Every now and then, I run into a new concept that teaches me things that I've kinda wondered about, but couldn't put properly into words. Reading about such topics, and seeing the journey unravel, that another person took in order to discover what I'm getting on a silver platter, is one of the most rewarding things in the world.
There are markets for a wide range of abilities.
Even in medicine, the first triage will probably be done by a nurse, then a doctor, finally a specialist.
You don't need a CS PhD for most of the work done with computers and it would be unrealistic and uneconomical to require such a high standard everywhere.
People make a good living customizing WordPress sites and the buyers get good value from it.
Even in medicine, the first triage will probably be done by a nurse, then a doctor, finally a specialist.
You don't need a CS PhD for most of the work done with computers and it would be unrealistic and uneconomical to require such a high standard everywhere.
People make a good living customizing WordPress sites and the buyers get good value from it.
>There are markets for a wide range of abilities.
Even in medicine, the first triage will probably be done by a nurse, then a doctor, finally a specialist.
Then why require long time in school and residency for doctors? A boot camp should be enough.
>You don't need a CS PhD for most of the work done with computers and it would be unrealistic and uneconomical to require such a high standard everywhere.
No, you don't need any degree to use Excel or MS Word or modifying WordPress themes. But you should need a batchelor degree if if you want to be a high level specialist, programmer or architect.
>People make a good living customizing WordPress sites and the buyers get good value from it.
Likewise, you need a proper education to be a civil engineer or an architect. You do not need a degree to lay bricks or pour concrete.
I am asking for degrees for the higher levels of IT field, not for the people who modify WordPress themes, whom I am sure do a great job and are highly needed but are not exactly exponents of high level work in this field.
Then why require long time in school and residency for doctors? A boot camp should be enough.
>You don't need a CS PhD for most of the work done with computers and it would be unrealistic and uneconomical to require such a high standard everywhere.
No, you don't need any degree to use Excel or MS Word or modifying WordPress themes. But you should need a batchelor degree if if you want to be a high level specialist, programmer or architect.
>People make a good living customizing WordPress sites and the buyers get good value from it.
Likewise, you need a proper education to be a civil engineer or an architect. You do not need a degree to lay bricks or pour concrete.
I am asking for degrees for the higher levels of IT field, not for the people who modify WordPress themes, whom I am sure do a great job and are highly needed but are not exactly exponents of high level work in this field.
> But you should need a batchelor degree if if you want to be a high level specialist, programmer or architect
I'd like to ask, how are any of these specialties technically related to a bachelors degree?
One does not learn how to be a successful software architect in a semester or two of university. Neither does a bachelors degree make you anything more than a beginner in any specialized topic. While the definition of what's a "good" programmer is up for discussion, universities definitely do not produce them in any dependable capacity.
From my personal experience, at this point in time, major part of the students that complete a bachelors degree are in it just because programming is viewed as a well paying job and are about as worthless as a person that completed a 6 month bootcamp. The only difference being that the person with bootcamp experience might actually end up with an exact match of knowledge an employer wants, which hasn't had time to slowly evaporate over 4 years of "study".
Lastly to bring up another one of your points, I'd argue that learning from YouTube videos is not the same as going to a bootcamp. I do not view either highly, but I'd say that learning on your own deserves some level of commendation as it's the most crucial skill in a field that's constantly shifting and changing.
I'd like to ask, how are any of these specialties technically related to a bachelors degree?
One does not learn how to be a successful software architect in a semester or two of university. Neither does a bachelors degree make you anything more than a beginner in any specialized topic. While the definition of what's a "good" programmer is up for discussion, universities definitely do not produce them in any dependable capacity.
From my personal experience, at this point in time, major part of the students that complete a bachelors degree are in it just because programming is viewed as a well paying job and are about as worthless as a person that completed a 6 month bootcamp. The only difference being that the person with bootcamp experience might actually end up with an exact match of knowledge an employer wants, which hasn't had time to slowly evaporate over 4 years of "study".
Lastly to bring up another one of your points, I'd argue that learning from YouTube videos is not the same as going to a bootcamp. I do not view either highly, but I'd say that learning on your own deserves some level of commendation as it's the most crucial skill in a field that's constantly shifting and changing.
There was an expression at my school, in response to exactly what you're questioning.
"We train you for the last job you'll ever have, not the first."
The intent of a well-rounded bachelor's education isn't to be able to walk through the JavaScript library du jour from memory, but to have at least a base level of understanding how everything adjacent to the thing you're doing works.
"We train you for the last job you'll ever have, not the first."
The intent of a well-rounded bachelor's education isn't to be able to walk through the JavaScript library du jour from memory, but to have at least a base level of understanding how everything adjacent to the thing you're doing works.
> "We train you for the last job you'll ever have, not the first."
That's a bit funny for Computer Science since, even though I don't have numbers, I expect the average graduate now to work until they're 65+, and the vast majority will probably be out of the field of direct software development by the time they're 45 (burnout, people management, program management, project management, executive suite, etc).
That's a bit funny for Computer Science since, even though I don't have numbers, I expect the average graduate now to work until they're 65+, and the vast majority will probably be out of the field of direct software development by the time they're 45 (burnout, people management, program management, project management, executive suite, etc).
>One does not learn how to be a successful software architect in a semester or two of university. Neither does a bachelors degree make you anything more than a beginner in any specialized topic.
That's entirely true. But if you din waste your time in school, you know fundamentals, you have the necessary background to proceed further and become good or excellent.
> that learning on your own deserves some level of commendation as it's the most crucial skill in a field that's constantly shifting and changing
I agree. You have to continously learn. But having a solid grasp of the fundamentals and understanding how things work will just help you on your path of future learning.
In University you still learn by yourself, but under supervision.
That's entirely true. But if you din waste your time in school, you know fundamentals, you have the necessary background to proceed further and become good or excellent.
> that learning on your own deserves some level of commendation as it's the most crucial skill in a field that's constantly shifting and changing
I agree. You have to continously learn. But having a solid grasp of the fundamentals and understanding how things work will just help you on your path of future learning.
In University you still learn by yourself, but under supervision.
> Then why require long time in school and residency for doctors? A boot camp should be enough.
Nurses don't go though the same system, what they go through is closer to a bootcamp.
> No, you don't need any degree to use Excel or MS Word
Yes you do, because if all I want is someone who can write Word documents, I don't need that person to understand computer architectures, see:
https://www.reed.co.uk/career-advice/what-is-ecdl/
> I am asking for degrees for the higher levels of IT field, not for the people who modify WordPress themes, whom I am sure do a great job and are highly needed but are not exactly exponents of high level work in this field.
The IT field is multi dimensional, a person who is building a 3D engine is not the same person who is going to set up the backend system for your bank or write your kernel drivers. If put everything in one hat you are either going to teach too much or not enough in the field that the student will end up pursuing.
Why do you believe the education sector would be a worse place if we would have 3D engineering, backend engineering, mobile engineering and Wordpress theme development as separate fields? I would enjoy it when hiring people if there would be more specific credentials to the role I want to hire for.
Nurses don't go though the same system, what they go through is closer to a bootcamp.
> No, you don't need any degree to use Excel or MS Word
Yes you do, because if all I want is someone who can write Word documents, I don't need that person to understand computer architectures, see:
https://www.reed.co.uk/career-advice/what-is-ecdl/
> I am asking for degrees for the higher levels of IT field, not for the people who modify WordPress themes, whom I am sure do a great job and are highly needed but are not exactly exponents of high level work in this field.
The IT field is multi dimensional, a person who is building a 3D engine is not the same person who is going to set up the backend system for your bank or write your kernel drivers. If put everything in one hat you are either going to teach too much or not enough in the field that the student will end up pursuing.
Why do you believe the education sector would be a worse place if we would have 3D engineering, backend engineering, mobile engineering and Wordpress theme development as separate fields? I would enjoy it when hiring people if there would be more specific credentials to the role I want to hire for.
I agree with the general premise, but the job market is insane enough to see this more as trying to cure the symptoms than the treating the cause.
3D engineering and backend engineering are very different, but backend engineering is generally easier than 3D engineering. Meanwhile, mobile engineering and backend engineering are far closer related. If one argues mobile engineering and backend engineering are different enough to warrant separate majors, you might as well argue "console/pc game development" and "mobile game development" do the same. You end up with so many ways to split hairs you're really just appeasing hiring managers being lazy.
To put into perspective the absolute insanity, if it were up to hiring managers, we'd have a university trajectory "Bachelor Java backend developer", "Bachelor .NET backend developer", "Master of Microservices", etc. which are obsolete within 2 years and catching up is left entirely to the individual. The field changes way too rapidly while also denying the similarities between different aspects and the ability to learn most things as long as someone can function as a specialist (and most places have a specialist already). Current courses may be too generalist, but at the very least they acknowledge almost every field in CS is effectively still data creation, modification and storage, while strategizing around physical limitations.
3D engineering and backend engineering are very different, but backend engineering is generally easier than 3D engineering. Meanwhile, mobile engineering and backend engineering are far closer related. If one argues mobile engineering and backend engineering are different enough to warrant separate majors, you might as well argue "console/pc game development" and "mobile game development" do the same. You end up with so many ways to split hairs you're really just appeasing hiring managers being lazy.
To put into perspective the absolute insanity, if it were up to hiring managers, we'd have a university trajectory "Bachelor Java backend developer", "Bachelor .NET backend developer", "Master of Microservices", etc. which are obsolete within 2 years and catching up is left entirely to the individual. The field changes way too rapidly while also denying the similarities between different aspects and the ability to learn most things as long as someone can function as a specialist (and most places have a specialist already). Current courses may be too generalist, but at the very least they acknowledge almost every field in CS is effectively still data creation, modification and storage, while strategizing around physical limitations.
I believe that the cause is the following:
IT has evolved far too quickly for education to pick up and education itself is resistant to change for both good and bad reasons, we cannot change the system every year and expect grades to be comparable.
I do believe that we could create specializations that are not too specific yet useful, the main goal is to get rid of subjects that the student likely never encounter, I mean, we can start teaching history in Computer Science because maybe you'll program the next Age of Empires, yet we agree that the likelihood of that is so small, we can round it down to 0, my issue is that we don't check this for all the current subjects so that we don't waste people's time teaching them stuff they will never use.
> To put into perspective the absolute insanity, if it were up to hiring managers, we'd have a university trajectory "Bachelor Java backend developer", "Bachelor .NET backend developer", "Master of Microservices", etc.
You don't need "Bachelor .NET backend developer", you just need "Backend Developer", someone who has a good knowledge of one stack can easily migrate to another in the same field.
> which are obsolete within 2 years and catching up is left entirely to the individual
- MVC was invented in the 70s, still useful, it's been over 50 years and counting
- SQL also appeared around the 70s
- OOP appeared in the 50s, that's over 70 years and counting
If you know MVC, you can do MVVM.
If you can handle MySQL it's doubtful that you will have trouble with MongoDB.
I'm not implying that there were no changes and you don't need to keep yourself up to date, I'm saying that there are technologies and concepts that have longevity.
I do believe that we could create specializations that are not too specific yet useful, the main goal is to get rid of subjects that the student likely never encounter, I mean, we can start teaching history in Computer Science because maybe you'll program the next Age of Empires, yet we agree that the likelihood of that is so small, we can round it down to 0, my issue is that we don't check this for all the current subjects so that we don't waste people's time teaching them stuff they will never use.
> To put into perspective the absolute insanity, if it were up to hiring managers, we'd have a university trajectory "Bachelor Java backend developer", "Bachelor .NET backend developer", "Master of Microservices", etc.
You don't need "Bachelor .NET backend developer", you just need "Backend Developer", someone who has a good knowledge of one stack can easily migrate to another in the same field.
> which are obsolete within 2 years and catching up is left entirely to the individual
- MVC was invented in the 70s, still useful, it's been over 50 years and counting
- SQL also appeared around the 70s
- OOP appeared in the 50s, that's over 70 years and counting
If you know MVC, you can do MVVM.
If you can handle MySQL it's doubtful that you will have trouble with MongoDB.
I'm not implying that there were no changes and you don't need to keep yourself up to date, I'm saying that there are technologies and concepts that have longevity.
>The IT field is multi dimensional, a person who is building a 3D engine is not the same person who is going to set up the backend system for your bank or write your kernel drivers. If put everything in one hat you are either going to teach too much or not enough in the field that the student will end up pursuing.
I think that for a Batchelor degree, things are good as they are. Students are better learning CS fundamentals.
Learning the framework or the language du jour, is easy to do by yourself. Frameworks, libraries, tools, languages come and go. Fundamental concepts will stay.
I did a master in Web Development, so there is some specialization. Others did masters in Data Mining, Machine Learning, Database Technology, Bioinformatics.
I plan to do a PhD related to using ML in Web applications, so there can be even more specialization.
I think that for a Batchelor degree, things are good as they are. Students are better learning CS fundamentals.
Learning the framework or the language du jour, is easy to do by yourself. Frameworks, libraries, tools, languages come and go. Fundamental concepts will stay.
I did a master in Web Development, so there is some specialization. Others did masters in Data Mining, Machine Learning, Database Technology, Bioinformatics.
I plan to do a PhD related to using ML in Web applications, so there can be even more specialization.
>I would enjoy it when hiring people if there would be more specific credentials to the role I want to hire for.
There are plenty of credentials out there. You just mostly don't get them from universities because universities are not in general in the business of granting trade credentials.
There are plenty of credentials out there. You just mostly don't get them from universities because universities are not in general in the business of granting trade credentials.
> But you should need a batchelor degree if if you want to be a high level specialist, programmer or architect
alternatively, I have seen people with long CS degrees but who cant code for their life. degrees are just papers.
alternatively, I have seen people with long CS degrees but who cant code for their life. degrees are just papers.
Maybe we should require anyone graduating to take a FizzBuzz test before receiving the diploma.
> Then why require long time in school and residency for doctors? A boot camp should be enough.
Someone else answered the question: Nurses do not require a long time. In some (mnany?) states you can become a nurse with a 2 year associate's degree, and career outcome/pay is correlated with experience, not the degree.
And nurses aren't even at the end of the spectrum. You have LPNs, etc.
But the reason I commented: This notion that it takes so many years of school + residency is mostly a US/Canada thing. In many/most countries, you go to medical school right after high school - it is typically a 5 year program.
Someone else answered the question: Nurses do not require a long time. In some (mnany?) states you can become a nurse with a 2 year associate's degree, and career outcome/pay is correlated with experience, not the degree.
And nurses aren't even at the end of the spectrum. You have LPNs, etc.
But the reason I commented: This notion that it takes so many years of school + residency is mostly a US/Canada thing. In many/most countries, you go to medical school right after high school - it is typically a 5 year program.
> Even in medicine, the first triage will probably be done by a nurse, then a doctor, finally a specialist.
For very basic rote queries most pharmacy assistants (who are really just retail staff) will be able to guide you in the right direction too.
For very basic rote queries most pharmacy assistants (who are really just retail staff) will be able to guide you in the right direction too.
Sorry but I’m gonna be very blunt. I think sound pretentious as fuck.
> I studied because I wanted to genuinely understand how things work
I don’t think you do.
Genuine curiosity forged in one’s own mind. It is not something that can be bounded, repackaged as a curriculum, and sold in university. It’s like ether, it’s everywhere and can be captured by anyone, through multiple means.
University degrees for any professions are useless. Even in medicine! There are shit doctors and good doctors. Most people here would’ve run through a couple of them before picking one. I’ve been with my current doctor for 10 years now, because they are really good, empathic, and teach me rather than just pushing pills.
Software in my humble opinion works the same way. I care more about what someone does with the tools they have, rather than them being made of wood or metal or gold
> I studied because I wanted to genuinely understand how things work
I don’t think you do.
Genuine curiosity forged in one’s own mind. It is not something that can be bounded, repackaged as a curriculum, and sold in university. It’s like ether, it’s everywhere and can be captured by anyone, through multiple means.
University degrees for any professions are useless. Even in medicine! There are shit doctors and good doctors. Most people here would’ve run through a couple of them before picking one. I’ve been with my current doctor for 10 years now, because they are really good, empathic, and teach me rather than just pushing pills.
Software in my humble opinion works the same way. I care more about what someone does with the tools they have, rather than them being made of wood or metal or gold
>University degrees for any professions are useless. Even in medicine!
I think there is a fundamental distinction between the professions of medicine and law, in that they have licensing boards that are a means of ensuring a standardized minimum amount of competency. Computer science does not.
Despite the fact that many call themselves "software engineers", they are not engineers in the legal sense of the word in US, unless they also have an engineering license. The point of these licenses is, in part, to protect society in professions where they are expected to ethically serve in the public good. One of the problems with CS degrees in the past is that there is no standardized curriculum, so one CS student may have had zero semesters of calculus and another required to take 4. The standardization is what helps pull structure from the ether. That structure is compromised when people cheat.
I think there is a fundamental distinction between the professions of medicine and law, in that they have licensing boards that are a means of ensuring a standardized minimum amount of competency. Computer science does not.
Despite the fact that many call themselves "software engineers", they are not engineers in the legal sense of the word in US, unless they also have an engineering license. The point of these licenses is, in part, to protect society in professions where they are expected to ethically serve in the public good. One of the problems with CS degrees in the past is that there is no standardized curriculum, so one CS student may have had zero semesters of calculus and another required to take 4. The standardization is what helps pull structure from the ether. That structure is compromised when people cheat.
> I think there is a fundamental distinction between the professions of medicine and law, in that they have licensing boards that are a means of ensuring a standardized minimum amount of competency.
You might want to read the transcript of this This American Life episode:
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/719/trust-me-im-a-doctor
The summary: Licensing boards do a really poor job in maintaining quality. You can do extremely bad things as a doctor and still keep your license.
You might want to read the transcript of this This American Life episode:
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/719/trust-me-im-a-doctor
The summary: Licensing boards do a really poor job in maintaining quality. You can do extremely bad things as a doctor and still keep your license.
I'm certainly not claiming regulatory boards are perfect. Far from it. But I do maintain that some quality control and accountability is preferable to the alternative of no quality control and accountability.
We have slightly different opinions, but I thank you for taking the time to chat, and trusting that we can do so nicely.
The boards are to provide society comfort, but they enforce as you, said the minimum. Something just cannot be measured. This is very true in medicine as it contains a human aspect, as well as ethics aspect (I make more money if I see more people and give each less time).
When I was a teenager, I was losing hair due to Alopecia. My doctor at the time, who barely made sense (both of us were ESL) decided to put me on a course of prescription Iron pills. I was pooping black haha. Only later, I was told that I shouldn’t be taking it and that it was prescribed to me by accident by her because she had the file of another patient. Their last name was my first name, and they were pregnant female, I am a male.
The same doctor injected my mom with some drug and as she did, she said “oh shit” and “OMG” and decided not to tell my mom what it was. She tossed the bottle in hazardous waste box so my mom could not find out what it was. My dad was furious and made a scene as he and my mom naturally got worried. We went to this board and they said they did nothing wrong, and my parents were making a scene, and that we should find another doctor. So much for protecting my best interests and holding a bar.
These boards are mafia; another high profile thread about this is in HN right now. The boards are there to provide a facade of credibility.
> The point of these licenses is, in part, to protect society in professions where they are expected to ethically serve in the public good.
I don’t want to be called an engineer and opted out of license because I think most of engineers are doing the exact opposite. Working at companies that knowingly continue operating when we know it’s causing depression? Collecting data for users without them knowing?
Regarding equality of curriculum and standardization, I hear you. None of this is stuff we can ONLY get in school. I think the interview questions we all conduct at our jobs, or give when applying are doing just that. Checking minimum competency; tangentially I much prefer take home tests or something of that nature.
After this, I tend to think learning should be like gardening. Not all gardens are the same and they have different needs. You may need to learn more calculus if you are in robotics, but not if you are working on something really far from that. Another example, you might really need to learn about algorithms and databases if your job/interests require it.
The boards are to provide society comfort, but they enforce as you, said the minimum. Something just cannot be measured. This is very true in medicine as it contains a human aspect, as well as ethics aspect (I make more money if I see more people and give each less time).
When I was a teenager, I was losing hair due to Alopecia. My doctor at the time, who barely made sense (both of us were ESL) decided to put me on a course of prescription Iron pills. I was pooping black haha. Only later, I was told that I shouldn’t be taking it and that it was prescribed to me by accident by her because she had the file of another patient. Their last name was my first name, and they were pregnant female, I am a male.
The same doctor injected my mom with some drug and as she did, she said “oh shit” and “OMG” and decided not to tell my mom what it was. She tossed the bottle in hazardous waste box so my mom could not find out what it was. My dad was furious and made a scene as he and my mom naturally got worried. We went to this board and they said they did nothing wrong, and my parents were making a scene, and that we should find another doctor. So much for protecting my best interests and holding a bar.
These boards are mafia; another high profile thread about this is in HN right now. The boards are there to provide a facade of credibility.
> The point of these licenses is, in part, to protect society in professions where they are expected to ethically serve in the public good.
I don’t want to be called an engineer and opted out of license because I think most of engineers are doing the exact opposite. Working at companies that knowingly continue operating when we know it’s causing depression? Collecting data for users without them knowing?
Regarding equality of curriculum and standardization, I hear you. None of this is stuff we can ONLY get in school. I think the interview questions we all conduct at our jobs, or give when applying are doing just that. Checking minimum competency; tangentially I much prefer take home tests or something of that nature.
After this, I tend to think learning should be like gardening. Not all gardens are the same and they have different needs. You may need to learn more calculus if you are in robotics, but not if you are working on something really far from that. Another example, you might really need to learn about algorithms and databases if your job/interests require it.
Yeah, you're right. I think in the context of your story, the board seems like they did not do you justice. I can say from my experience with engineering boards, they seem to be more transparent and will publish their decisions and the underlying opinions on how they reached their conclusions. I think that added transparency goes a long way to mitigate the scenario when a regulating body ends up serving as a mechanism to avoid accountability for the group they are intended to regulate.
I think I agree with your gardening analogy. It seems to me that the issue is often rooted in the hiring process. If a company was able to adequately assess the skills, they wouldn't need to rely on credentials, period. I think credentials become a lazy shortcut in many ways. Sometimes I think this is borne from the fact that many hiring decisions are made by people who are too far removed from the work being hired for, and thus need some pragmatic shortcut. It's easier for HR to say "you don't have the right degree" than for them to read and understand your resume to conclude "you don't have the right skills". The first is binary, the latter requires a lot of nuance.
I think I agree with your gardening analogy. It seems to me that the issue is often rooted in the hiring process. If a company was able to adequately assess the skills, they wouldn't need to rely on credentials, period. I think credentials become a lazy shortcut in many ways. Sometimes I think this is borne from the fact that many hiring decisions are made by people who are too far removed from the work being hired for, and thus need some pragmatic shortcut. It's easier for HR to say "you don't have the right degree" than for them to read and understand your resume to conclude "you don't have the right skills". The first is binary, the latter requires a lot of nuance.
Many engineers in the US do not have PEs even when it's an option. If you're not having to sign off on regulatory agency-related documents, potentially doing expert witness-related work, etc. there's no need for it.
I started the process at one point in mechanical engineering (engineer in training exam) but moved on to a different type of job so there was never a reason to get the certification.
I started the process at one point in mechanical engineering (engineer in training exam) but moved on to a different type of job so there was never a reason to get the certification.
I understand most engineers work under industry exemptions. The ones that do not will have to work under a PE or be a PE themselves. In those cases, the work has been determined important enough to require the additional accountability of a PE stamp.
I'm not a big fan of credentials, but I understand when credentials become a proxy for something valuable. In some cases, the value of a PE is accountability and the legal authority for a PE to push back when they are being asked to do something unethical/unprofessional. I think one of the central issues of this thread is that the credential of a college degree has become so watered down that it has lost a lot of value.
I'm not a big fan of credentials, but I understand when credentials become a proxy for something valuable. In some cases, the value of a PE is accountability and the legal authority for a PE to push back when they are being asked to do something unethical/unprofessional. I think one of the central issues of this thread is that the credential of a college degree has become so watered down that it has lost a lot of value.
> I know I will get downvoted for saying this
I doubt it, but I downvoted you for saying that. No comment anywhere has ever been improved by adding "I know I will get downvoted for saying this, but". Please don't do it.
I doubt it, but I downvoted you for saying that. No comment anywhere has ever been improved by adding "I know I will get downvoted for saying this, but". Please don't do it.
These kind of passive-aggressive replies always bother me, they don't contribute much to the discussion either. Please don't do it.
There are very _few_ reasons why you should downvote a comment. I found parent's comment great, so I upvoted it to counter your unfair downvote.
There are very _few_ reasons why you should downvote a comment. I found parent's comment great, so I upvoted it to counter your unfair downvote.
(It wasn't passive-aggressive, it was just aggressive.)
The "I know I'm going to get downvoted for this, but ..." thing is annoyingly common, and unfortunately it's common for a reason: a lot of the time it works: it lets you frame yourself as a victim without ever needing to be victimized.
And, strictly as a matter of fact, it's almost always false. I just did a search for HN comments saying "I know I|this will get|be downvoted" and checked out the first ten I found. Only one of them was net downvoted (which that particular one richly deserved), even though several of them claimed not just to know they would be downvoted but to know that they would be downvoted "into oblivion" or some such phrasing.
So, why do I care? Because (1) these things just add noise and (2) I think that on net they get unfairly upvoted; I want to discourage #1 and compensate for #2. (Also, most of the time comments that say "I know I'll get downvoted..." are in fact bad ones, but that isn't the point here. In this case, the comment itself was pretty reasonable. It just would have been better without the look-how-brave-I-am posturing.)
The "I know I'm going to get downvoted for this, but ..." thing is annoyingly common, and unfortunately it's common for a reason: a lot of the time it works: it lets you frame yourself as a victim without ever needing to be victimized.
And, strictly as a matter of fact, it's almost always false. I just did a search for HN comments saying "I know I|this will get|be downvoted" and checked out the first ten I found. Only one of them was net downvoted (which that particular one richly deserved), even though several of them claimed not just to know they would be downvoted but to know that they would be downvoted "into oblivion" or some such phrasing.
So, why do I care? Because (1) these things just add noise and (2) I think that on net they get unfairly upvoted; I want to discourage #1 and compensate for #2. (Also, most of the time comments that say "I know I'll get downvoted..." are in fact bad ones, but that isn't the point here. In this case, the comment itself was pretty reasonable. It just would have been better without the look-how-brave-I-am posturing.)
I've got to say I completely agree. "I know I'm going to get downvoted for this" is for me a cue to downvote it. Make it a self-fulfilling prophesy. I don't downvote a lot, but this gets a consistent downvote from me.
Every comment that has that line can be improved by leaving it out.
Every comment that has that line can be improved by leaving it out.
The cue is insecurity. You get triggered by his insecurity which you unconsciously see in yourself and don't like. This "not liking it" feeling is the "cue" you refer to.
People say "you'll probably disagree" as a defense mechanism. They preemptively expect a rejection, and make it known, in order to make it hurt less. Works in a similar way as self-deprecating humor. "You can't hurt me, if i hurt myself first." "You can't reject me, if I reject myself/you first."
I myself, got triggered by this thread and it's display of emotionally immaturity, because I have some of it myself, and I dislike it with a passion.
I've noted that HN is a forum full of emotionally immature people that are usually polite in the way they show it. This little thread is a perfect example of it. Very off putting, still the threads are sometimes interesting, if we can accept this fact and try to look at the discussion itself.
People say "you'll probably disagree" as a defense mechanism. They preemptively expect a rejection, and make it known, in order to make it hurt less. Works in a similar way as self-deprecating humor. "You can't hurt me, if i hurt myself first." "You can't reject me, if I reject myself/you first."
I myself, got triggered by this thread and it's display of emotionally immaturity, because I have some of it myself, and I dislike it with a passion.
I've noted that HN is a forum full of emotionally immature people that are usually polite in the way they show it. This little thread is a perfect example of it. Very off putting, still the threads are sometimes interesting, if we can accept this fact and try to look at the discussion itself.
> You get triggered by his insecurity which you unconsciously see in yourself and don't like.
I think you're projecting something here. I'm not triggered by his insecurity and don't see it in myself. I just think begging for votes doesn't belong here, and begging for votes through reverse-psychology doesn't either. Let the content of your comment stand on its own merits.
I think you're projecting something here. I'm not triggered by his insecurity and don't see it in myself. I just think begging for votes doesn't belong here, and begging for votes through reverse-psychology doesn't either. Let the content of your comment stand on its own merits.
Thank you for your comment. It is highly valuable to me.
In retrospective now I know that I unconsciously sabotaged myself, I knew the best way to pass subjects was to have a basic understanding of the theory and then practice a lot of exam question examples, but I just couldn't get myself to do that until I had in fact understood the theory in depth.
That led to my grades ending up exactly average, but also at one point I challenged myself and got the highest marks in the most difficult course in my degree. Everyone, specially those who were normally top of the class, were like "WTF did you do??" lol
That led to my grades ending up exactly average, but also at one point I challenged myself and got the highest marks in the most difficult course in my degree. Everyone, specially those who were normally top of the class, were like "WTF did you do??" lol
Ha, this led me to fail school the first time I tried it. Now 10 years later I’m back in school with a 4.0 because I’ve learned to navigate the system and I know what the school wants. I still balance diving deep into what I’m interested in, but I don’t let it get in the way of the grind.
But you don’t need a degree to understand the fundamentals. Jus because you don’t have a degree from an institution it doesn’t mean you don’t count as a programmer. You can learn all of this things on your own pace even if you started by learning how to modify Wordpress themes or got into the field after taking a boot camp. My point is (from the original comment) that grading knowledge and ability to produce quality work is a very hard thing to achieve. I would even go further and question whether it’s even necessary. For example you’re likely not getting a job straight after college without facing the company’s interview process. And every company has its own way. So even if you were to solve the issue in academics, it’s likely to not reflect on the student’s ability to get a job and perform properly
>But you don’t need a degree to understand the fundamentals. Jus because you don’t have a degree from an institution it doesn’t mean you don’t count as a programmer. You can learn all of this things on your own pace even if you started by learning how to modify Wordpress themes or got into the field after taking a boot camp.
We can argue this about any other field.
>For example you’re likely not getting a job straight after college without facing the company’s interview process.
We should have a bare minimum standard, not a maximum.
But colleges and universities should be good enough that graduating one means you are in a proper position and have proper knowledge and abilities to start a career. Since that is not always the case, companies do still organize their own processes.
By not graduating some recognized form of higher education in the field, you don't prove to your future employers that you might be good at what they need. You just prove that you weren't willing to do the work for a few years and that you might not have the knowledge. Some won't care as their work is simple enough and they might train you on the job, some will test you harder and some will not get you past screenings.
We can argue this about any other field.
>For example you’re likely not getting a job straight after college without facing the company’s interview process.
We should have a bare minimum standard, not a maximum.
But colleges and universities should be good enough that graduating one means you are in a proper position and have proper knowledge and abilities to start a career. Since that is not always the case, companies do still organize their own processes.
By not graduating some recognized form of higher education in the field, you don't prove to your future employers that you might be good at what they need. You just prove that you weren't willing to do the work for a few years and that you might not have the knowledge. Some won't care as their work is simple enough and they might train you on the job, some will test you harder and some will not get you past screenings.
> Some won't care as their work is simple enough and they might train you on the job, some will test you harder and some will not get you past screenings.
Another option is that the candidate has relevant work experience instead of a university degree. This is the case for a lot of candidates I’ve seen. There are a lot of factors that make Software easier to get into. For example, in physics you need to have foundational knowledge that was created 100+ years ago. Whereas software frameworks go out of fashion every 10 years or so. Of course there are many important CS foundations and design patterns, but I believe those can be absorbed by working along other experienced engineers
Another option is that the candidate has relevant work experience instead of a university degree. This is the case for a lot of candidates I’ve seen. There are a lot of factors that make Software easier to get into. For example, in physics you need to have foundational knowledge that was created 100+ years ago. Whereas software frameworks go out of fashion every 10 years or so. Of course there are many important CS foundations and design patterns, but I believe those can be absorbed by working along other experienced engineers
Well it's probably down to the harm done if the standards are lowered vs. the gain.
Incompetent doctor? People die. Incompetent chemist? People die, or at least there's substantial material damage.
When it comes to mathematicians and physicists they only ever have any real impact when they roll up their sleeves, open matlab or R and turn their theoretical work into something practical. Does that make them programmers? Probably I guess.
Anyway as for us programmers there are very few jobs where a poorly written program will cause anyone any harm especially since it can be reviewed, tested, and corrected before being used for real, unlike a doctor who must use their skills on the fly and get it right first time, every time. So the bar for entry is obviously much lower and lowering standards doesn't do much to increase harm.
Incompetent doctor? People die. Incompetent chemist? People die, or at least there's substantial material damage.
When it comes to mathematicians and physicists they only ever have any real impact when they roll up their sleeves, open matlab or R and turn their theoretical work into something practical. Does that make them programmers? Probably I guess.
Anyway as for us programmers there are very few jobs where a poorly written program will cause anyone any harm especially since it can be reviewed, tested, and corrected before being used for real, unlike a doctor who must use their skills on the fly and get it right first time, every time. So the bar for entry is obviously much lower and lowering standards doesn't do much to increase harm.
> Incompetent doctor? People die.
Many, many doctors are completely incompetent, as in, they don't know anything. Yet not all of their patients die.
I have been a "standardized patient" at medical schools; students at the end of their education (after 6-8 years of learning) still don't know shit. And most pass. Maybe they learn on the job... but I doubt it.
Many, many doctors are completely incompetent, as in, they don't know anything. Yet not all of their patients die.
I have been a "standardized patient" at medical schools; students at the end of their education (after 6-8 years of learning) still don't know shit. And most pass. Maybe they learn on the job... but I doubt it.
Conversely my general practitioners are part of an organization where they are doing their residency. They all are competent, very caring, and effective.
I talked to one of their IT people who told me what a good place it was to work. And had multiple nurses say the same, one going on a 5 minute rant about what a good place it was to work. So that could be a significant factor.
I talked to one of their IT people who told me what a good place it was to work. And had multiple nurses say the same, one going on a 5 minute rant about what a good place it was to work. So that could be a significant factor.
You are completely wrong about that. If they passed their exams, they know a lot. They're no good in practice because they had little practice. Yes, we do learn most of our practical skills on the job. Medicine is very much a 'know-how' profession.
> If they passed their exams, they know a lot.
Yeah, it's an exaggeration. They certainly know some things, and some of them know a lot of things. But, they all had big holes in their knowledge (huge, gaping holes) and
1/ They weren't aware of it
2/ They were trained to hide them and appear to know everything about everything, because they're the experts. That's the scary part IMHO.
Yeah, it's an exaggeration. They certainly know some things, and some of them know a lot of things. But, they all had big holes in their knowledge (huge, gaping holes) and
1/ They weren't aware of it
2/ They were trained to hide them and appear to know everything about everything, because they're the experts. That's the scary part IMHO.
> They were trained to hide them and appear to know everything about everything, because they're the experts. That's the scary part IMHO.
You've got to realize that we can't really train healthcare workers to admit failure. Culturally, it's not admitted in any society I ever lived in. People get really angry really fast if you don't hide the gaps, as they feel you're subpar and they're being swindled.
> They weren't aware of it
I recently taught an undergrad course, and I must admit I was baffled by the lack of knowledge of the students, and also how little effort they put into their studies. Doctors who don't read books. That's _much_ more worrying, IMO. Grade inflation, and all that...
You've got to realize that we can't really train healthcare workers to admit failure. Culturally, it's not admitted in any society I ever lived in. People get really angry really fast if you don't hide the gaps, as they feel you're subpar and they're being swindled.
> They weren't aware of it
I recently taught an undergrad course, and I must admit I was baffled by the lack of knowledge of the students, and also how little effort they put into their studies. Doctors who don't read books. That's _much_ more worrying, IMO. Grade inflation, and all that...
>Anyway as for us programmers there are very few jobs where a poorly written program will cause anyone any harm especially since it can be reviewed, tested, and corrected before being used for real, unlike a doctor who must use their skills on the fly and get it right first time, every time.
That's as true for any scientific or engineer field, for architects, pianists, lawyers, painters end economists as is for people designing and writing software.
And yet, all those occupations are generally practiced by people with a degree, who did a lot of study and practice. No watching YouTube videos, no 3 week boot camp will lend you a job as a physicist, concert piano player, economist or architect.
Is not that we don't have a high bar in this field, is that we don't have any bar at all. A programmer is a person who calls himself a programmer. Even car mechanics and construction workers are held at much higher standards than this.
That's as true for any scientific or engineer field, for architects, pianists, lawyers, painters end economists as is for people designing and writing software.
And yet, all those occupations are generally practiced by people with a degree, who did a lot of study and practice. No watching YouTube videos, no 3 week boot camp will lend you a job as a physicist, concert piano player, economist or architect.
Is not that we don't have a high bar in this field, is that we don't have any bar at all. A programmer is a person who calls himself a programmer. Even car mechanics and construction workers are held at much higher standards than this.
"Even car mechanics and construction workers are held at much higher standards than this."
This is not universally true. Many of the best blue collar wokers I've worked with had no formal training or certification, some have. A few trained and certified blue collar workers I've known have been mediocore at best.
The alumni of certifications, official training, and schools are only as good as the integrity of the institution and of the alum.
This is not universally true. Many of the best blue collar wokers I've worked with had no formal training or certification, some have. A few trained and certified blue collar workers I've known have been mediocore at best.
The alumni of certifications, official training, and schools are only as good as the integrity of the institution and of the alum.
More broadly people who refer computing to the standard of construction/architecture would likely be severely disappointed if they had a glimpse how the latter is really done.
Until very recently the most skilled people in our field had no degree because such degrees didn’t exist when they started.
Car mechanics went through the same shift where learning how to fix cars was an on the job thing and many still don’t have a relevant degree. Construction work is an old profession, but still mostly an on the job thing outside of heavy equipment.
Car mechanics went through the same shift where learning how to fix cars was an on the job thing and many still don’t have a relevant degree. Construction work is an old profession, but still mostly an on the job thing outside of heavy equipment.
Has more to do with credentialing bodies holding legal power over who can practice. If you masquerade as a pediatrician and tell every parent their kid needs an hour of exercise and fruits and vegetables, just letting the nurse give the injections, you'll probably do fine in 99999/100000 cases. But that one time you'll miss childhood leukemia because you don't know what you don't know. Likewise, you write SQL injection code and for maybe 99999/100000 visitors you'll be fine. Until the first malicious bot destroys your company's primary DB and you lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in data, and trash your reputation for getting future contracts due to data security.
Wrote a program that helps find patients for donor organs. Make a mistake people die, luckily first real life test 6 people successfully received an organ.
Cause an outage (or write a bug that causes an outage) for like, hospital software, or software that distributes medical supplies during a hurricaine, or distributes vaccines and ... people die. Maybe not directly because it's not your hand with a scalpel slipping but critical things rely on software.
The economic waste that comes from bad code is death from a thousand cuts. Poor reuse and composability resulting in duplicated work, corner cases resulting in cascading errors, seconds of lag adding up to days or weeks of wasted time - years if at Google scale.
Put in this way, the more software there is, the better programmers we want. But the cost itself is typically externalized over the consumer base and amortized over the lifecycle of these products. Further, the perception of software developers being a cost centre first and foremost is sustained. You surpass these problems by being skilled.
Put in this way, the more software there is, the better programmers we want. But the cost itself is typically externalized over the consumer base and amortized over the lifecycle of these products. Further, the perception of software developers being a cost centre first and foremost is sustained. You surpass these problems by being skilled.
Programming isn't a profession. It's just a new form of literacy. A lot of people claim to be able to write, but that doesn't make them writers.
> I never heard someone bragging that he is a doctor after watching YouTube videos
Yet real doctors actually believe the bullshit they get from medical reps when it comes to prescribing actual drugs that goes in patients bodies. I will let you ponder how successful that strategy is.
Yet real doctors actually believe the bullshit they get from medical reps when it comes to prescribing actual drugs that goes in patients bodies. I will let you ponder how successful that strategy is.
Because most of what is needed out there doesn't require an equivalent of a doctor's degree.
The truth is, is that programming languages themselves have evolved far enough that knowing exactly what's running underneath the hood isn't needed anymore, outside of niche specialist cases. Most people don't even need to worry about seeing a single 'index out of range' issue, or worry about CPU cycles. And it's only going to become easier and easier.
I'd compare it to bricklaying. Yes, you need to use the correct formula for the cement you use, but figuring out that formula has already happened. For niche cases that require special cement, you go to the cement specialists that know the ins and outs of it.
The truth is, is that programming languages themselves have evolved far enough that knowing exactly what's running underneath the hood isn't needed anymore, outside of niche specialist cases. Most people don't even need to worry about seeing a single 'index out of range' issue, or worry about CPU cycles. And it's only going to become easier and easier.
I'd compare it to bricklaying. Yes, you need to use the correct formula for the cement you use, but figuring out that formula has already happened. For niche cases that require special cement, you go to the cement specialists that know the ins and outs of it.
This is true for any field, including medicine.
Specialists in, for example, psychiatry don't need to understand how mitosis works, etc...
The same is also true in finance. People who do model equity index volatility don't remember at all how to derive the equation for put-call parity.
In each of these fields there are people who study each of the fundamentals, and then there are people who do more routine "code monkey" work in a narrow area - think chiropractor or vanilla stock trade execution.
Programming is not unique.
Specialists in, for example, psychiatry don't need to understand how mitosis works, etc...
The same is also true in finance. People who do model equity index volatility don't remember at all how to derive the equation for put-call parity.
In each of these fields there are people who study each of the fundamentals, and then there are people who do more routine "code monkey" work in a narrow area - think chiropractor or vanilla stock trade execution.
Programming is not unique.
> Specialists in, for example, psychiatry don't need to understand how mitosis works, etc...
A psychiatrist has to obtain an MD degree before they can start to study their chosen specialty. There's a reason for that: before you can treat a psychiatric illness, you have to be able to eliminate all other possible causes for the condition. I for one would not want to be treated by a psychiatrist that couldn't distinguish bipolar disorder from brain cancer.
A psychiatrist has to obtain an MD degree before they can start to study their chosen specialty. There's a reason for that: before you can treat a psychiatric illness, you have to be able to eliminate all other possible causes for the condition. I for one would not want to be treated by a psychiatrist that couldn't distinguish bipolar disorder from brain cancer.
> chiropractor
I'm not sure that this example is making the point you wanted to make. There's a reason we have Docotors/Pharmacists/Physios and don't reply on Chiropractory / Homeopathy. It's because we want to get better.
I'm not sure that this example is making the point you wanted to make. There's a reason we have Docotors/Pharmacists/Physios and don't reply on Chiropractory / Homeopathy. It's because we want to get better.
I'm a homeopathic programmer. I fix huge terrible consequential bugs by adding lots of similar small diluted bugs.
Haha. Fixing an off-by-one error by adding an off-by-10^-10.
> Yes, you need to use the correct formula for the cement you use, but figuring out that formula has already happened.
I got serious doubts about this. It seems we are constantly changing the cement formula.
I got serious doubts about this. It seems we are constantly changing the cement formula.
We do, it doesn't change anything in OPs statement tho. What's the point?
GP
> but *figuring out that formula* has already happened.
Me
> It seems we are *constantly changing* the cement formula.
You
> doesn't change anything
Really?
OP makes the classic error to assume that A) physical engineering isn't changing; B) computer world is analogous to physical.
> but *figuring out that formula* has already happened.
Me
> It seems we are *constantly changing* the cement formula.
You
> doesn't change anything
Really?
OP makes the classic error to assume that A) physical engineering isn't changing; B) computer world is analogous to physical.
By the time the bricklayers are there to start on the project, most of the time the choice of cement mixture is already made. For most projects, a standard cement mixture is used and a custom one isn't even needed.
When issues do arise during the project, an expert is brought in/consulted. Standard cement formula's might change over time, for varied reasons, but it's not the bricklayers that keep themselves busy with that.
The same hold true for most IT projects.
When issues do arise during the project, an expert is brought in/consulted. Standard cement formula's might change over time, for varied reasons, but it's not the bricklayers that keep themselves busy with that.
The same hold true for most IT projects.
> The same hold true for most IT projects.
Definitely not my experience. Even if you say choose Spring Boot the architecture and somewhat lower level constantly change.
Definitely not my experience. Even if you say choose Spring Boot the architecture and somewhat lower level constantly change.
I think you’re over-estimating the difficulty of the average programming job. The simple fact is we have great frameworks to work off of and building things from scratch is a waste of time and money for most business applications. Wordpress is a great jumping off point for like 75% of businesses. If you know how to write some custom theme code I’d call you a programmer. Doesn’t mean you’ll get a job in system-level design, but you’ll be able to pull a paycheck and sustain your life (and potentially support others). What exactly is wrong with that?
I have seen plenty of bad code monkeys who had high grades, the idea that the current 'high standards' give us better programmers is unfounded.
The issue is that modifying a Wordpress theme is just as much of a job as optimizing a low level 3D rendering pipeline or writing facial recognition software. One of these is not like the others and the issue is that universities fail to realise this and just try to teach everything.
In my mind we would need to abolish the idea of a general programmer and move towards specialization.
The issue is that modifying a Wordpress theme is just as much of a job as optimizing a low level 3D rendering pipeline or writing facial recognition software. One of these is not like the others and the issue is that universities fail to realise this and just try to teach everything.
In my mind we would need to abolish the idea of a general programmer and move towards specialization.
> Why should this field be hold to much lower standards than medicine, physics, math, chemistry?
It doesn't, a good programmer is self evident to good peers.
And schooling isn't the only way to get there. I know plenty of academically educated CS grads that aren't a great programmer not because they didn't do well in school (I have no way of knowing but I assume they did well), but because they lacked curiosity and interest into programming.
It doesn't, a good programmer is self evident to good peers.
And schooling isn't the only way to get there. I know plenty of academically educated CS grads that aren't a great programmer not because they didn't do well in school (I have no way of knowing but I assume they did well), but because they lacked curiosity and interest into programming.
The reason why doctors have to jump through so many hoops is that the stakes are higher for failure.
While there are times where a piece of code failure or poorly worded instructions can cause injury to others, those are exceptions to the rule. Generally speaking- the cost of failure for writing and software is lower than it is medicine, and it makes sense not to gatekeep these industries behind theory, and rather just let results speak for themselves.
While there are times where a piece of code failure or poorly worded instructions can cause injury to others, those are exceptions to the rule. Generally speaking- the cost of failure for writing and software is lower than it is medicine, and it makes sense not to gatekeep these industries behind theory, and rather just let results speak for themselves.
Programming is just a specialized form of writing.
A person who writes for a regional trade magazine, a failed novelist, and Shakespeare all considered themselves writers.
A person who writes for a regional trade magazine, a failed novelist, and Shakespeare all considered themselves writers.
My position on this has been pretty controversial when I've shared it before, but I still think it's correct:
Measuring knowledge at scale is futile, harmful, and pointless. The fact that a lot of society has been arranged around the fiction that this is a feasible endeavor does not mean it has borne out in practice, and prioritizing assessment in this way has been gradually hollowing out most forms of pedagogy of their value while building an ever-expanding series of increasingly meaningless hoops for people to jump through to get what they actually need. We have deemed it necessary to create assessments to prop up the idea that education can be easily measured and should gate meaningful life outcomes for most people. Most if not all "cheating" behavior is either just a rational, strategic response to this situation, or a disconnect between how people actually solve problems (e.g. often collaborative and laser-focused on the part of the problem that drives the outcome, in this case the assessment) and some weird cultist notion of what it means for an individual to do it "correctly".
Effective pedagogy will never scale unless we get some really AGI-like technologies (I loved The Diamond Age as a kid, but A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer is from the perspective of extant tech a total pie-in-the-sky fantasy, illustrative of how meaningful teaching requires individualized approaches), and we see time and time again that teacher-to-student ratios as well as particularly good specific teachers are overwhelmingly the drivers of even the stupid metrics we are optimizing for
In short, this whole system is broken because its fundamental premise is flawed
Measuring knowledge at scale is futile, harmful, and pointless. The fact that a lot of society has been arranged around the fiction that this is a feasible endeavor does not mean it has borne out in practice, and prioritizing assessment in this way has been gradually hollowing out most forms of pedagogy of their value while building an ever-expanding series of increasingly meaningless hoops for people to jump through to get what they actually need. We have deemed it necessary to create assessments to prop up the idea that education can be easily measured and should gate meaningful life outcomes for most people. Most if not all "cheating" behavior is either just a rational, strategic response to this situation, or a disconnect between how people actually solve problems (e.g. often collaborative and laser-focused on the part of the problem that drives the outcome, in this case the assessment) and some weird cultist notion of what it means for an individual to do it "correctly".
Effective pedagogy will never scale unless we get some really AGI-like technologies (I loved The Diamond Age as a kid, but A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer is from the perspective of extant tech a total pie-in-the-sky fantasy, illustrative of how meaningful teaching requires individualized approaches), and we see time and time again that teacher-to-student ratios as well as particularly good specific teachers are overwhelmingly the drivers of even the stupid metrics we are optimizing for
In short, this whole system is broken because its fundamental premise is flawed
What you are saying is not at all controversial, but it is incomplete, which is probably why you have received pushback in the past. Criticising the existing system is easy. Giving an alternative is harder. Implementing that alternative and showing that it's actually better on some metric is MUCH harder than that. But you have not even given an alternative!
The alternative is to treat higher learning like any other experience in life or on your CV/resume: you do it, you tell people you did it, then you either convince them that doing it imparted something useful on you or you don’t.
As someone who’s hired plenty of people, exams and grades do not help one bit with the process and you shouldn’t pay any attention to them.
The only good use of exams I see see is as a potential entry gate, administered by the place you’re trying to impress, to get onto a course, be considered for a job, or be given a license to do something. As exit gates they’re just noise.
As someone who’s hired plenty of people, exams and grades do not help one bit with the process and you shouldn’t pay any attention to them.
The only good use of exams I see see is as a potential entry gate, administered by the place you’re trying to impress, to get onto a course, be considered for a job, or be given a license to do something. As exit gates they’re just noise.
Let us consider the proposal of keeping higher learning the same except that we don't do exams. What would happen?
For better or worse, whether somebody completed their degree does often factor into hiring decisions, so exam grades do indirectly factor into hiring decisions. Having completed a degree signals some level of domain knowledge, conscientiousness, and intelligence. Without exams you would have a 100% success rate (unless you introduced some other assessment mechanism), so the signal would be gone; having completed a degree would only signal whether or not you were able to afford it financially.
Secondly, a large fraction of the students would lose motivation and not do anything by the second year. Many would stop doing homework, stop doing any real studying except maybe superficial reading, and many would hardly come to class. In fact, many students currently already do this until the first midterm, even though they know the midterm is coming. A lot of students need the existence of exams to motivate themselves. Not all students, but a lot. These students don't want to lose motivation and waste time; many would probably regret not learning anything for several years. Our monkey brains are not suited to motivating ourselves to do things with a >3 year time horizon. Exams are a mechanism to motivate our monkey brains to put effort into studying.
I think if we consider professions that are important to our own lives, we do recognise the necessity of assessment. Would you prefer your doctor or nurse, accountant, electrician, or for that matter, teacher of your kids, to have come from a school that doesn't do exams or from a school that does? If they are experienced, maybe it doesn't matter, but how many people are going to take a chance on a fresh graduate if they are from a program without any assessment, where the philosophy is "you do it, you tell people you did it, then you either convince them that doing it imparted something useful on you or you don’t"?
There are other ways to solve that problem, and some of them may even be better than the current system, but I'm not convinced that taking the current system and simply removing exams would work.
For better or worse, whether somebody completed their degree does often factor into hiring decisions, so exam grades do indirectly factor into hiring decisions. Having completed a degree signals some level of domain knowledge, conscientiousness, and intelligence. Without exams you would have a 100% success rate (unless you introduced some other assessment mechanism), so the signal would be gone; having completed a degree would only signal whether or not you were able to afford it financially.
Secondly, a large fraction of the students would lose motivation and not do anything by the second year. Many would stop doing homework, stop doing any real studying except maybe superficial reading, and many would hardly come to class. In fact, many students currently already do this until the first midterm, even though they know the midterm is coming. A lot of students need the existence of exams to motivate themselves. Not all students, but a lot. These students don't want to lose motivation and waste time; many would probably regret not learning anything for several years. Our monkey brains are not suited to motivating ourselves to do things with a >3 year time horizon. Exams are a mechanism to motivate our monkey brains to put effort into studying.
I think if we consider professions that are important to our own lives, we do recognise the necessity of assessment. Would you prefer your doctor or nurse, accountant, electrician, or for that matter, teacher of your kids, to have come from a school that doesn't do exams or from a school that does? If they are experienced, maybe it doesn't matter, but how many people are going to take a chance on a fresh graduate if they are from a program without any assessment, where the philosophy is "you do it, you tell people you did it, then you either convince them that doing it imparted something useful on you or you don’t"?
There are other ways to solve that problem, and some of them may even be better than the current system, but I'm not convinced that taking the current system and simply removing exams would work.
The evaluation isn’t necessarily the problem, but I think assigning grades may be. It’s gamifies education and I think generally makes things worse.
I think it might be worth spreading some of the standards from medical schools to other programs. Don’t assign a grade to a student, make everything pass/fail. Either you know the material or you do not. There’s no honor roll or deans list and no class rankings.
I think it might be worth spreading some of the standards from medical schools to other programs. Don’t assign a grade to a student, make everything pass/fail. Either you know the material or you do not. There’s no honor roll or deans list and no class rankings.
> Either you know the material or you do not.
This is simply not the case. How well the person knows the material is more than yes/no. You'd be rounding the exam result to 1 bit and throwing away the extra bits of information. Maybe it's a good thing not to show that information to the student, but I'd like to see an argument for why the advantages of hiding that information from the students outweigh the disadvantages.
As for competitiveness in education...there are advantages and disadvantages to it. I'm not convinced that class rankings are a good idea, but I'm also not convinced that the optimal target for competitiveness is zero, to the point of not showing students their grades beyond pass/fail. Anecdotally I've seen the aim for zero competitiveness have perverse effects, where students instead start to compete on how lazy they can (appear to) be while still getting a pass, to show how smart they are.
This is simply not the case. How well the person knows the material is more than yes/no. You'd be rounding the exam result to 1 bit and throwing away the extra bits of information. Maybe it's a good thing not to show that information to the student, but I'd like to see an argument for why the advantages of hiding that information from the students outweigh the disadvantages.
As for competitiveness in education...there are advantages and disadvantages to it. I'm not convinced that class rankings are a good idea, but I'm also not convinced that the optimal target for competitiveness is zero, to the point of not showing students their grades beyond pass/fail. Anecdotally I've seen the aim for zero competitiveness have perverse effects, where students instead start to compete on how lazy they can (appear to) be while still getting a pass, to show how smart they are.
Some of the best medical schools in the world have adopted pass / fail. Either you are good enough to be a doctor or you are not. That makes a lot of sense to me.
Harvard is one example in the US and McMaster is an example in Canada. Neither place has students competing to be most lazy.
Harvard is one example in the US and McMaster is an example in Canada. Neither place has students competing to be most lazy.
What part of "its fundamental premise is flawed" is unclear? I don't propose an alternative because I don't believe the stated goals of the system are achievable or desirable. Also, if one believes something does more harm than good, an argument to stop doing it does not require an alternative.
You don't need more of an alternative to stop digging the hole deeper (subsidizing the problem, hard-requiring degrees awarded by the problem, etc.).
Are you aware that there are grade-free and exam-free schools out there and that they have been operating for decades?
Measuring the effectiveness of school systems is difficult because of selection bias, but I'm sure you could find some attempts (e.g. PISA) if you went looking.
Measuring the effectiveness of school systems is difficult because of selection bias, but I'm sure you could find some attempts (e.g. PISA) if you went looking.
Exams are a bad way of learning… but a good way for a university to filter out slow down people that would devalue their degrees.
> HOW do you measure knowledge? And when you decide how, how do you scale it?
When I was in school, many moons ago (in France) there were no quizzes. Zero. "Tests" were either dissertations (for topics such as literature, history, etc.) or problems. Everything was done in class, in longhand.
There were no good or bad answers, even in math class, because what was evaluated was the ability to describe the problem, the approach, and the solution, and you got points for that even if the ultimate result was wrong.
"Cheating" was very difficult; copying what another student was writing was hard and not very effective, because unless you could reproduce their whole argument, just taking a sentence or two would not make sense.
This system didn't "scale" very well; in fact it didn't scale at all.
If you build a system that let one person "teach" classes of hundred of students and generate quizzes that can be instantly rated by a machine, then some (most?) students are going to try to game that system.
This is inevitable, and I'm not even sure it's a bad thing.
When I was in school, many moons ago (in France) there were no quizzes. Zero. "Tests" were either dissertations (for topics such as literature, history, etc.) or problems. Everything was done in class, in longhand.
There were no good or bad answers, even in math class, because what was evaluated was the ability to describe the problem, the approach, and the solution, and you got points for that even if the ultimate result was wrong.
"Cheating" was very difficult; copying what another student was writing was hard and not very effective, because unless you could reproduce their whole argument, just taking a sentence or two would not make sense.
This system didn't "scale" very well; in fact it didn't scale at all.
If you build a system that let one person "teach" classes of hundred of students and generate quizzes that can be instantly rated by a machine, then some (most?) students are going to try to game that system.
This is inevitable, and I'm not even sure it's a bad thing.
> "Cheating" was very difficult; copying what another student was writing was hard and not very effective, because unless you could reproduce their whole argument, just taking a sentence or two would not make sense.
In high school we often were given two (or more) sets of problems so we can't copy off each other because people sitting one sit away from each other have different sets.
I remember at least one test where I wrote down problems from both sets (they were verbally dictated by the teacher at the beginning of the test). Then I just solved both and passed the solution to his problems to the classmate sitting behind me (I was asked for this ahead of time by him).
In Poland cheating is frowned upon by teachers and they tried to catch the cheaters but there were no formal systems in place to report or excessively punished cheating (like in USA).
In high school we often were given two (or more) sets of problems so we can't copy off each other because people sitting one sit away from each other have different sets.
I remember at least one test where I wrote down problems from both sets (they were verbally dictated by the teacher at the beginning of the test). Then I just solved both and passed the solution to his problems to the classmate sitting behind me (I was asked for this ahead of time by him).
In Poland cheating is frowned upon by teachers and they tried to catch the cheaters but there were no formal systems in place to report or excessively punished cheating (like in USA).
Yes, although many of the students in the story weren’t interested enough in learning, had “low morals”, “no honor” and some apparently were scumbags, as a group they were somewhat efficiently solving the problem of passing the class… that’s not nothing!
In the real world the solutions to your problems can’t be found online, or if they can it’s valid to search them there (and lawyers will charge you a lot to do that). Collectively searching and distributing a solution is something young people are quite adept at (e.g. gaming wikis).
In the real world the solutions to your problems can’t be found online, or if they can it’s valid to search them there (and lawyers will charge you a lot to do that). Collectively searching and distributing a solution is something young people are quite adept at (e.g. gaming wikis).
>> HOW do you measure knowledge? And when you decide how, how do you scale it?
This is what makes the problem intractable. Measuring knowledge takes time, lots of time, by a skilled person. That does not scale.
Since we need (want) scale we necessarily have to use (ever weaker) proxies for measurement. And if there's one thing we do know, you get exactly what you measure for.
Hence, the system is not broken - it's working exactly as intended. It's not "fixable" because there's nothing to fix (at this scale.)
Real learning happens either because a) the student is soaking up everything they possibly can using every resource offered or B) they've left college and are fortunate enough to be in a workplace where there are more knows than know-nots, and they take every opportunity to soak it in like a sponge.
College does not prepare people for the working world (and never will). It is operating exactly as it is designed to do.
This is what makes the problem intractable. Measuring knowledge takes time, lots of time, by a skilled person. That does not scale.
Since we need (want) scale we necessarily have to use (ever weaker) proxies for measurement. And if there's one thing we do know, you get exactly what you measure for.
Hence, the system is not broken - it's working exactly as intended. It's not "fixable" because there's nothing to fix (at this scale.)
Real learning happens either because a) the student is soaking up everything they possibly can using every resource offered or B) they've left college and are fortunate enough to be in a workplace where there are more knows than know-nots, and they take every opportunity to soak it in like a sponge.
College does not prepare people for the working world (and never will). It is operating exactly as it is designed to do.
So, the Leibniz argument? Our current system for educating citizens of all ages is already the best it can be, and any change or even reflection upon it is a waste of time.
You can't educate someone who is not ready to be educated. Those that get the most out of college are those that put the most in. This was true 1000 years ago, and is true now.
Yes, this system is the best [1] because access is open to all (which it wasn't). So those that want to go, can, and those who want to learn, can.
What probably needs to change is the understanding of what college is for. It's not to give you an education, it is to give you the opportunity for you to take an education for yourself.
[1] for some definition of best. Not all schools are created equal, nor all subjects, scale is in play here as well.
Yes, this system is the best [1] because access is open to all (which it wasn't). So those that want to go, can, and those who want to learn, can.
What probably needs to change is the understanding of what college is for. It's not to give you an education, it is to give you the opportunity for you to take an education for yourself.
[1] for some definition of best. Not all schools are created equal, nor all subjects, scale is in play here as well.
I somewhat agree about it being a chance for students to take education for them, but there is also the issue of an institution offering a limited view on a subject like computer science. For example some time ago I estimate that mainstream OOP was taught everywhere, while there was almost no place teaching FP (This is changing slowly now). Even if you took every opportunity you had, you might not have even a teacher or lecturer, who is familiar with it. You could only learn on your own, which you would not need that institution for.
Teaching quality is not the same in all places. Teachers and lecturers are not the same everywhere.
Indeed not all schools, and not all subjects, are created equally. And your education is not limited to the specific subjects, or competencies of the school you happen to be at.
> any change or even reflection upon it is a waste of time.
That’s a bit extreme; I interpreted their view as, it’s hard to fix because of intractable issues, but it doesn’t mean we can’t have marginal improvements. Radical upheavals and revamps are sketchy.
That’s a bit extreme; I interpreted their view as, it’s hard to fix because of intractable issues, but it doesn’t mean we can’t have marginal improvements. Radical upheavals and revamps are sketchy.
In the case of testing, it very much can scale. Tests need to be based on long form questions that test comprehensive knowledge. Open book, Open notes, and hell even open-collaboration up to some limit.
If a test is already graded on partial credit, which in the field of engineering at least most are, then it's no harder to grade than an equivalent test that has less but longer questions.
This obviously doesn't translate for multiple choice tests where there is no partial credit but at least in engineering those don't really exist outside of first year and maybe one or two second year classes. And honestly, every intuition tells me that those classes that I remembered doing no-partial-credit multiple choice should not be doing so in the first place.
Maths classes like algebra, precalc, calculus, statistics, and linear algebra should by no means be using no-partial-credit exams. That defeats the entire purpose of the classes as those classes are to teach techniques rather than any particular raw knowledge.
Same for the introductory hard sciences like chemistry and physics.
And for the ability to handle those more "bespoke" exams, we really need to be asking the question of why certain students are taking certain classes. Many programs have you take a class knowing that only maybe 30% of that will be relevant to your degree.
Instead of funneling all the students through a standard "maths education" class, maybe courses would be better suited by offering an "X degree's maths 1-3" or even simply breaking up maths classes into smaller semesters where you are scheduled to go to teacher X for this specific field up to week A, then teacher Y for this other unrelated maths field up to week B, and teacher Z until the end of the semester. In-major classes need not do this but general pre-req classes could benefit by being shorted and split up through the semester into succinct fields of knowledge so that maths or physics departments aren't being unnecessarily burdened by students who will never once apply the knowledge possibly learned in that class.
-------------
The solution to testing students in a way that they can't cheat is to simply design tests that require students to apply their knowledge as if in the real world. No artificial handicaps and at most checks should be made for obviously plagiarized solutions. If that's not a viable testing mechanism, it's probably worth asking why and considering reworking the course or program.
The solution to students not wanting to absorb knowledge is to stop forcing students to learn topics & techniques they'll never use because maybe some X<25% of them will. Instead split up courses into smaller chunks that can be picked and chosen when building degree tracks.
---------------
Edit: I forgot to include it but this is largely based on my experiences not necessarily just on my own as a student but as a tutor for countless peers and juniors during my time at university, and as a student academics officer directly responsible for monitoring and supporting the academic success of ~300 students for an organisation I was part of. This largely mirrors discussions I've had with teaching staff and it always seems to boil down to "the administration isn't willing to support this" or some other reason based on misplaced incentives at an administrative and operational level (such as researchers being forced to teach courses and refusing to do anything above or often even just at the bare minimum for the courses they are teaching).
If a test is already graded on partial credit, which in the field of engineering at least most are, then it's no harder to grade than an equivalent test that has less but longer questions.
This obviously doesn't translate for multiple choice tests where there is no partial credit but at least in engineering those don't really exist outside of first year and maybe one or two second year classes. And honestly, every intuition tells me that those classes that I remembered doing no-partial-credit multiple choice should not be doing so in the first place.
Maths classes like algebra, precalc, calculus, statistics, and linear algebra should by no means be using no-partial-credit exams. That defeats the entire purpose of the classes as those classes are to teach techniques rather than any particular raw knowledge.
Same for the introductory hard sciences like chemistry and physics.
And for the ability to handle those more "bespoke" exams, we really need to be asking the question of why certain students are taking certain classes. Many programs have you take a class knowing that only maybe 30% of that will be relevant to your degree.
Instead of funneling all the students through a standard "maths education" class, maybe courses would be better suited by offering an "X degree's maths 1-3" or even simply breaking up maths classes into smaller semesters where you are scheduled to go to teacher X for this specific field up to week A, then teacher Y for this other unrelated maths field up to week B, and teacher Z until the end of the semester. In-major classes need not do this but general pre-req classes could benefit by being shorted and split up through the semester into succinct fields of knowledge so that maths or physics departments aren't being unnecessarily burdened by students who will never once apply the knowledge possibly learned in that class.
-------------
The solution to testing students in a way that they can't cheat is to simply design tests that require students to apply their knowledge as if in the real world. No artificial handicaps and at most checks should be made for obviously plagiarized solutions. If that's not a viable testing mechanism, it's probably worth asking why and considering reworking the course or program.
The solution to students not wanting to absorb knowledge is to stop forcing students to learn topics & techniques they'll never use because maybe some X<25% of them will. Instead split up courses into smaller chunks that can be picked and chosen when building degree tracks.
---------------
Edit: I forgot to include it but this is largely based on my experiences not necessarily just on my own as a student but as a tutor for countless peers and juniors during my time at university, and as a student academics officer directly responsible for monitoring and supporting the academic success of ~300 students for an organisation I was part of. This largely mirrors discussions I've had with teaching staff and it always seems to boil down to "the administration isn't willing to support this" or some other reason based on misplaced incentives at an administrative and operational level (such as researchers being forced to teach courses and refusing to do anything above or often even just at the bare minimum for the courses they are teaching).
> Tests need to be based on long form questions that test comprehensive knowledge. Open book, Open notes, and hell even open-collaboration up to some limit.
Coursework is already along these lines, no?
> The solution to testing students in a way that they can't cheat is to simply design tests that require students to apply their knowledge as if in the real world.
How would this apply to a course in real analysis, say?
University education generally isn't intended to be vocational.
Coursework is already along these lines, no?
> The solution to testing students in a way that they can't cheat is to simply design tests that require students to apply their knowledge as if in the real world.
How would this apply to a course in real analysis, say?
University education generally isn't intended to be vocational.
> Coursework is already along these lines, no?
It is but exams are not and if the intent of exams is to test knowledge, they should be in a format that is applicable to the real world and one that can't easily be cheated. Also for what it is worth, for essentially all of the courses I took in university, unless they were explicitly projects based classes, exams were the overwhelming majority of the grades in the course (often ~75-90%).
What this meant in practice was that exams that were closed-book, closed-notes often had averages in the 30s or 40s where everyone got curved upwards at the end of the day while open-book exams had averages in the 60s-80s and students who could apply their knowledge passed the exam while students who couldn't didn't. I can't recall a single course with the latter style of exams where I passed without knowing the material or failed while knowing it. For the prior however I personally experienced both and witnessed numerous other students go through this at the same.
> How would this apply to a course in real analysis, say?
Sorry if I wasn't clear but when I said "as if in the real world" I was referring specifically to students having access to the same resources they would have in the real world (aka reasonably flexible time constraints and with access to texts, resources, and tools) not necessarily that the questions needed to be structured as "in your field you'd use this like this" kind of questions.
It is but exams are not and if the intent of exams is to test knowledge, they should be in a format that is applicable to the real world and one that can't easily be cheated. Also for what it is worth, for essentially all of the courses I took in university, unless they were explicitly projects based classes, exams were the overwhelming majority of the grades in the course (often ~75-90%).
What this meant in practice was that exams that were closed-book, closed-notes often had averages in the 30s or 40s where everyone got curved upwards at the end of the day while open-book exams had averages in the 60s-80s and students who could apply their knowledge passed the exam while students who couldn't didn't. I can't recall a single course with the latter style of exams where I passed without knowing the material or failed while knowing it. For the prior however I personally experienced both and witnessed numerous other students go through this at the same.
> How would this apply to a course in real analysis, say?
Sorry if I wasn't clear but when I said "as if in the real world" I was referring specifically to students having access to the same resources they would have in the real world (aka reasonably flexible time constraints and with access to texts, resources, and tools) not necessarily that the questions needed to be structured as "in your field you'd use this like this" kind of questions.
Tests are a complete waste of time. Nothing in the world of work truly resembles what a test is so why bother testing for it.
Students should be graded on projects and ability to do real things not memorization of a pre-determined set of facts.
Students should be graded on projects and ability to do real things not memorization of a pre-determined set of facts.
Unit testing is also frequently very artificial and disconnected from production use of a codebase. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of value in checking whether things you wrote actually do have the effects you intended.
Can you expand on why splitting up the class would help? I didn't quite get that part.
> Well, maybe we should start by rolling back this common conception that when it comes to schools, everyone’s opinion matters an equal amount
I have some thoughts about the education system, and despite not being a teacher or academic I like to believe that my opinions have some value because I'm an expert programmer that has worked in the field for over 50 years. I attended three different major universities and have degrees in Math, EE, and CS. I still code almost every day (my Emacs configuration is never finished!), and I have in the past taught or been a teaching assistant for both undergrad and graduate courses for four semesters. Cheating has always been a concern, but now things are different.
The original article highlights the scale of exam cheating during the pandemic, but for us, the readers of HN, there is another problem with university learning that happens because of the internet. I've seen this affect virtually all of my younger friends pursuing degrees in CS. Programming assignments in school are unrealistically difficult, and it causes everyone to cheat.
Here's a typical real-life example: after covering doubly linked lists in the undergrad data-structure's class the programming assignment is to write a GUI based text editor in Java using doubly linked lists. This isn't especially hard for a professional programmer, but this is the first programming assignment of the course. Students had to wrestle with Eclipse, learning the AWT/Swing interfaces, event loop programming, and how to translate low level pointer based data structures into non-idiomatic Java based imitations of linked lists that kind of simulated using pointers. Most of the students really couldn't do this on their own, but they didn't have to because they can find the solutions to this very problem right on the internet.
Why would professors give such a program to beginning programmers to write? Because every student turns in a solution, and this causes the professors to lose touch with how difficult their assignments are. Over and over again difficult assignments are given, but the students are seemingly keeping up. The bomb lab assignment is a great assignment for CS students[1], but I've seen it given out with far too few attempts allowed to solve it. Again professors feel like a small number of attempts is all the students should need, they keep turning in the answers. The reason they can is that the complete solution is available on dozens of public Github repos and web sites.
The consequence of such hard and challenging programming assignments is a kind of inflation of the difficulty. The high difficulty causes students to cheat more, since their fellow students are cheating by downloading, cutting and pasting, or simply sharing their programs. There are commercial web-sites like chegg.com that sell the solutions to virtually every homework problem found in CS textbooks. Why should an undergrad spend so much time working on their own homework solutions while other students work openly in big teams at table in the university library?
This kind of cheating is pervasive at the undergrad level. How do we prevent our students to being pushed into cheating to keep up? Graduate school is different, the classes are smaller and more interactive. In my grad school classes I've often had to go to the board to demonstrate my code or proof to the class. Professor Dijkstra used to give individual oral exams to his students. So small interactive classes would help.
I've also seen assembly language programming classes given that require all work to be done on lab computers. The lab computers weren't on the internet and students had to sign in with the lab proctor to use the machines for their assignments. This at least helped some with the problem.
If I was teaching a programming class now, I would require everyone to maintain a git repo that could be checked for realistic commits of the programs as they are written. This might discourage the simple copying of a solution from GitHub the day before the assignment was due.
[1] The text for the bomb-lab assignment (highly recommended by the way): Computer Systems: A Programmer’s Perspective, 3rd edition,Bryant and O’Hallaron, Prentice-Hall, 2016 (ISBN: 0-13-409266- X), a google search will return many bomb-lab assignments and solutions from colleges all over the world.
I have some thoughts about the education system, and despite not being a teacher or academic I like to believe that my opinions have some value because I'm an expert programmer that has worked in the field for over 50 years. I attended three different major universities and have degrees in Math, EE, and CS. I still code almost every day (my Emacs configuration is never finished!), and I have in the past taught or been a teaching assistant for both undergrad and graduate courses for four semesters. Cheating has always been a concern, but now things are different.
The original article highlights the scale of exam cheating during the pandemic, but for us, the readers of HN, there is another problem with university learning that happens because of the internet. I've seen this affect virtually all of my younger friends pursuing degrees in CS. Programming assignments in school are unrealistically difficult, and it causes everyone to cheat.
Here's a typical real-life example: after covering doubly linked lists in the undergrad data-structure's class the programming assignment is to write a GUI based text editor in Java using doubly linked lists. This isn't especially hard for a professional programmer, but this is the first programming assignment of the course. Students had to wrestle with Eclipse, learning the AWT/Swing interfaces, event loop programming, and how to translate low level pointer based data structures into non-idiomatic Java based imitations of linked lists that kind of simulated using pointers. Most of the students really couldn't do this on their own, but they didn't have to because they can find the solutions to this very problem right on the internet.
Why would professors give such a program to beginning programmers to write? Because every student turns in a solution, and this causes the professors to lose touch with how difficult their assignments are. Over and over again difficult assignments are given, but the students are seemingly keeping up. The bomb lab assignment is a great assignment for CS students[1], but I've seen it given out with far too few attempts allowed to solve it. Again professors feel like a small number of attempts is all the students should need, they keep turning in the answers. The reason they can is that the complete solution is available on dozens of public Github repos and web sites.
The consequence of such hard and challenging programming assignments is a kind of inflation of the difficulty. The high difficulty causes students to cheat more, since their fellow students are cheating by downloading, cutting and pasting, or simply sharing their programs. There are commercial web-sites like chegg.com that sell the solutions to virtually every homework problem found in CS textbooks. Why should an undergrad spend so much time working on their own homework solutions while other students work openly in big teams at table in the university library?
This kind of cheating is pervasive at the undergrad level. How do we prevent our students to being pushed into cheating to keep up? Graduate school is different, the classes are smaller and more interactive. In my grad school classes I've often had to go to the board to demonstrate my code or proof to the class. Professor Dijkstra used to give individual oral exams to his students. So small interactive classes would help.
I've also seen assembly language programming classes given that require all work to be done on lab computers. The lab computers weren't on the internet and students had to sign in with the lab proctor to use the machines for their assignments. This at least helped some with the problem.
If I was teaching a programming class now, I would require everyone to maintain a git repo that could be checked for realistic commits of the programs as they are written. This might discourage the simple copying of a solution from GitHub the day before the assignment was due.
[1] The text for the bomb-lab assignment (highly recommended by the way): Computer Systems: A Programmer’s Perspective, 3rd edition,Bryant and O’Hallaron, Prentice-Hall, 2016 (ISBN: 0-13-409266- X), a google search will return many bomb-lab assignments and solutions from colleges all over the world.
> Well, maybe we should start by rolling back this common conception that when it comes to schools, everyone’s opinion matters an equal amount, and then listen to the teachers and academics.
Finland topped Pisa rankings many years, because we 1) listen teachers and have good academic pedagogical research, and 2) teachers are highly educated and reasonably well paid, meaning that the job is attractive to competent people.
Then politicians started to think big and read all the hype papers from think tanks about digitization and how the young are digital natives. Let's give them computers and they learn by themselves and ... we started slipping. Still OK, but slipping. It turns out that computers are not magic. Having all the information accessible is not a pedagogical solution.
ps. Chinese studied Finnish school system and imported some of the best policies in Shanghai and it worked. Some lessons work across widely different cultures.
Finland topped Pisa rankings many years, because we 1) listen teachers and have good academic pedagogical research, and 2) teachers are highly educated and reasonably well paid, meaning that the job is attractive to competent people.
Then politicians started to think big and read all the hype papers from think tanks about digitization and how the young are digital natives. Let's give them computers and they learn by themselves and ... we started slipping. Still OK, but slipping. It turns out that computers are not magic. Having all the information accessible is not a pedagogical solution.
ps. Chinese studied Finnish school system and imported some of the best policies in Shanghai and it worked. Some lessons work across widely different cultures.
As a Norwegian who lived in Finland for a year, it struck me that the parents I met actually CARED what the kids learn in school, instead of just treating school as daycare for older kids.
This, combined with the possiblity for good teachers to gain respect in their communities, is what makes Finnish schools more effective learning environment than Norwegian schools, I think. Not salaries, some specific methodology, etc.
This, combined with the possiblity for good teachers to gain respect in their communities, is what makes Finnish schools more effective learning environment than Norwegian schools, I think. Not salaries, some specific methodology, etc.
> do not have a good understanding of how exactly this system should be fixed, and that it’s not broken for fun but because there are some very difficult unresolved issues.
Because it conflates two things with conflicting incentives. This could and should resolve nicely.
1. Spreading knowledge 2. Certifying competence
To get e.g. a RHCE you may or may not attend the course. You may get the materials elsewhere and study from them, you might get tutoring from someone else who attended the course, you may have enough experience from your day job. This is knowledge acquisition.
Then you attend the certification exam and either succeeded or fail.
If you fail, you get back to knowdge acquisition. Decide to pay for the course this time. Get tutoring. Read the materials again. Maybe retry right away because you were just stressed and disoriented. Then you succeed.
Compare this with college. Fail a couple of examinations? Too bad, you are booted. Want to try again? Repeat up to two years! This is absolutely insane! No surprise people are cheating their way through!
Decouple knowledge acquisition from competence certification. Managed to reach end of the math track but failed physics? No problem! Certify math competence and let them study physics some more! Got enough certifications to warrant a title? Cool, give them the title!
Make it possible for people to step away for a couple of years and then come back to earn some more certifications and even the title when they actually need and want to learn those skills.
Make it possible to study 1/3 of your time for 15 years. Maybe people would stay in the learning mode longer. Unlike many doctors who are hopelessly behind the times. Make it possible to study with kids or sick parents to take care of. Make it a part of the adult culture.
Not something people had to suffer through in their youth to earn their place in the world.
Because it conflates two things with conflicting incentives. This could and should resolve nicely.
1. Spreading knowledge 2. Certifying competence
To get e.g. a RHCE you may or may not attend the course. You may get the materials elsewhere and study from them, you might get tutoring from someone else who attended the course, you may have enough experience from your day job. This is knowledge acquisition.
Then you attend the certification exam and either succeeded or fail.
If you fail, you get back to knowdge acquisition. Decide to pay for the course this time. Get tutoring. Read the materials again. Maybe retry right away because you were just stressed and disoriented. Then you succeed.
Compare this with college. Fail a couple of examinations? Too bad, you are booted. Want to try again? Repeat up to two years! This is absolutely insane! No surprise people are cheating their way through!
Decouple knowledge acquisition from competence certification. Managed to reach end of the math track but failed physics? No problem! Certify math competence and let them study physics some more! Got enough certifications to warrant a title? Cool, give them the title!
Make it possible for people to step away for a couple of years and then come back to earn some more certifications and even the title when they actually need and want to learn those skills.
Make it possible to study 1/3 of your time for 15 years. Maybe people would stay in the learning mode longer. Unlike many doctors who are hopelessly behind the times. Make it possible to study with kids or sick parents to take care of. Make it a part of the adult culture.
Not something people had to suffer through in their youth to earn their place in the world.
This is it. To expand on further on why it's so crazy to couple education and credentialing - already know all the material in a class? Too bad, you have to pay for it and spend time taking it anyway. Is it a class that's completely unconnected to your field? Too bad, the university is making you take it, so you take it. Is the class taught poorly, so that you need to teach yourself outside of it? Too bad, you still have to pay for it and put time into it, in addition to actually teaching yourself the subject.
The education is the major chunk of time and cost, but the credentialing is what most people are trying to get. By forcing people to buy them together, you can make people pay a lot (in terms of both time and money) for an education they find little worth in just because it's the only way to get the credentials.
The education is the major chunk of time and cost, but the credentialing is what most people are trying to get. By forcing people to buy them together, you can make people pay a lot (in terms of both time and money) for an education they find little worth in just because it's the only way to get the credentials.
So true. And another benefit would be that domain experts giving a course could focus on teaching and sharing their knowledge instead of being forced to deal with all the organisational fluff around final grading and "catching cheaters" that is a giant waste of their time. (I see only usefulness in grading as a feedback mechanism for students – but not as "certification" of student's knowledge for the outside world. I also believe it would be more healthy for both students and teachers if you the grades were just a guidance tool, not something that will affect your future prospects at life).
At the end of the day the final grades from school / college grades depend on so many factors that this signal is close to noise anyway, but in college it often feels somehow more important than the actual learning and so much time and stress is spent on them.
In a better world I imagine it would be the organisations that need specific knowledge co-sponsoring "exam centers", separate from colleges, where you could go and get a certificate saying how well you know a given subject. Private companies that want to hire the best people actually have a good incentive to make these exams as fair and useful as possible.
To make an analogy with GAN networks in deep learning: the college would act as a generative part and "exam center" would be the discriminative part. It seems to work pretty well in ML, maybe it would work in education too?:D
At the end of the day the final grades from school / college grades depend on so many factors that this signal is close to noise anyway, but in college it often feels somehow more important than the actual learning and so much time and stress is spent on them.
In a better world I imagine it would be the organisations that need specific knowledge co-sponsoring "exam centers", separate from colleges, where you could go and get a certificate saying how well you know a given subject. Private companies that want to hire the best people actually have a good incentive to make these exams as fair and useful as possible.
To make an analogy with GAN networks in deep learning: the college would act as a generative part and "exam center" would be the discriminative part. It seems to work pretty well in ML, maybe it would work in education too?:D
I've thought engineering licensure found a reasonable balance.
Everyone has to pass the two certifying exams for their discipline, but there are multiple paths for assuming somebody has acquired the knowledge for the exam, ranging from years of industry work to passing standardized tests to having a college engineering degree.
Everyone has to pass the two certifying exams for their discipline, but there are multiple paths for assuming somebody has acquired the knowledge for the exam, ranging from years of industry work to passing standardized tests to having a college engineering degree.
Well formulated.
It seems to me that a lot of problems in the real-world can be tracked down to unnecessary dependencies (in this case, having to attend college in order to get certified).
It seems to me that a lot of problems in the real-world can be tracked down to unnecessary dependencies (in this case, having to attend college in order to get certified).
>These are very hard questions, and it’s frustrating to read the phrase “we need to fix the system” because yes, obviously we do, but agreeing that things are bad isn’t the hard part, and probably input from people who have never worked in the field is of pretty limited value in how to resolve the hard part, and will not do much more than annoy teachers even more.
I don't agree that the system is broken (broken to me is something that is completely unusable, and we must stop using immediately). The progress we've made as a global civilization is to be credited to the way human knowledge is captured, distributed and taught by us as a species. And certainly formal schooling is a big part of that. And so, I'd rather view the situation as us being on a path of continuous improvement - where everything, including education can be improved.
I don't agree that the system is broken (broken to me is something that is completely unusable, and we must stop using immediately). The progress we've made as a global civilization is to be credited to the way human knowledge is captured, distributed and taught by us as a species. And certainly formal schooling is a big part of that. And so, I'd rather view the situation as us being on a path of continuous improvement - where everything, including education can be improved.
My opinion is that the educational system in most industrialized countries today rewards the wrong things and that the quality of education suffers to allow an easier time of mass-grading and classifying.
Whether this means it’s “broken” or not is of course completely subjective because it depends on what you think the educational system should be doing in the first place.
Whether this means it’s “broken” or not is of course completely subjective because it depends on what you think the educational system should be doing in the first place.
>completely subjective because it depends on what you think the educational system should be doing in the first place.
Yup, you nailed it. That is the crux of the argument. I think it also leads into the meta discussion of what it means to be a "productive member of society" and how education fits into that philosophy. Why should one be forced by society at-large to be educated, or productive, or anything at all? :)
Yup, you nailed it. That is the crux of the argument. I think it also leads into the meta discussion of what it means to be a "productive member of society" and how education fits into that philosophy. Why should one be forced by society at-large to be educated, or productive, or anything at all? :)
> Well, maybe we should start by rolling back this common conception that when it comes to schools, everyone’s opinion matters an equal amount, and then listen to the teachers and academics.
No, we should listen to the people when deciding what the purpose of school should be, THEN refer to the experts on those purposes. Is it teaching random factoids? Making people "cultured"? Separating out people who follow instructions and learn well from those who don't? Introducing habits useful in a workplace? Good habits of thought? Teaching the knowledge required to vote sensibly? To provide some foundational knowledge for later vocational training? To navigate and function in the modern world? Is it just day care for kids?
First decide on the purpose(s) (and their weightings if many) and only then can we have a plan. I think there hasn't been anywhere near enough thought given by most people about what the purpose(s) of schooling is(are).
No, we should listen to the people when deciding what the purpose of school should be, THEN refer to the experts on those purposes. Is it teaching random factoids? Making people "cultured"? Separating out people who follow instructions and learn well from those who don't? Introducing habits useful in a workplace? Good habits of thought? Teaching the knowledge required to vote sensibly? To provide some foundational knowledge for later vocational training? To navigate and function in the modern world? Is it just day care for kids?
First decide on the purpose(s) (and their weightings if many) and only then can we have a plan. I think there hasn't been anywhere near enough thought given by most people about what the purpose(s) of schooling is(are).
> So what’s the solution then? Well, maybe we should start by rolling back this common conception that when it comes to schools, everyone’s opinion matters an equal amount, and then listen to the teachers and academics.
Well, yes, but at some point we look at the system, see human beings spend over a decade of very precious years doing just that, and not really getting over a decade's worth of benefits.
If we just want to incrementally improve things then definitely we should let specialists have the most weight. But listening to educators will absolutely never lead to major reforms or (god forbid!) reducing the years spent in the system.
Well, yes, but at some point we look at the system, see human beings spend over a decade of very precious years doing just that, and not really getting over a decade's worth of benefits.
If we just want to incrementally improve things then definitely we should let specialists have the most weight. But listening to educators will absolutely never lead to major reforms or (god forbid!) reducing the years spent in the system.
Students are just as much a part of the system as teachers, so I don't think this elitism about who can have an opinion is helpful.
I think there are a few constructive things that can be done. One is allowing curious students to design their own academic career (with guidance and supervision). I think students usually cheat because they think the course work is irrelevant to their future lives. Sure people need to be exposed to new things, but a semester on something you know you will never care about is torture. I have a computer science degree, but I remember being forced to take geology. To this day I can't think of a bigger waste of time, I remember nothing from it, and even if I did I would never use it.
Vocational schools and apprenticeship should also really come back. I know parents want their kids to be part of the affluent elite, but in a good society being a car mechanic should be a good life. There's no point saddling people with student debt if their degree gets them a job at starbucks.
I also think that things like essays are a lot better than quizzes. Sans plagiarism, it's hard to fake knowledge if you have to write it out.
I think there are a few constructive things that can be done. One is allowing curious students to design their own academic career (with guidance and supervision). I think students usually cheat because they think the course work is irrelevant to their future lives. Sure people need to be exposed to new things, but a semester on something you know you will never care about is torture. I have a computer science degree, but I remember being forced to take geology. To this day I can't think of a bigger waste of time, I remember nothing from it, and even if I did I would never use it.
Vocational schools and apprenticeship should also really come back. I know parents want their kids to be part of the affluent elite, but in a good society being a car mechanic should be a good life. There's no point saddling people with student debt if their degree gets them a job at starbucks.
I also think that things like essays are a lot better than quizzes. Sans plagiarism, it's hard to fake knowledge if you have to write it out.
> Students are just as much a part of the system as teachers, so I don't think this elitism about who can have an opinion is helpful.
Of course everyone can have an opinion! But are these truly likely to contribute to solving the problem? Of course not. Some people are more likely to have the experience and skills to comprehend and advocate for better solutions.
Yes, I tend to support democratic forms of government over others. However, I'm under no illusion that democracy's broad, sweeping claims about what government are "best" are really defensible when applied to the general problem of collective problem solving under real-world constraints.
Having one person, one vote seems intuitive and valuable for certain decisions. In particular, it seems useful and practical for selecting certain representatives. But I (and many others) don't think it is a great way of making policy decisions in general. Just as one example: committees of experts can make sense in some contexts.
But in general, we can do better than what most of us have seen so far. We have to do better than that. Look at how well government(s) at all levels are serving their constituents. I think it is self-evident that all can stand tremendous improvement.
So, for any particular context, think about how to design mechanisms that are likely to work well. In so doing, one must account for many factors, including: human biases, cognitive limitations, cultural differences, imperfect communication, economic costs, time constraints, factions, self-interest, lack of experience, and so on.
Keeping these in mind, how exactly would you select, organize, and structure an ongoing set of interactions between, say 1,000 people such that one can maximize the quality of their resulting collective recommendations?
One option is to choose 1,000 people at random and weight their opinions evenly. But this is underspecified. How do you compress those recommendations into a form that others are likely to read? How do you discover collective preferences? There are dozens of key questions even if you generally adhere to the idea of "equally weighting each person's opinion".
But there are manifold other options where each individual's starting opinion is not the driving factor.
I encourage everyone here to study political economy, history, philosophy, and anthropology. Disregard your preconceived framings of how people make decisions. Look at how others have done it. Look at what theorists suggest might be alternatives. It is an amazing journey. I've been thinking about it for almost twenty years, and it is just as fascinating, if not more, as when I first got exposed to these ideas in policy school.
Of course everyone can have an opinion! But are these truly likely to contribute to solving the problem? Of course not. Some people are more likely to have the experience and skills to comprehend and advocate for better solutions.
Yes, I tend to support democratic forms of government over others. However, I'm under no illusion that democracy's broad, sweeping claims about what government are "best" are really defensible when applied to the general problem of collective problem solving under real-world constraints.
Having one person, one vote seems intuitive and valuable for certain decisions. In particular, it seems useful and practical for selecting certain representatives. But I (and many others) don't think it is a great way of making policy decisions in general. Just as one example: committees of experts can make sense in some contexts.
But in general, we can do better than what most of us have seen so far. We have to do better than that. Look at how well government(s) at all levels are serving their constituents. I think it is self-evident that all can stand tremendous improvement.
So, for any particular context, think about how to design mechanisms that are likely to work well. In so doing, one must account for many factors, including: human biases, cognitive limitations, cultural differences, imperfect communication, economic costs, time constraints, factions, self-interest, lack of experience, and so on.
Keeping these in mind, how exactly would you select, organize, and structure an ongoing set of interactions between, say 1,000 people such that one can maximize the quality of their resulting collective recommendations?
One option is to choose 1,000 people at random and weight their opinions evenly. But this is underspecified. How do you compress those recommendations into a form that others are likely to read? How do you discover collective preferences? There are dozens of key questions even if you generally adhere to the idea of "equally weighting each person's opinion".
But there are manifold other options where each individual's starting opinion is not the driving factor.
I encourage everyone here to study political economy, history, philosophy, and anthropology. Disregard your preconceived framings of how people make decisions. Look at how others have done it. Look at what theorists suggest might be alternatives. It is an amazing journey. I've been thinking about it for almost twenty years, and it is just as fascinating, if not more, as when I first got exposed to these ideas in policy school.
Well, in the private world its customer feedback. Sure you dont use their ideas neccessarily, but if, as in this case, 75% of your customers find your product bad then expecting people already part of the system to make radical changes sounds foolish. Theyll just list why it cant change. I admire this teachers cleverness getting his students to pass, but the reality is that it was so big a problem that the system can only be vastly broken and I dont expect people too involved to fix it
I can't see how this addresses the main problem mentioned in the article. My take is that if a student cheats, they should be expelled from university. If you're very lenient, introduce three strikes. The first two strikes will nullify your course as if it hadn't been taken, the third will get you expelled from university. I personally think that would be too lenient, though, and believe that nobody who cheats in any way should have a place in academia. This question has nothing to do with the quality of teaching or problems with tests, etc. It's a matter of intellectual integrity.
When I first heard that students often cheat in higher education not too long ago, I was shocked. When I studied during the 90s at two good German universities, I had not ever heard of anyone who cheated in any course. A cheating student would have been a huge scandal. To be fair, I studied philosophy and general linguistics. I guess people in more practical disciplines cheated even then, e.g. economics -- more specifically, "BWL" in Germany -- always had a bad reputation. However, even in these disciplines cheating was rare. Its incomprehensible to me why lecturers and universities nowadays appear to be so lenient about it.
When I first heard that students often cheat in higher education not too long ago, I was shocked. When I studied during the 90s at two good German universities, I had not ever heard of anyone who cheated in any course. A cheating student would have been a huge scandal. To be fair, I studied philosophy and general linguistics. I guess people in more practical disciplines cheated even then, e.g. economics -- more specifically, "BWL" in Germany -- always had a bad reputation. However, even in these disciplines cheating was rare. Its incomprehensible to me why lecturers and universities nowadays appear to be so lenient about it.
The AP classes in American high school, which include a test which can provide college credits if passed were great in my opinion. Mostly because I felt the tests were really good. I took 11 of these tests and I learned a ton that has been relevant and stuck with me ever since. In particular statistics, comp sci, and Spanish seemed really good.
Spanish was a hard test. It involved listening to pre recorded conversations and giving responses.
Comp sci I didn’t take the class, just self studied for the test. It was my first exposure to comp sci and only intro to object oriented code. The test made you utilize an API for a little toy problem. That was very good in retrospect. I didn’t really grok APIs until that exact moment on the test. 12 years later fiddling around with game engines, object oriented concepts still seem familiar.
I think the two things that made these exams good is they were very broad so you needed to have mastered the whole course, and they were not designed by a teacher incentivized to give good grades, so they were pretty hard and didn’t advertise exactly what would be tested.
Not needing 90%+ to do very well on the test was good too. So much of school is avoiding tiny mistakes on otherwise easy content to get a perfect score. Not broadly getting the concepts mastered.
Some neighbor schools offered AP classes but it was culturally accepted that students would not get high scores on the exams. Struck me as pretty pathetic. That was a rich kid private school doing worse than my (admittedly fairly wealthy) public school experience.
Spanish was a hard test. It involved listening to pre recorded conversations and giving responses.
Comp sci I didn’t take the class, just self studied for the test. It was my first exposure to comp sci and only intro to object oriented code. The test made you utilize an API for a little toy problem. That was very good in retrospect. I didn’t really grok APIs until that exact moment on the test. 12 years later fiddling around with game engines, object oriented concepts still seem familiar.
I think the two things that made these exams good is they were very broad so you needed to have mastered the whole course, and they were not designed by a teacher incentivized to give good grades, so they were pretty hard and didn’t advertise exactly what would be tested.
Not needing 90%+ to do very well on the test was good too. So much of school is avoiding tiny mistakes on otherwise easy content to get a perfect score. Not broadly getting the concepts mastered.
Some neighbor schools offered AP classes but it was culturally accepted that students would not get high scores on the exams. Struck me as pretty pathetic. That was a rich kid private school doing worse than my (admittedly fairly wealthy) public school experience.
> do not have a good understanding of how exactly this system should be fixed, and that it’s not broken for fun but because there are some very difficult unresolved issues
I think the reason for feeling of competence that prompts so many people to share their opinions on the matter is that nearly all of us went through this broken system at some point in our lives and our future lives literally depended not so much of what was taught but what was written down as the result of the teaching.
I think the reason for feeling of competence that prompts so many people to share their opinions on the matter is that nearly all of us went through this broken system at some point in our lives and our future lives literally depended not so much of what was taught but what was written down as the result of the teaching.
> So what’s the solution then? Well, maybe we should start by rolling back this common conception that when it comes to schools, everyone’s opinion matters an equal amount, and then listen to the teachers and academics.
Yes, because they've proved they know things by passing through the system and getting good grades. Oh wait...
Sorry for the joke, but seriously, you can't expect us civilians to shut up. Leaving education to educators is as pernicious as leaving law just to lawyers, or journalism just to journalists. In all cases, the outcomes are everyone's business, and because there are real conflicts of interest here (and not just disagreement on facts) it can't just be delegated to experts. Even calling for it will make people rightly suspicious of your agenda.
Unlike with law or journalism though, pretty much everyone has A LOT of experience with the educational system in practice, by being on the receiving end of it for 12+ years. There's a challenge with sharing our experiences in a fruitful way and not just shouting over each other, sure, but suck it up: we have opinions about what education should be and can be, and we won't shut up and leave it to you.
Yes, because they've proved they know things by passing through the system and getting good grades. Oh wait...
Sorry for the joke, but seriously, you can't expect us civilians to shut up. Leaving education to educators is as pernicious as leaving law just to lawyers, or journalism just to journalists. In all cases, the outcomes are everyone's business, and because there are real conflicts of interest here (and not just disagreement on facts) it can't just be delegated to experts. Even calling for it will make people rightly suspicious of your agenda.
Unlike with law or journalism though, pretty much everyone has A LOT of experience with the educational system in practice, by being on the receiving end of it for 12+ years. There's a challenge with sharing our experiences in a fruitful way and not just shouting over each other, sure, but suck it up: we have opinions about what education should be and can be, and we won't shut up and leave it to you.
FWIW the teachers lack perspective. I've dated several teachers and listened to their side about why they teach the way they do. I would propose simple solutions, like a continuous improvement cycle, and educational experiments conducted at random by regular teachers, then reproduced and cross referenced to build new models. They had never considered these ideas before.
When you live your life in a rigorously controlled institution, you only consider what the institution echos. Outside the box thinking is possible, but it's the exception. You need outsider ideas and collaboration.
Politics will never solve these problems. It has to be grassroots and volunteer driven.
When you live your life in a rigorously controlled institution, you only consider what the institution echos. Outside the box thinking is possible, but it's the exception. You need outsider ideas and collaboration.
Politics will never solve these problems. It has to be grassroots and volunteer driven.
> I would propose simple solutions, like a continuous improvement cycle, and educational experiments conducted at random by regular teachers, then reproduced and cross referenced to build new models. They had never considered these ideas before.
I've never met a teacher who didn't do those things; I have met many who wouldn't phrase it like that. Just because they're not using the same terminology as you doesn't mean it isn't happening.
It's very easy to look at a system from the outside and think that they're missing the obvious [1]; things become more complex the more you understand them.
[1] https://xkcd.com/793/
I've never met a teacher who didn't do those things; I have met many who wouldn't phrase it like that. Just because they're not using the same terminology as you doesn't mean it isn't happening.
It's very easy to look at a system from the outside and think that they're missing the obvious [1]; things become more complex the more you understand them.
[1] https://xkcd.com/793/
And then us engineers come in and fix education just like we did taxis (regulatory arbitrage, offloading costs to the ordinary workers in surprising ways they aren’t aware of, increasing traffic congestion throughout cities, but hooking people onto the rides with unsustainable loss making introductory prices long enough that alternatives such as regular cabs and public transport become worse).
Or the way we fixed productivity in ways that has led to no measurable increase in productivity despite nearly everyone having the most powerful device ever invented in the palm of their hands.
Or the way we fixed housing through regulatory arbitrage, once again, converting housing for residents into short term rentals for vacationers, making housing for residents more expensive globally and making their communities worse.
Or the way we fixed cable by going from bundled cable packages where we have to pay $70-$100 to get all our channels, to unbundled walled gardens where we have to pay $70-$100 to get a fraction of content plus we also have to pay internet fees in addition.
Or the way we fixed messaging and phone calls by taking something like a $1/yr WhatsApp membership that offered safe encrypted chat and converting it into a data harvesting machine.
Or the way we fixed stock investing by gamifying investing, bringing in a lot of people into active trading who have no business being in active trading and should just park their money in Fidelity, and then promising “free” trades by allowing big banks to trade against, leading to a massive wealth transfer from naive individuals to sophisticated banks at the best of times.
Or how we destroyed inflation through BTC.
Or saved art through NFTs.
The list just goes on.
Or the way we fixed productivity in ways that has led to no measurable increase in productivity despite nearly everyone having the most powerful device ever invented in the palm of their hands.
Or the way we fixed housing through regulatory arbitrage, once again, converting housing for residents into short term rentals for vacationers, making housing for residents more expensive globally and making their communities worse.
Or the way we fixed cable by going from bundled cable packages where we have to pay $70-$100 to get all our channels, to unbundled walled gardens where we have to pay $70-$100 to get a fraction of content plus we also have to pay internet fees in addition.
Or the way we fixed messaging and phone calls by taking something like a $1/yr WhatsApp membership that offered safe encrypted chat and converting it into a data harvesting machine.
Or the way we fixed stock investing by gamifying investing, bringing in a lot of people into active trading who have no business being in active trading and should just park their money in Fidelity, and then promising “free” trades by allowing big banks to trade against, leading to a massive wealth transfer from naive individuals to sophisticated banks at the best of times.
Or how we destroyed inflation through BTC.
Or saved art through NFTs.
The list just goes on.
>>> HOW do you measure knowledge?
The teachers I've known don't really care about measuring knowledge. They're looking for a reasonable way to motivate engagement with the class, that's not too disruptive of the overall flow of the course. One professor told me, "A student who has made an effort to work through the homework problems a couple times should be able to easily get a B on the exam.
Testing also acknowledges that you're competing for your students' attention, and if you give no assessments, your students will rationally focus all of their effort on the courses that do. Preparation for the test becomes a reasonable measure, not of your knowledge, but of how much effort you need to apply to a course. Since students have been taking exams for years, each student knows how to calibrate their own level of effort.
As a student, after some trial and error, I developed a pretty good routine for getting A's in the two kinds of classes I was taking: Those that were dominated by solving problems and proofs, such as math and physics, and those that were based primarily on written assignments, such as art history.
The teachers I've known don't really care about measuring knowledge. They're looking for a reasonable way to motivate engagement with the class, that's not too disruptive of the overall flow of the course. One professor told me, "A student who has made an effort to work through the homework problems a couple times should be able to easily get a B on the exam.
Testing also acknowledges that you're competing for your students' attention, and if you give no assessments, your students will rationally focus all of their effort on the courses that do. Preparation for the test becomes a reasonable measure, not of your knowledge, but of how much effort you need to apply to a course. Since students have been taking exams for years, each student knows how to calibrate their own level of effort.
As a student, after some trial and error, I developed a pretty good routine for getting A's in the two kinds of classes I was taking: Those that were dominated by solving problems and proofs, such as math and physics, and those that were based primarily on written assignments, such as art history.
I can tell you that almost every teacher who is not burnt out, does care about how we measure knowledge, mainly because they have to. The big difficulty is that there are two roles for teachers, on one hand you are a mentor and supposed to impart knowledge onto your students (the teaching part). On the other hand you are a gatekeeper, you are supposed to check that the thresholds for some qualification are met. Now if we had an ideal way to measure knowledge those two roles would not really be in conflict with ech other, but because we don't teachers have the difficult job of trying to teach a subject and at the same time find a good way to see if the students actually learnt what the were supposed to. All that with a limited amount of time that is available.
What do they do with the information? The threshold in most courses is to be able to pass the next course. The students who won't do that, tend to drop out, or switch to an easier major, of which there are many.
Teachers do tend to change their content and methods if a large number of students are failing exams, but I think it's based more on a hunch, than on hoping that test scores will yield analytical quality data. This is the sense I get from talking to a lot of teachers. My only teaching experience was one semester at a big ten university, a long time ago.
Teachers do tend to change their content and methods if a large number of students are failing exams, but I think it's based more on a hunch, than on hoping that test scores will yield analytical quality data. This is the sense I get from talking to a lot of teachers. My only teaching experience was one semester at a big ten university, a long time ago.
You make it more important to be eventually right than initially right.
Allow tests to be continuously regraded as the things students get wrong are corrected.
Automation would go a long way towards making that more feasible (i.e. easier for a multiple choice test than a written one).
But the emphasis on being right initially as the only thing that matters is unhealthy, and certainly in part what leads to the majority of people doubling down on confirmation bias rather than admitting being wrong and learning/incorporating the knowledge for the future.
Yes, there are practical issues with improving the system. But I've had a few select teachers that had that policy in some form years ago, and it was often the best teachers that did. We'd benefit from a widespread adoption of similar and it might lower the inventive for trying to cheat to be right the first time, as to the kids being brought up in these systems and reflecting these systems, that's the only thing that matters.
Allow tests to be continuously regraded as the things students get wrong are corrected.
Automation would go a long way towards making that more feasible (i.e. easier for a multiple choice test than a written one).
But the emphasis on being right initially as the only thing that matters is unhealthy, and certainly in part what leads to the majority of people doubling down on confirmation bias rather than admitting being wrong and learning/incorporating the knowledge for the future.
Yes, there are practical issues with improving the system. But I've had a few select teachers that had that policy in some form years ago, and it was often the best teachers that did. We'd benefit from a widespread adoption of similar and it might lower the inventive for trying to cheat to be right the first time, as to the kids being brought up in these systems and reflecting these systems, that's the only thing that matters.
> HOW do you measure knowledge?
This is not the issue, this is the root cause of the issue.
You DON'T measure knowledge.
You should measure the satisfaction of the students.
Because the most valuable asset a developed country needs to protect is the will of the members of their society to keep improving and learning.
> maybe we should start by rolling back this common conception that when it comes to schools, everyone’s opinion matters an equal amount, and then listen to the teachers and academics.
pity that academics and teachers often disagree and, most of all, that schools are public and payed by people's taxes in many developed countries in the World, so people have a right to say.
Teachers are not doctors, doctors practice medicine, teachers do no operate in such a stressful environment, they "educate" young people and is is often the case that it means they impose or suggest their opinions (because they can, nothing prevents them) and families see that kind of "education" unfit for their kids.
And they have all the rights in the World to be listened too, even if they are technically wrong or I disagree with them (I completely disagree on catholic schools for example).
The experts are there to find a solution to their problems, not to build hypothetical perfect solutions in a void.
Also: teachers are there because students are forced to go to school, so they serve, they do not lead. In my country (and practically all other countries in Europe) they are like bus drivers, they are fulfilling an obligation required by State laws under the State government but also offering a service the people paid for to the State.
Maybe instead of listening to "our" teachers and academics, we should look at places where the system is proven to work and copy it: see Finland.
CONTROVERSIAL
On a last note, there's a topic I believe it's the most important, that will quite certainly cause uproar.
If your youngest students die in school shot by someone just a bit older than them, the society you live in have failed in every possible way.
The fact that the system is broken is a joke compared to that.
This is not the issue, this is the root cause of the issue.
You DON'T measure knowledge.
You should measure the satisfaction of the students.
Because the most valuable asset a developed country needs to protect is the will of the members of their society to keep improving and learning.
> maybe we should start by rolling back this common conception that when it comes to schools, everyone’s opinion matters an equal amount, and then listen to the teachers and academics.
pity that academics and teachers often disagree and, most of all, that schools are public and payed by people's taxes in many developed countries in the World, so people have a right to say.
Teachers are not doctors, doctors practice medicine, teachers do no operate in such a stressful environment, they "educate" young people and is is often the case that it means they impose or suggest their opinions (because they can, nothing prevents them) and families see that kind of "education" unfit for their kids.
And they have all the rights in the World to be listened too, even if they are technically wrong or I disagree with them (I completely disagree on catholic schools for example).
The experts are there to find a solution to their problems, not to build hypothetical perfect solutions in a void.
Also: teachers are there because students are forced to go to school, so they serve, they do not lead. In my country (and practically all other countries in Europe) they are like bus drivers, they are fulfilling an obligation required by State laws under the State government but also offering a service the people paid for to the State.
Maybe instead of listening to "our" teachers and academics, we should look at places where the system is proven to work and copy it: see Finland.
CONTROVERSIAL
On a last note, there's a topic I believe it's the most important, that will quite certainly cause uproar.
If your youngest students die in school shot by someone just a bit older than them, the society you live in have failed in every possible way.
The fact that the system is broken is a joke compared to that.
> Maybe instead of listening to "our" teachers and academics, we should look at places where the system is proven to work and copy it: see Finland.
I did an education degree, and come from a family of educators. Every educator and academic I've talked to (I can't remember an exception) wanted our system to be more like Finland's. The people pushing back against changes in that direction were not teachers, but politicians, parents and high-up administrators.
>Teachers are not doctors
Indeed. And you wouldn't tell a doctor how to do their job, even if you had spent years as a patient. People in the education system have opinions that are informed by years of experience in the field and decades of research. With respect, I'm thinking you are an example of the type of person described by the comment you're replying to: not much experience inside the system but confident in your opinion of how to fix it.
> schools are public and payed by people's taxes in many developed countries in the World, so people have a right to say.
My country, and yours too I think, pays for health care with taxes along with education. Again, does that mean you and I get to tell a doctor how to do their job?
> teachers are there because students are forced to go to school, so they serve, they do not lead
Teachers existed long before mandatory attendance laws. Also, what point are you trying to make with this statement? That because they are necessary by law, their professional opinion is negligible?
I did an education degree, and come from a family of educators. Every educator and academic I've talked to (I can't remember an exception) wanted our system to be more like Finland's. The people pushing back against changes in that direction were not teachers, but politicians, parents and high-up administrators.
>Teachers are not doctors
Indeed. And you wouldn't tell a doctor how to do their job, even if you had spent years as a patient. People in the education system have opinions that are informed by years of experience in the field and decades of research. With respect, I'm thinking you are an example of the type of person described by the comment you're replying to: not much experience inside the system but confident in your opinion of how to fix it.
> schools are public and payed by people's taxes in many developed countries in the World, so people have a right to say.
My country, and yours too I think, pays for health care with taxes along with education. Again, does that mean you and I get to tell a doctor how to do their job?
> teachers are there because students are forced to go to school, so they serve, they do not lead
Teachers existed long before mandatory attendance laws. Also, what point are you trying to make with this statement? That because they are necessary by law, their professional opinion is negligible?
> And you wouldn't tell a doctor how to do their job, even if you had spent years as a patient
That's not correlated: doctors ask patient how do they feel all the time.
If they don't feel well, they try to adjust the prescription and/or the therapy.
Don't like the word satisfaction?
Replace it with "listen to feedback from your customers".
Maybe it's gonna ring a bell.
disclaimer: most of my family members work or have worked in health care.
> That because they are necessary by law, their professional opinion is negligible?
The point is that they do not run the education system, they are employees of the education system
And should act like that.
Meaning that they have proper channels already in place to file their complains. Including protected rights like the right to go on strike.
If they want to govern it, they better step up their career and try with politics or with manager roles.
So that teachers can complain about them, their choices and how much of a better job they would do if they were in their position.
That's not correlated: doctors ask patient how do they feel all the time.
If they don't feel well, they try to adjust the prescription and/or the therapy.
Don't like the word satisfaction?
Replace it with "listen to feedback from your customers".
Maybe it's gonna ring a bell.
disclaimer: most of my family members work or have worked in health care.
> That because they are necessary by law, their professional opinion is negligible?
The point is that they do not run the education system, they are employees of the education system
And should act like that.
Meaning that they have proper channels already in place to file their complains. Including protected rights like the right to go on strike.
If they want to govern it, they better step up their career and try with politics or with manager roles.
So that teachers can complain about them, their choices and how much of a better job they would do if they were in their position.
> doctors ask patient how do they feel all the time.
And teachers _constantly_ monitor how their students are doing - "feedback from their customers" if you want to put it that way. Talking with them during or after class to see how things are going, assessments on homework, projects and tests, parent-teacher interviews, individual learning plans, collaborations between teachers... I would venture to say "making sure a student is doing well" takes up most of the time of the job.
A patient complaining to their doctor about some treatment not working is not telling the doctor how to do their job. Your first comment made a claim about how student assessments should be done. This is something at the heart of pedagogy and has been studied and experimented on. The analogy to health care would be like if you declared the ways in which doctors should screen for cancer. Nobody without medical training would ever think to make such a claim, but many people seem quite confident in making similar claims about how the education system should work, as you did in your first comment.
I'm not even making an argument about whether you are right or wrong. There are many ways in which assessments can change for the better (educators would be the first to agree with you there). But to then go on and say "you shouldn't measure knowledge, only student satisfaction" without really showing an understanding of how knowledge or satisfaction are currently - or potentially could be - assessed... are you up to date with recent literature on these concepts? Do you have experience performing these kinds of assessments?
I'm still not sure what point you are making with your second section in this comment so I won't try to respond.
And teachers _constantly_ monitor how their students are doing - "feedback from their customers" if you want to put it that way. Talking with them during or after class to see how things are going, assessments on homework, projects and tests, parent-teacher interviews, individual learning plans, collaborations between teachers... I would venture to say "making sure a student is doing well" takes up most of the time of the job.
A patient complaining to their doctor about some treatment not working is not telling the doctor how to do their job. Your first comment made a claim about how student assessments should be done. This is something at the heart of pedagogy and has been studied and experimented on. The analogy to health care would be like if you declared the ways in which doctors should screen for cancer. Nobody without medical training would ever think to make such a claim, but many people seem quite confident in making similar claims about how the education system should work, as you did in your first comment.
I'm not even making an argument about whether you are right or wrong. There are many ways in which assessments can change for the better (educators would be the first to agree with you there). But to then go on and say "you shouldn't measure knowledge, only student satisfaction" without really showing an understanding of how knowledge or satisfaction are currently - or potentially could be - assessed... are you up to date with recent literature on these concepts? Do you have experience performing these kinds of assessments?
I'm still not sure what point you are making with your second section in this comment so I won't try to respond.
> And teachers _constantly_ monitor how their students are doing
They actually don't do it, not constantly, nor as a way of improving teaching.
They monitor their output, but rarely listen to what the student have to say.
In the end it's not their job, their job is to teach what they are told to teach, they rarely go on a limb for their students.
Because their salary does not depend on it.
But as personal story I've always had a conflict with my Italian teacher in high school, I've always been an A student, even after high school, but she hated my temper, so I've always been graded C (I believe it means sufficient in some parts of the World, for us is 6 in a scale from 3 to 10) and when in our latest test I've submitted the assignment of her favorite and she submitted mine, she was graded 9 and I was graded 6, again!
I won't tell you what color her face was when we told her the truth.
You are going through all of this, no matter what, there's always gonna be some bad teacher and yo can't do anything about it.
And since the mentality is "don't tell a professional how to do their job" it's always the student's fault.
That's why I think student should be asked if they are satisfied of their teachings, not of their grades or about how much fun they are having, but of the people teaching.
> I would venture to say "making sure a student is doing well" takes up most of the time of the job.
I'm glad it was like that for you.
It isn't so common in places I know.
In my country they spend 12, 15 maximum, hours - by contract - a week in school as high school teachers, that is when students need it the most.
Let's start by making them work 30 hours a week, it's one of the few jobs left where presence is fundamental, but we still keep treating teachers like those poor souls who have to grade a bunch of four pages written tests, like if computers have not been invented yet. It takes them weeks usually.
> A patient complaining to their doctor about some treatment not working is not telling the doctor how to do their job
I think I have not been clear: they are not complaining, they are being asked questions and depending on their answers the doctor can (should) understand if the treatment is working as intended and not causing too many contraindications .
So the analogy in education should be smth like "what's your favorite Renaissance author, and why?" not "What's the date that changed the life of Machiavelli forever?" (real question from a real questionnaire)
There is no talking to them, nobody grades them for liking profoundly horror movies and writing beautiful essays about them, because it's not "part of the teaching program"
> The analogy to health care would be like if you declared the ways in which doctors should screen for cancer. Nobody without medical training would ever think to make such a claim, but many people seem quite confident in making similar claims about how the education system should work, as you did in your first comment.
I haven't said anything of the sorts.
I am simply saying that if half of the class is getting bad grades in maths you should blame the teacher, not the students.
But bad teachers are allowed to teach anyway, because they are not responsible for their bad teachings.
At least in my country they can't be fired even if they are literally doing nothing.
> without really showing an understanding of how knowledge or satisfaction are currently - or potentially could be - assessed... are you up to date with recent literature on these concepts? Do you have experience performing these kinds of assessments?
I have a few ideas.
For example monitor what subjects show the worst grades or the highest rates of absence from school the day of a test.
These are all basic symptoms of fear and anxiety.
It doesn't take a Nobel prize to understand basic human emotions.
Let's try to understand why, the subject could be really hard or the students really stupid or it could be the teacher. Anyway, being stressed by school it's not something that motivate students.
you could simply ask them to grade their teachers anonymously a couple of times a year.
Internet forums are full of cry for help from students not understanding why they are asked such silly questions and what's the point.
We could monitor those forums, for example...
Unsurprisingly when these kinds of discussions come up, unions complain and go on strike.
And I am all in favor for unions, I have been union delegate in companies I've worked for, but school unions, they are a corporations, at least here.
I've talked to some of them, of course what I'll say is anecdotal I don't pretend to know everyone of them, but when asked why they don't want teachers to be paid better instead of a lot of teachers badly paid who don't do anything important for __education__, they told me blatantly that they prefer two jobs at current wages than one job paid double. They can spin it as a victory. They also told me that if newer teachers are paid better, old timers are going to complain ans tart asking for the same pay (it's kinda impossible here to pay two people different wages for the same job, especially if it's for the public) and that better salaries would encourage more prepared teachers to start teaching and that would look bad for the rest of them.
That's the state of our education system, I hope it is different in all the other countries but according to my friends living all over Europe it's kinda the same everywhere, especially during COVID crisis, where families where left to solve problems schools would not solve, because they couldn't get teachers to get vaccinated or to go to school.
Except, of course, for a few exceptions, that I already mentioned.
But, back on topic, if people studying the subject have no idea, well, that's a problem, don't you agree?
If we wanna keep grading people and "judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree", I think pedagogy is not doing a great service to future generations.
Let's not forget that teachers quote pedagogists when it favors them, but when it goes against their interest, they criticize them saying that "they are talking from their ivory towers. they don't know what's like being a "street" teacher"
Not all is lost or grim, teachers still fight against school commoditization, they still fight against schools as furnaces that generate young workers/consumers, but there's still a lot of conservatorism disguised by idealism.
> Do you have experience performing these kinds of assessments?
As a matter of fact I do.
I wanted to be a teacher, I was discouraged by how limited the space for new ideas was.
In my family, that is very big as I've said, there are teachers.
All of them keep doing it because it's a safe job and the salary is granted, none of them is satisfied of the work they are doing and would gladly do something else, if they had the opportunity.
They all feel like are doing nothing substantial to help the students and that the students know it, but going against the status quo would cost them too much. They tried, they've been burnt, they gave up.
So to get rid of the guilt they grade everyone good, at least they are not unpopular.
They actually don't do it, not constantly, nor as a way of improving teaching.
They monitor their output, but rarely listen to what the student have to say.
In the end it's not their job, their job is to teach what they are told to teach, they rarely go on a limb for their students.
Because their salary does not depend on it.
But as personal story I've always had a conflict with my Italian teacher in high school, I've always been an A student, even after high school, but she hated my temper, so I've always been graded C (I believe it means sufficient in some parts of the World, for us is 6 in a scale from 3 to 10) and when in our latest test I've submitted the assignment of her favorite and she submitted mine, she was graded 9 and I was graded 6, again!
I won't tell you what color her face was when we told her the truth.
You are going through all of this, no matter what, there's always gonna be some bad teacher and yo can't do anything about it.
And since the mentality is "don't tell a professional how to do their job" it's always the student's fault.
That's why I think student should be asked if they are satisfied of their teachings, not of their grades or about how much fun they are having, but of the people teaching.
> I would venture to say "making sure a student is doing well" takes up most of the time of the job.
I'm glad it was like that for you.
It isn't so common in places I know.
In my country they spend 12, 15 maximum, hours - by contract - a week in school as high school teachers, that is when students need it the most.
Let's start by making them work 30 hours a week, it's one of the few jobs left where presence is fundamental, but we still keep treating teachers like those poor souls who have to grade a bunch of four pages written tests, like if computers have not been invented yet. It takes them weeks usually.
> A patient complaining to their doctor about some treatment not working is not telling the doctor how to do their job
I think I have not been clear: they are not complaining, they are being asked questions and depending on their answers the doctor can (should) understand if the treatment is working as intended and not causing too many contraindications .
So the analogy in education should be smth like "what's your favorite Renaissance author, and why?" not "What's the date that changed the life of Machiavelli forever?" (real question from a real questionnaire)
There is no talking to them, nobody grades them for liking profoundly horror movies and writing beautiful essays about them, because it's not "part of the teaching program"
> The analogy to health care would be like if you declared the ways in which doctors should screen for cancer. Nobody without medical training would ever think to make such a claim, but many people seem quite confident in making similar claims about how the education system should work, as you did in your first comment.
I haven't said anything of the sorts.
I am simply saying that if half of the class is getting bad grades in maths you should blame the teacher, not the students.
But bad teachers are allowed to teach anyway, because they are not responsible for their bad teachings.
At least in my country they can't be fired even if they are literally doing nothing.
> without really showing an understanding of how knowledge or satisfaction are currently - or potentially could be - assessed... are you up to date with recent literature on these concepts? Do you have experience performing these kinds of assessments?
I have a few ideas.
For example monitor what subjects show the worst grades or the highest rates of absence from school the day of a test.
These are all basic symptoms of fear and anxiety.
It doesn't take a Nobel prize to understand basic human emotions.
Let's try to understand why, the subject could be really hard or the students really stupid or it could be the teacher. Anyway, being stressed by school it's not something that motivate students.
you could simply ask them to grade their teachers anonymously a couple of times a year.
Internet forums are full of cry for help from students not understanding why they are asked such silly questions and what's the point.
We could monitor those forums, for example...
Unsurprisingly when these kinds of discussions come up, unions complain and go on strike.
And I am all in favor for unions, I have been union delegate in companies I've worked for, but school unions, they are a corporations, at least here.
I've talked to some of them, of course what I'll say is anecdotal I don't pretend to know everyone of them, but when asked why they don't want teachers to be paid better instead of a lot of teachers badly paid who don't do anything important for __education__, they told me blatantly that they prefer two jobs at current wages than one job paid double. They can spin it as a victory. They also told me that if newer teachers are paid better, old timers are going to complain ans tart asking for the same pay (it's kinda impossible here to pay two people different wages for the same job, especially if it's for the public) and that better salaries would encourage more prepared teachers to start teaching and that would look bad for the rest of them.
That's the state of our education system, I hope it is different in all the other countries but according to my friends living all over Europe it's kinda the same everywhere, especially during COVID crisis, where families where left to solve problems schools would not solve, because they couldn't get teachers to get vaccinated or to go to school.
Except, of course, for a few exceptions, that I already mentioned.
But, back on topic, if people studying the subject have no idea, well, that's a problem, don't you agree?
If we wanna keep grading people and "judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree", I think pedagogy is not doing a great service to future generations.
Let's not forget that teachers quote pedagogists when it favors them, but when it goes against their interest, they criticize them saying that "they are talking from their ivory towers. they don't know what's like being a "street" teacher"
Not all is lost or grim, teachers still fight against school commoditization, they still fight against schools as furnaces that generate young workers/consumers, but there's still a lot of conservatorism disguised by idealism.
> Do you have experience performing these kinds of assessments?
As a matter of fact I do.
I wanted to be a teacher, I was discouraged by how limited the space for new ideas was.
In my family, that is very big as I've said, there are teachers.
All of them keep doing it because it's a safe job and the salary is granted, none of them is satisfied of the work they are doing and would gladly do something else, if they had the opportunity.
They all feel like are doing nothing substantial to help the students and that the students know it, but going against the status quo would cost them too much. They tried, they've been burnt, they gave up.
So to get rid of the guilt they grade everyone good, at least they are not unpopular.
That is a lot to sort through and I'll try to pick out the points that are relevant to the discussion we started.
> I haven't said anything of the sorts. I am simply saying that if half of the class is getting bad grades in maths you should blame the teacher, not the students.
Yes, this is exactly what you said:
> "This is not the issue, this is the root cause of the issue. You DON'T measure knowledge. You should measure the satisfaction of the students."
You quite explicitly made a claim about how teachers should assess students. Then I suggested that maybe you should take a step back and question whether you are qualified to make such claims. Now, it seems like you've doubled down, and written a diatribe which superficially touches on a half dozen issues in education. I'm simply pointing out this irony: that the commenter you first replied to was lamenting how so many people outside the field of education feel qualified to make claims about pedagogy. Even if their expertise is limited to, for example:
> I wanted to be a teacher... In my family... there are teachers
Are you aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
> I haven't said anything of the sorts. I am simply saying that if half of the class is getting bad grades in maths you should blame the teacher, not the students.
Yes, this is exactly what you said:
> "This is not the issue, this is the root cause of the issue. You DON'T measure knowledge. You should measure the satisfaction of the students."
You quite explicitly made a claim about how teachers should assess students. Then I suggested that maybe you should take a step back and question whether you are qualified to make such claims. Now, it seems like you've doubled down, and written a diatribe which superficially touches on a half dozen issues in education. I'm simply pointing out this irony: that the commenter you first replied to was lamenting how so many people outside the field of education feel qualified to make claims about pedagogy. Even if their expertise is limited to, for example:
> I wanted to be a teacher... In my family... there are teachers
Are you aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
This speaks to the heart of the issue to me.
Personally I always loved STEM topics, and would go out of my way to learn about them. This ended poorly for me in school, as I ended up being incredibly bored in the STEM classes, as they were filled with content I already knew. Then the other topics I didn't love, and largely did not like to experience them. So in the end my satisfaction was miserable, and I dropped out of 7th grade.
Eventually I got a GED and went to college for CS, but it was that time in-between those two that even allowed that to happen. I needed time to explore the world, find what I wanted to know, and figure out how school can help me get there.
As someone on the other end of the hiring table now, I don't even care about knowledge. Knowledge tells me how far you've got. I don't care how far you've got, I want to know how quickly you pick up the material based on the job I'm hiring for. I care about acceleration. While the two can be correlated, it's not precise. There's not a single hiring test that I can do to figure out someone's acceleration. What I do know, that testing the farthest on some topic as a metric, like leetcode does, it's going to fail every single jack of all trades programmer.
Personally I always loved STEM topics, and would go out of my way to learn about them. This ended poorly for me in school, as I ended up being incredibly bored in the STEM classes, as they were filled with content I already knew. Then the other topics I didn't love, and largely did not like to experience them. So in the end my satisfaction was miserable, and I dropped out of 7th grade.
Eventually I got a GED and went to college for CS, but it was that time in-between those two that even allowed that to happen. I needed time to explore the world, find what I wanted to know, and figure out how school can help me get there.
As someone on the other end of the hiring table now, I don't even care about knowledge. Knowledge tells me how far you've got. I don't care how far you've got, I want to know how quickly you pick up the material based on the job I'm hiring for. I care about acceleration. While the two can be correlated, it's not precise. There's not a single hiring test that I can do to figure out someone's acceleration. What I do know, that testing the farthest on some topic as a metric, like leetcode does, it's going to fail every single jack of all trades programmer.
> Personally I always loved STEM topics, and would go out of my way to learn about them. This ended poorly for me in school, as I ended up being incredibly bored in the STEM classes, as they were filled with content I already knew.
Thanks for posting this.
This was my experience as well, with the added malus that when I went into school, people were still saying things like "what do I need maths for?" or "a computer will never write the next Dante" and things like that, so not only it was frustrating, it was borderline painful and lonely.
Then I discovered kids, I don't have kids on my own, but I have a very big family and I am grateful for being surrounded by people younger than me of any age from 3 to 20.
I saw them being entertained by the most boring stuff just because it was new to them and build up from there, at an incredible pace, and become young experts, with all the limits of being inexpert and also being kids, in a very short time.
I realized that what kept them motivate was a feedback loop that needed no external validation: knowing more about that thing made them happily satisfied and so they kept doing it. They don't care about understanding things the wrong way, eventually they'll get it right, they don't care about not doing any mistake, eventually they'll learn to make new mistake, they just wanna learn more and experience more.
What you call "acceleration".
I saw most of them struggle in school because they were bored, they were getting good grades, most of them at least, they were kin to put up the work necessary to get them, but their motivation started lacking, until they arrived to university and chose something that could (potentially) assure a good job or would make their parents happy.
It's a sad state of things, if I think about it, but it's also a "great filter" and we should strive to make education something that adapts to people receiving it (I'm not talking about schools for the gifted or smth like that) and not the other way around.
When I was in my 30s a friend of mine married a woman from Finland, who was living in Sweden, and then they moved back there when they had kids. I've visited them on many occasions and when I saw how they intend school there I was astonished.
They are not tracked, they are not tested, there is no standardized grade scale, there is virtually no homeworks, they do not compete, they learn by playing and are simply thought that you have to get the basics rights to go on and then helped to follow their paths.
I think that, in general, it makes happier adults.
Which is a good goal by itself.
Thanks for posting this.
This was my experience as well, with the added malus that when I went into school, people were still saying things like "what do I need maths for?" or "a computer will never write the next Dante" and things like that, so not only it was frustrating, it was borderline painful and lonely.
Then I discovered kids, I don't have kids on my own, but I have a very big family and I am grateful for being surrounded by people younger than me of any age from 3 to 20.
I saw them being entertained by the most boring stuff just because it was new to them and build up from there, at an incredible pace, and become young experts, with all the limits of being inexpert and also being kids, in a very short time.
I realized that what kept them motivate was a feedback loop that needed no external validation: knowing more about that thing made them happily satisfied and so they kept doing it. They don't care about understanding things the wrong way, eventually they'll get it right, they don't care about not doing any mistake, eventually they'll learn to make new mistake, they just wanna learn more and experience more.
What you call "acceleration".
I saw most of them struggle in school because they were bored, they were getting good grades, most of them at least, they were kin to put up the work necessary to get them, but their motivation started lacking, until they arrived to university and chose something that could (potentially) assure a good job or would make their parents happy.
It's a sad state of things, if I think about it, but it's also a "great filter" and we should strive to make education something that adapts to people receiving it (I'm not talking about schools for the gifted or smth like that) and not the other way around.
When I was in my 30s a friend of mine married a woman from Finland, who was living in Sweden, and then they moved back there when they had kids. I've visited them on many occasions and when I saw how they intend school there I was astonished.
They are not tracked, they are not tested, there is no standardized grade scale, there is virtually no homeworks, they do not compete, they learn by playing and are simply thought that you have to get the basics rights to go on and then helped to follow their paths.
I think that, in general, it makes happier adults.
Which is a good goal by itself.
> You DON'T measure knowledge.
> You should measure the satisfaction of the students.
> Because the most valuable asset a developed country needs to protect is the will of the members of their society to keep improving and learning.
But if they aren't actually improving and learning, their satisfaction and desire to continue with what they were getting isn't desire to keep improving and learning.
Self-improvement theater is as much a thing as security theater, and it's something we probably want to be able to distinguish from actual education.
> You should measure the satisfaction of the students.
> Because the most valuable asset a developed country needs to protect is the will of the members of their society to keep improving and learning.
But if they aren't actually improving and learning, their satisfaction and desire to continue with what they were getting isn't desire to keep improving and learning.
Self-improvement theater is as much a thing as security theater, and it's something we probably want to be able to distinguish from actual education.
> But if they aren't actually improving and learning, their satisfaction and desire to continue with what they were getting isn't desire to keep improving and learning.
good for them.
In which way this is an obstacle for those who want to?
good for them.
In which way this is an obstacle for those who want to?
>This is not the issue, this is the root cause of the issue.
>You DON'T measure knowledge.
>You should measure the satisfaction of the students.
>Because the most valuable asset a developed country needs to protect is the will of the members of their society to keep improving and learning.
What is satisfaction going to get you? As a student, I would have been very satisfied to have great marks while enjoying each night of the week, unfortunately I had to work and skip parties.
>You DON'T measure knowledge.
>You should measure the satisfaction of the students.
>Because the most valuable asset a developed country needs to protect is the will of the members of their society to keep improving and learning.
What is satisfaction going to get you? As a student, I would have been very satisfied to have great marks while enjoying each night of the week, unfortunately I had to work and skip parties.
> As a student, I would have been very satisfied to have great marks
that's the wrong way to look at it.
As a student you would have been very satisfied to have recognition for your hard work (something that rarely happens in most school systems I know)
You switched cause and effect.
> while enjoying each night of the week, unfortunately I had to work and skip parties
So you were getting satisfaction from doing it, or you would have skipped studying to go to parties.
Which is what I did, I had great marks and went to parties to reward myself.
that's the wrong way to look at it.
As a student you would have been very satisfied to have recognition for your hard work (something that rarely happens in most school systems I know)
You switched cause and effect.
> while enjoying each night of the week, unfortunately I had to work and skip parties
So you were getting satisfaction from doing it, or you would have skipped studying to go to parties.
Which is what I did, I had great marks and went to parties to reward myself.
"You should measure the satisfaction of the students"
OK. Then how do you measure competency? Right now, a medical diploma indicates that the person took all the requisites and passed all the tests to be a practicing physician. If you only measure student satisfaction, how do you which medical student is ready to treat real patients and which isn't?
OK. Then how do you measure competency? Right now, a medical diploma indicates that the person took all the requisites and passed all the tests to be a practicing physician. If you only measure student satisfaction, how do you which medical student is ready to treat real patients and which isn't?
> OK. Then how do you measure competency?
You don't.
You certify it, when it is required.
> Right now, a medical diploma indicates that the person took all the requisites and passed all the tests to be a practicing physician.
exactly! because it is required by regulations.
> If you only measure student satisfaction, how do you which medical student is ready to treat real patients and which isn't?
there is a high chance than an unsatisfied medical student is gonna be an equally unsatisfied doctor, even if they check all the boxes.
let's be clear: satisfaction is not a measure of how much they are having fun.
just like if you go to the gym you're not more satisfied if they give you free candies and hot dogs and couches with Netflix, but you end up being fatter and less fit than before.
You don't.
You certify it, when it is required.
> Right now, a medical diploma indicates that the person took all the requisites and passed all the tests to be a practicing physician.
exactly! because it is required by regulations.
> If you only measure student satisfaction, how do you which medical student is ready to treat real patients and which isn't?
there is a high chance than an unsatisfied medical student is gonna be an equally unsatisfied doctor, even if they check all the boxes.
let's be clear: satisfaction is not a measure of how much they are having fun.
just like if you go to the gym you're not more satisfied if they give you free candies and hot dogs and couches with Netflix, but you end up being fatter and less fit than before.
> You should measure the satisfaction of the students.
It's very easy to make satisfying and engaging teaching. It's a lot harder to make that valuable.
If we focus on student satisfaction rather than understanding, we're failing them.
It's very easy to make satisfying and engaging teaching. It's a lot harder to make that valuable.
If we focus on student satisfaction rather than understanding, we're failing them.
> If we focus on student satisfaction rather than understanding, we're failing them.
while making them unsatisfied gives them a lot of motivation to understand.
Anyway, satisfaction is about the product: the product is education.
The product is not entertainment.
while making them unsatisfied gives them a lot of motivation to understand.
Anyway, satisfaction is about the product: the product is education.
The product is not entertainment.
> ...input from people who have never worked in the field is of pretty limited value in how to resolve the hard part, and will not do much more than annoy teachers even more.
If people within the education system are getting upset that the people who are supposed to benefit from the education and who are paying an enormous sum of money in order to obtain the education dare to have an opinion about the education, I'd say that's a pretty good indication of the problems with the system. I can't think of any other area where there's anger at customers voicing their opinion. Institutions with that kind of attitude probably wouldn't last long if the education system was opened up and students were actually given some choice (say, by separating education and credentialing).
If people within the education system are getting upset that the people who are supposed to benefit from the education and who are paying an enormous sum of money in order to obtain the education dare to have an opinion about the education, I'd say that's a pretty good indication of the problems with the system. I can't think of any other area where there's anger at customers voicing their opinion. Institutions with that kind of attitude probably wouldn't last long if the education system was opened up and students were actually given some choice (say, by separating education and credentialing).
That last paragraph shows the real issue: that schooling is government controlled and provided.
The only people that ought to be involved are the teachers (and other school employees) the students (and their parents) of that school.
The fact the it might take ‘5 election cycles’ to see a reform through, is a disservice to the students, and often frustrating for the teachers as well.
If government does it, that literally opens the door for everyone else to be involved, muddying otherwise clear waters.
The only people that ought to be involved are the teachers (and other school employees) the students (and their parents) of that school.
The fact the it might take ‘5 election cycles’ to see a reform through, is a disservice to the students, and often frustrating for the teachers as well.
If government does it, that literally opens the door for everyone else to be involved, muddying otherwise clear waters.
How do you offer free universal education without government control?
There’s vouchers, as mentioned.
And why is it necessary for education to be ‘free’ or universal for that matter?
People are different, doesn’t mean we all need to learn the same exact things in the same exact way to be productive members of society. Not that such a goal is ever realistically achievable.
And why is it necessary for education to be ‘free’ or universal for that matter?
People are different, doesn’t mean we all need to learn the same exact things in the same exact way to be productive members of society. Not that such a goal is ever realistically achievable.
???
Free universal education was the key to take poor people out of poverty.
How is this even worth discussing?
Do you realize that if that goes away, we won't be in a libertarian paradise, we'll be back to feudalism?
Countless people from bad environments broke through due to free universal education.
I guess you're not aware of the history on this domain or are just privileged and you don't realize it.
Free universal education was the key to take poor people out of poverty.
How is this even worth discussing?
Do you realize that if that goes away, we won't be in a libertarian paradise, we'll be back to feudalism?
Countless people from bad environments broke through due to free universal education.
I guess you're not aware of the history on this domain or are just privileged and you don't realize it.
Government vouchers for every child that can be used at any education institution whose curriculum includes the government mandated curriculum.
But then people with resources to do so will shop for the best schools meeting this criteria, which hurts people who don't shop.
I would argue that the presence of a market structure would encourage schools to compete and thus drive educational advances that would eventually be used in all schools. In this way even parents who just choose the closest school without looking at the schools testing history or teaching approach are more likely to have better outcomes when competition is stronger.
1. How does the "government mandated curriculum" get enforced?
2. What are the barriers to entry and the fungibility of the educational market? If the educational market isn't truly a free market, then what's the point? More private monopolies and oligopolies without proper oversight?
2. What are the barriers to entry and the fungibility of the educational market? If the educational market isn't truly a free market, then what's the point? More private monopolies and oligopolies without proper oversight?
1.Through standardized testing to ensure the students are actually learning the mandated curriculum.
2. Barries to entry should be low. Maybe teachers must simply be able to pass the standardized tests themselves? I'm not sure what you mean by fungibility here? And I think this system would reduce monopolies in education since schools could choose whatever methods parents preferred, which encourages different approaches. Also the monopolies of the current system, government education departments and religious institutions, would be financially penalized if they underperformed and parents choose alternatives.
The real question is even higher.
Why should we measure knowledge?
If it's learning for the joy of learning you don't need a test. If it's to get a piece of paper you need for a job, then schools are just shitty interviews mostly uncorrelated to real world tasks.
I think we should move to learning for the sake of learning (free, open door lessons or pick your own on the internet at your own time - no frontal lessons but still provide a space for students to socialise) and give the chance to students to work on projects that can prove they know something. Workplaces can look at these projects and find someone who fit with them.
You built a robot? I can reasonably expect you to know something about electrical engineering and math.
If it's learning for the joy of learning you don't need a test. If it's to get a piece of paper you need for a job, then schools are just shitty interviews mostly uncorrelated to real world tasks.
I think we should move to learning for the sake of learning (free, open door lessons or pick your own on the internet at your own time - no frontal lessons but still provide a space for students to socialise) and give the chance to students to work on projects that can prove they know something. Workplaces can look at these projects and find someone who fit with them.
You built a robot? I can reasonably expect you to know something about electrical engineering and math.
why do we need to "measure knowledge"? school should be to teach knowlege. Measuring is not our problem. It is the problem of the employers. Test the teachers not the students. We only need to make sure the teachers are of good quality, not the students.
> why do we need to "measure knowledge"?
Because knowledge is currency. It opens doors to privilege and status in society. It also ensures incompetent people are not put into positions where they can do harm.
Because knowledge is currency. It opens doors to privilege and status in society. It also ensures incompetent people are not put into positions where they can do harm.
You mean measured knowledge acquired through a every specific way is currency. Someone who acquired the same knowledge on his own will be cast aside until he gets his certificate.
That's because the certificate is the value, not the knowledge itself. The knowledge is assumed. Without a certificate, the onus of verifying the required knowledge is now on the consumer or employer, and unsurprisingly neither of them want that, so of course knowledge combined with a respected certificate is worth more than just the knowledge itself.
Would you let an uncredentialled surgeon operate on you?
That's not possible because of regulation. For occupations that don't relate to other people's life or death situations, or security in general, it's reasonable to assume if someone has a skill, they should be able to use it professionally regardless of how they achieved it.
> if someone has a skill, they should be able to use it professionally
Sure, but why would you hire an unlicensed electrician, or surgeon, or car mechanic, or builder, or elevator mechanic, or really anything that matters?
The only areas where this point becomes moot are in areas where certifications already are not an issue, i.e. in jobs that almost anyone can do.
Sure, but why would you hire an unlicensed electrician, or surgeon, or car mechanic, or builder, or elevator mechanic, or really anything that matters?
The only areas where this point becomes moot are in areas where certifications already are not an issue, i.e. in jobs that almost anyone can do.
Because they are cheaper? I’ve hired unlicensed people to fell trees in my yard that weren’t really going to fall on the house etc.
Also, I’m fairly certain car mechanics are not licensed where I live. Sometimes licenses are just frivolous, especially in modern day society.
Also, I’m fairly certain car mechanics are not licensed where I live. Sometimes licenses are just frivolous, especially in modern day society.
I wonder if those unlicensed people had liability insurance, and, if so, if the insurance companies charged more due to their lack of license?
>Sure, but why would you hire an unlicensed electrician, or surgeon, or car mechanic, or builder, or elevator mechanic, or really anything that matters?
You don't need a licensing system, you just need a reputation system. Like how bonds have a rating system; nobody's stopping you buying a junk bond, but the system makes it clear to you that it's a got a high probability of default.
You don't need a licensing system, you just need a reputation system. Like how bonds have a rating system; nobody's stopping you buying a junk bond, but the system makes it clear to you that it's a got a high probability of default.
Ok you can be the first person to receive open heart surgery from an uncredentialed surgeon.
if it was a matter of life and death, of course yes.
If it is not a matter of life and death, there's no possibility it will happen, because of regulations.
Anyway:
More than 250,000 people in the US die every year because of medical mistakes, making it the third-leading cause of death
10 percent of all U.S. deaths are now due to medical errors
If it is not a matter of life and death, there's no possibility it will happen, because of regulations.
Anyway:
More than 250,000 people in the US die every year because of medical mistakes, making it the third-leading cause of death
10 percent of all U.S. deaths are now due to medical errors
> Because knowledge is currency
can I sell it?
Can I buy grocery with knowledge?
Knowledge is a tool!
And it's not even universally true, if you know American English it is perfectly useless in rural China or Japan or Central Africa.
EDIT: I'll add another example that won't upset the American audience.
Numbers in French.
We are used to the decimal system, it won't work in France, they count numbers using the vigesimal system.
So 84, 80 + 4 is quatre-vingt-quatre, 4 x 20 + 4.
My way of counting numbers, which is a basic requirements for kids aged 5, is completely useless in France, even though France is a close Neighbour of my country and we dealt with each other since the dawn of history.
can I sell it?
Can I buy grocery with knowledge?
Knowledge is a tool!
And it's not even universally true, if you know American English it is perfectly useless in rural China or Japan or Central Africa.
EDIT: I'll add another example that won't upset the American audience.
Numbers in French.
We are used to the decimal system, it won't work in France, they count numbers using the vigesimal system.
So 84, 80 + 4 is quatre-vingt-quatre, 4 x 20 + 4.
My way of counting numbers, which is a basic requirements for kids aged 5, is completely useless in France, even though France is a close Neighbour of my country and we dealt with each other since the dawn of history.
Assume for a second that your goal is to teach knowledge, as you say.
How are you telling whether you are successful at that? Even if you do not care about the personal individual achievement level (or whatever) of the students, you still need to be able to measure to understand where you are successfully teaching, and not, so that you can change/improve/etc teaching.
As the comment you replied to said, you can't just wish these problems away, and they are not easy things.
The overall thing is not a problem, they are systems. They can't be "solved" through simplistic answers
How are you telling whether you are successful at that? Even if you do not care about the personal individual achievement level (or whatever) of the students, you still need to be able to measure to understand where you are successfully teaching, and not, so that you can change/improve/etc teaching.
As the comment you replied to said, you can't just wish these problems away, and they are not easy things.
The overall thing is not a problem, they are systems. They can't be "solved" through simplistic answers
How do we know if schools are working? If you test a teacher instead of a student, the problem still exists, how are you going to test a teacher?
Our brilliant courts have made it illegal to give aptitude tests to prospective employees, so they fall back to college degrees as gate keepers.
[deleted]
Classic "tell me you have never been a teacher without telling me you have never been a teacher". Are there bad teachers? Of course. There are bad employees in all industries. But teaching is an extremely difficult job that underpays so most people are in the profession because they want to help kids.
Some things to understand about teaching. You must always teach at the middle kid in terms of ability and intelligence. By default this already means that some kids will be lost and some kids will be bored. This is made worse by conflating age with competence. Additionally, teachers have no understanding of what the kids are going through at home. Say you have a kid that never does homework? Is that the teacher's fault? Is it because the kid is lazy and just plays fortnight at home? Or is it because the parent's only job is night shift and the kids is a de facto parent watching two other kids? Or is it because the parent has a substance abuse problem and the kid hides out at playgrounds until late at night after everyone is passed out and it is safe to come "home"? Statistically, kids with problems at home also tend to be lower on competence scales. The real problem here is social help for the parents but we don't have the political will for this. Do you have any idea how often a teacher has had a student's parent come to a conference to discuss concerns about the kid falling behind just to be told that "It is YOUR job to teach my kid, not mine!" Tell me how testing teachers fixes that? And these are the same teachers that must buy paper/pens/supplies with the other salary because we ration school supplies.
We have some similar problems at the collegiate level. I worked full time while carrying 12+ credits paying my own way through college. I had to cut corners and ration my time. This meant lower grades for some classes but luckily I have the aptitude to get away with it. We also are sending kids to college that shouldn't be there. They don't have a real desire for a professional career outside of something like Social Media Manager. Of course they are going to cheat and use all the tools they have at their disposal having grown up digital. They aren't interested in the subject matter they just want to check the boxes and get through it. There is an issue here that needs solved at the institution level that kids will always be better at tech than the teachers but that is silly to lay at the feet of the teachers. In the end they are trying to lay a foundation of knowledge but the students have to care. Most college classes don't take attendance, is that the teacher's fault too?
Having the best software engineers doesn't mean anyone will use the product. Having the best doctors doesn't mean patients will do what they are told. Having the best trainers doesn't mean people will workout on their own. Having the best therapists doesn't mean anyone will use the techniques suggested in their daily lives.
Some things to understand about teaching. You must always teach at the middle kid in terms of ability and intelligence. By default this already means that some kids will be lost and some kids will be bored. This is made worse by conflating age with competence. Additionally, teachers have no understanding of what the kids are going through at home. Say you have a kid that never does homework? Is that the teacher's fault? Is it because the kid is lazy and just plays fortnight at home? Or is it because the parent's only job is night shift and the kids is a de facto parent watching two other kids? Or is it because the parent has a substance abuse problem and the kid hides out at playgrounds until late at night after everyone is passed out and it is safe to come "home"? Statistically, kids with problems at home also tend to be lower on competence scales. The real problem here is social help for the parents but we don't have the political will for this. Do you have any idea how often a teacher has had a student's parent come to a conference to discuss concerns about the kid falling behind just to be told that "It is YOUR job to teach my kid, not mine!" Tell me how testing teachers fixes that? And these are the same teachers that must buy paper/pens/supplies with the other salary because we ration school supplies.
We have some similar problems at the collegiate level. I worked full time while carrying 12+ credits paying my own way through college. I had to cut corners and ration my time. This meant lower grades for some classes but luckily I have the aptitude to get away with it. We also are sending kids to college that shouldn't be there. They don't have a real desire for a professional career outside of something like Social Media Manager. Of course they are going to cheat and use all the tools they have at their disposal having grown up digital. They aren't interested in the subject matter they just want to check the boxes and get through it. There is an issue here that needs solved at the institution level that kids will always be better at tech than the teachers but that is silly to lay at the feet of the teachers. In the end they are trying to lay a foundation of knowledge but the students have to care. Most college classes don't take attendance, is that the teacher's fault too?
Having the best software engineers doesn't mean anyone will use the product. Having the best doctors doesn't mean patients will do what they are told. Having the best trainers doesn't mean people will workout on their own. Having the best therapists doesn't mean anyone will use the techniques suggested in their daily lives.
Computer science is one of the harder subjects to assess knowledge through tests.
In other industries, passing an accreditation exam gives you value in the market. In software engineering, certificates are seen as useless.
This can explain the cynical attitude programmers have against testing.
In other industries, passing an accreditation exam gives you value in the market. In software engineering, certificates are seen as useless.
This can explain the cynical attitude programmers have against testing.
I have degrees in math and physics. Those degrees gave me close to zero value in the market. Spending X years in school, then having to prove to an employer that you can do barely more than squat is a familiar experience in a lot of fields.
There are tests you can take in those subjects, such as the Graduate Record Exam. Those tests work to some extent because the subject matter is relatively mature, and consistent from one college to another. And yet there are entire fields of math and physics that I've never been exposed to. Their main purpose is to see if you're conversant in a body of knowledge that would prepare you for typical graduate study, not for a job.
Software engineering is a comparatively young field, with less standardization. There are even debates on HN as to whether software engineering is a real thing. There are places where every programmer has the title "engineer" regardless of their background.
I'm only employable because most people hate math and physics so much that they're relieved if anybody offers to do those things for them. That, and I'm pretty good at programming and electronics.
There are tests you can take in those subjects, such as the Graduate Record Exam. Those tests work to some extent because the subject matter is relatively mature, and consistent from one college to another. And yet there are entire fields of math and physics that I've never been exposed to. Their main purpose is to see if you're conversant in a body of knowledge that would prepare you for typical graduate study, not for a job.
Software engineering is a comparatively young field, with less standardization. There are even debates on HN as to whether software engineering is a real thing. There are places where every programmer has the title "engineer" regardless of their background.
I'm only employable because most people hate math and physics so much that they're relieved if anybody offers to do those things for them. That, and I'm pretty good at programming and electronics.
> So what’s the solution then? Well, maybe we should start by rolling back this common conception that when it comes to schools, everyone’s opinion matters an equal amount, and then listen to the teachers and academics.
Cynically, because they're part of the problem.
Personally I don't think the "obviously bad thing" is the current state of testing. I'd instead say that the problem is the intermingling of education and credentials.
Society doesn't care about education, however all of the inspiration is geared around it. So you wind up with the case that students either become disillusioned with the system after realizing it's ripe with hypocrisy, or otherwise structured in a way that creates resentment in the system.
As an anecdote, a friend I went to high school with dropped out when he was disallowed to participate in the school band, because it was his only source of motivation to show up every day. I don't think that was the intended goal, but when faced with the reality of the situation, the system is unbending.
I think as a result, the ones you see succeeding in college tend to be more driven by either ambition or obligation rather than any actual desire to learn. So in that respect, I think colleges are self selecting for students that are more willing to think cheating is a good idea. And in many respects they may not be wrong.
> Curious, isn’t it, how all these systems seem to fail in the same way?
No...the systems haven't evolved independently. It's no more surprising to me than learning that felines could get covid.
For what it's worth, I'm a community college dropout. The education and mental health systems were absolutely structured in a way where my severe adhd (and its best friends anxiety and depression) went undiagnosed and untreated through my senior year of high school. I loved learning, but there wasn't any way to get an education that could present the coursework in a way that could keep me engaged. And of course my inability to do homework was continually met with being told it was some personal failure on my part and I should just apply myself.
So back to
> So what’s the solution then? Well, maybe we should start by rolling back this common conception that when it comes to schools, everyone’s opinion matters an equal amount, and then listen to the teachers and academics.
_They're the ones that've made me think we'd be better of scrapping the system and starting over._
Cynically, because they're part of the problem.
Personally I don't think the "obviously bad thing" is the current state of testing. I'd instead say that the problem is the intermingling of education and credentials.
Society doesn't care about education, however all of the inspiration is geared around it. So you wind up with the case that students either become disillusioned with the system after realizing it's ripe with hypocrisy, or otherwise structured in a way that creates resentment in the system.
As an anecdote, a friend I went to high school with dropped out when he was disallowed to participate in the school band, because it was his only source of motivation to show up every day. I don't think that was the intended goal, but when faced with the reality of the situation, the system is unbending.
I think as a result, the ones you see succeeding in college tend to be more driven by either ambition or obligation rather than any actual desire to learn. So in that respect, I think colleges are self selecting for students that are more willing to think cheating is a good idea. And in many respects they may not be wrong.
> Curious, isn’t it, how all these systems seem to fail in the same way?
No...the systems haven't evolved independently. It's no more surprising to me than learning that felines could get covid.
For what it's worth, I'm a community college dropout. The education and mental health systems were absolutely structured in a way where my severe adhd (and its best friends anxiety and depression) went undiagnosed and untreated through my senior year of high school. I loved learning, but there wasn't any way to get an education that could present the coursework in a way that could keep me engaged. And of course my inability to do homework was continually met with being told it was some personal failure on my part and I should just apply myself.
So back to
> So what’s the solution then? Well, maybe we should start by rolling back this common conception that when it comes to schools, everyone’s opinion matters an equal amount, and then listen to the teachers and academics.
_They're the ones that've made me think we'd be better of scrapping the system and starting over._
I taught high school math for 2 years. Which really isn't really enough to diagnose (much less solve) the system's problems. But it did give me a sense of how intractable the problem is.
I find it enormously frustrating when people (not you) complain about "teaching to the test." Teaching to the test is good pedagogy! First, determine what you want to students to know/do. Then choose how you're going to assess their knowledge/ability. Then design instruction that prepares them for the assessment. This is called backwards design.
I find it enormously frustrating when people (not you) complain about "teaching to the test." Teaching to the test is good pedagogy! First, determine what you want to students to know/do. Then choose how you're going to assess their knowledge/ability. Then design instruction that prepares them for the assessment. This is called backwards design.
I assumed you would say that the programmers should start working for the school system but your final description.of problems is not difficult to solve.
The teachers are the problem.
After all I was also sitting in school for 13 years
The teachers are the problem.
After all I was also sitting in school for 13 years
> In the case of testing it’s because you choose to focus on the obviously bad thing (current state of testing) rather than the very complex and difficult question behind it: HOW do you measure knowledge? And when you decide how, how do you scale it?
I would actually focus on the question of "Why do I need to quantify everybody's knowledge at a high resolution?"
When I was TAing, I held the position - never accepted I should say - that we should make more courses pass/fail; and instead of investing effort in the numeric grading keys, try to give more meaningful feedback on assignments.
Some alternative suggestions I brought up:
* I suggested that the final grade be a combination of the assessment a roll of 1D6 points - to hammer it in that the grading is to a great extent artificial. Somehow this was even less popular of a suggestion...
* I once proposed we offer people a perfect passing grade if they just never show up to class nor submit anything, and only people who want to learn would risk an imperfect grade. I really liked that proposal, because it put the two motivations - learning and making the grade - which are often conflated, at direct odds with each other.
Of course none of this was taken seriously - even though I was serious. Kind of.
I would actually focus on the question of "Why do I need to quantify everybody's knowledge at a high resolution?"
When I was TAing, I held the position - never accepted I should say - that we should make more courses pass/fail; and instead of investing effort in the numeric grading keys, try to give more meaningful feedback on assignments.
Some alternative suggestions I brought up:
* I suggested that the final grade be a combination of the assessment a roll of 1D6 points - to hammer it in that the grading is to a great extent artificial. Somehow this was even less popular of a suggestion...
* I once proposed we offer people a perfect passing grade if they just never show up to class nor submit anything, and only people who want to learn would risk an imperfect grade. I really liked that proposal, because it put the two motivations - learning and making the grade - which are often conflated, at direct odds with each other.
Of course none of this was taken seriously - even though I was serious. Kind of.
I feel that school is criminal and I deeply resent how my childhood was spent due to school. So I'm going to opine on it.
Well they do oddly resemble prisons for kids... In both function and appearance often.
I'd say everyone has been a student so they all have an opinion. Its ripe for bikeshedding. That's the reason imho.
> So what’s the solution then? Well, maybe we should start by rolling back this common conception that when it comes to schools, everyone’s opinion matters an equal amount, and then listen to the teachers and academics.
Oh please. Teachers advocate for themselves. Academics are currently waging a war against standardized testing for ideological reasons. Instead of a polemic against people giving their opinions please just tell us what you think.
For my money, the problem with education is that we decided it's not about knowlege but rather increasing the socioeconomic position of participants. From this it follows that everyone needs a 4 year degree. Education will only function when it's a small number of weirdos who want to be there.
Solve the problem by attacking credentialism, reforming student loans, and bolstering alternative post-secondary education (trade schools, bootcamps).
Oh please. Teachers advocate for themselves. Academics are currently waging a war against standardized testing for ideological reasons. Instead of a polemic against people giving their opinions please just tell us what you think.
For my money, the problem with education is that we decided it's not about knowlege but rather increasing the socioeconomic position of participants. From this it follows that everyone needs a 4 year degree. Education will only function when it's a small number of weirdos who want to be there.
Solve the problem by attacking credentialism, reforming student loans, and bolstering alternative post-secondary education (trade schools, bootcamps).
>In the case of testing it’s because you choose to focus on the obviously bad thing (current state of testing) rather than the very complex and difficult question behind it: HOW do you measure knowledge? And when you decide how, how do you scale it?
This sounds like an entirely different question. When you have a method for testing, you have at least two different measures of effectiveness:
- how well the test measures knowledge when it is taken honestly
- how likely is the test to be taken honestly vs. subverted
I thought this thread was about the second question, but you seem to be focused on the first. But these problems require different kinds of solutions, and crucially, it is much easier (but still not easy) to verify success or failure in addressing the second question (cheating) than the first (predictivity).
This sounds like an entirely different question. When you have a method for testing, you have at least two different measures of effectiveness:
- how well the test measures knowledge when it is taken honestly
- how likely is the test to be taken honestly vs. subverted
I thought this thread was about the second question, but you seem to be focused on the first. But these problems require different kinds of solutions, and crucially, it is much easier (but still not easy) to verify success or failure in addressing the second question (cheating) than the first (predictivity).
This is true for so many other aspects of life as well. Things are the way they are for a reason. Not understanding the deep and complex factors that got the system to where it is dooms you to repeat the mistakes of the past. This is why I go for depth on what I complain and ideate on rather than breadth. Dive deep on something you care about instead of having an opinion about everything. Humans have done well with specialization. If you enjoy breadth, go for it. I just don't see it as very effective.
I suppose that complaining without proposing solutions is akin to protesting. You may not necessarily know what you want specifically, but you don't want the current system.
I suppose that complaining without proposing solutions is akin to protesting. You may not necessarily know what you want specifically, but you don't want the current system.
> Testing .. HOW do you measure knowledge
To me measuring knowledge is a minor reason of having tests. The main reason is to force students to study. If you have no test on knowledge most people will just gloss over the detail and not learn.
To me measuring knowledge is a minor reason of having tests. The main reason is to force students to study. If you have no test on knowledge most people will just gloss over the detail and not learn.
Listening to teachers, yes please! Listening to pedagogy academics, no thanks!
> HOW do you measure knowledge?
This question has no meaning unless you specify what the goal of the measurement is. There are two main options.
1. Measurement as part of education process — for the sake of both teacher and the student.
2. Measurement as part of external qualifications — for the people who would later use the credentials achieved in measurement to accept you to higher education and to extend job offers.
Most of the problems with different measurement strategies happens because people conflate the two.
This question has no meaning unless you specify what the goal of the measurement is. There are two main options.
1. Measurement as part of education process — for the sake of both teacher and the student.
2. Measurement as part of external qualifications — for the people who would later use the credentials achieved in measurement to accept you to higher education and to extend job offers.
Most of the problems with different measurement strategies happens because people conflate the two.
> These are very hard questions, and it’s frustrating to read the phrase “we need to fix the system” because yes, obviously we do, but agreeing that things are bad isn’t the hard part, and probably input from people who have never worked in the field is of pretty limited value in how to resolve the hard part, and will not do much more than annoy teachers even more.
It's kind of hard to believe this needs to be said, because it is so obviously correct.
It's kind of hard to believe this needs to be said, because it is so obviously correct.
The petit-bourgeoisie elegies here are ridiculous.
You take the higher moral ground by establishing that you have "studied pedagogy and know all about it" and then you proceed with providing cliché points on how education has failed.
How can you apply critisism to a system you have been indoctrinated by? How fruitful is it gonna be?
i like this thread and wish to tug at it a bit.
i’m not so sure we _can_ fix it or even _should_ fix it. in my opinion, fixing implies a standard of perfection. it’s an imperfect system, formulated by imperfect people - the types we’re going to meet and interact with for the rest of our lives. there are always going to be imperfect ways of measuring the “goal”, be it content domain knowledge, or project completion kpi, or something else.
the positives of an imperfect system that i can think of off the top of my head are that they give teachers the ability and motivation to find creative ways to impart information and knowledge, and it can implicitly educate pupils in how to navigate complex, broken systems.
teachers who come up with novel educational methods are generally heralded for their innovations, but there’s not much else to incentivize them to remain or continue to innovate. not to mention the fact that those innovations may be expressions of their personalities and not an actual template for how every teacher should teach.
the same seems true for students. they find adaptations for navigating those broken systems. some will fall into the stream of the system, play the game, and get high marks. what have they learned? i’d say they have learned a fair amount. some will discover a need to collaborate survive and they have learned about themselves. some will complain and resist, but pass based on raw willpower or charm or something else. some will fail but will see gaping holes in the system to explore, exploit, or fill. they’ve also learned.
these are just a few of the dimensions i can think of off the top of my head. i believe that the primary way that we should seek to reform or improve educational systems is through how we treat the educational infrastructure (teachers, staff, materials, services) and the students who are failing to engage the experience due to factors beyond their control (mental health, SES, etc.)
i’m not so sure we _can_ fix it or even _should_ fix it. in my opinion, fixing implies a standard of perfection. it’s an imperfect system, formulated by imperfect people - the types we’re going to meet and interact with for the rest of our lives. there are always going to be imperfect ways of measuring the “goal”, be it content domain knowledge, or project completion kpi, or something else.
the positives of an imperfect system that i can think of off the top of my head are that they give teachers the ability and motivation to find creative ways to impart information and knowledge, and it can implicitly educate pupils in how to navigate complex, broken systems.
teachers who come up with novel educational methods are generally heralded for their innovations, but there’s not much else to incentivize them to remain or continue to innovate. not to mention the fact that those innovations may be expressions of their personalities and not an actual template for how every teacher should teach.
the same seems true for students. they find adaptations for navigating those broken systems. some will fall into the stream of the system, play the game, and get high marks. what have they learned? i’d say they have learned a fair amount. some will discover a need to collaborate survive and they have learned about themselves. some will complain and resist, but pass based on raw willpower or charm or something else. some will fail but will see gaping holes in the system to explore, exploit, or fill. they’ve also learned.
these are just a few of the dimensions i can think of off the top of my head. i believe that the primary way that we should seek to reform or improve educational systems is through how we treat the educational infrastructure (teachers, staff, materials, services) and the students who are failing to engage the experience due to factors beyond their control (mental health, SES, etc.)
> Cynically, this will never happen because reforms to battle educational issues in any democratic society usually takes more than 5 election cycles to show obvious results (and when the bad results start stacking up current leaders will take the flak regardless).
Well obviously we need to fix the system of the system!
Well obviously we need to fix the system of the system!
It is perhaps unreasonable for the purveyor of a critical service to demand that they be the only one who is allowed to understand or validate the quality of the service on offer, and to insist that the customer is too naive to be permitted a viewpoint.
Finland is a great example of a world class school system that doesn’t measure “knowledge”. So perhaps trying to measure “knowledge” is the real problem?
I don't think the problem is that complicated - you just can't measure knowledge with a process (or a machine). Only a human can approximate another human's level of understanding.
Trying to create a knowledge factory seems to me a pipe dream. All cheating comes from trying to force learning into a rigid mechanical box.
Solution? My opinion - remove colleges, bring back guilds.
Of course, this is an oversimplification, but the moment you remove the need to print out diplomas, everything does become simpler. The "measuring understanding mechanically at scale" is the hardest problem.
Trying to create a knowledge factory seems to me a pipe dream. All cheating comes from trying to force learning into a rigid mechanical box.
Solution? My opinion - remove colleges, bring back guilds.
Of course, this is an oversimplification, but the moment you remove the need to print out diplomas, everything does become simpler. The "measuring understanding mechanically at scale" is the hardest problem.
Again, it’s so easy to criticize, point out the “problem” and then offer no solution.
The “knowledge factory” exists for a reason. The way our society is constructed, we need structured specialization (pick a course), verification (you’re OK) and rating (you’re the top 5%) — because our entire society expects these things to work and be available.
It sounds like the only difference in your example is that these things exist but are not centrally verified to be identical, because apparently diplomas themselves are the problem.
People need to be able to improve, be excluded when incompetent and rewarded when excellent, because that is how our society works in all other aspects, and the one thing that will always be true about an educational system is that it will mirror society: and if it doesn’t currently it will in a few decades.
You cannot suggest fundamental changes to an educational system without more or less advocating a revolution in society. No wonder most complaints stop at the problem and never continue to proposed solutions.
The “knowledge factory” exists for a reason. The way our society is constructed, we need structured specialization (pick a course), verification (you’re OK) and rating (you’re the top 5%) — because our entire society expects these things to work and be available.
It sounds like the only difference in your example is that these things exist but are not centrally verified to be identical, because apparently diplomas themselves are the problem.
People need to be able to improve, be excluded when incompetent and rewarded when excellent, because that is how our society works in all other aspects, and the one thing that will always be true about an educational system is that it will mirror society: and if it doesn’t currently it will in a few decades.
You cannot suggest fundamental changes to an educational system without more or less advocating a revolution in society. No wonder most complaints stop at the problem and never continue to proposed solutions.
> It sounds like the only difference in your example is that these things exist but are not centrally verified to be identical, because apparently diplomas themselves are the problem.
Yes, exactly.
You are using a diploma as an indicator of knowledge, and you have a diploma-giving machine (university) that gives the diploma to anyone that can pass a test. People cheat the test in order to get the diploma. It will always happen, no matter how intricate you make your tests, because you cannot automate knowledge verification.
It isn't a "problem" - it's an "impossibility". And it's one impossibility software companies have gradually started dealing with - most don't care about diplomas anymore, because the correlation between knowledge and having a diploma gets lesser and lesser the more diplomas are printed artificially.
So, that is a pretty good solution, too. Remove diplomas altogether, and let employers measure knowledge in a way they seem fit. They will have responsibility for the mistakes of an employee, so it makes sense that they make the criteria. That way, educational institutions will have to make their education useful in the real world, or their reputation will crumble.
Yes, exactly.
You are using a diploma as an indicator of knowledge, and you have a diploma-giving machine (university) that gives the diploma to anyone that can pass a test. People cheat the test in order to get the diploma. It will always happen, no matter how intricate you make your tests, because you cannot automate knowledge verification.
It isn't a "problem" - it's an "impossibility". And it's one impossibility software companies have gradually started dealing with - most don't care about diplomas anymore, because the correlation between knowledge and having a diploma gets lesser and lesser the more diplomas are printed artificially.
So, that is a pretty good solution, too. Remove diplomas altogether, and let employers measure knowledge in a way they seem fit. They will have responsibility for the mistakes of an employee, so it makes sense that they make the criteria. That way, educational institutions will have to make their education useful in the real world, or their reputation will crumble.
> So, that is a pretty good solution, too. Remove diplomas altogether, and let employers measure knowledge in a way they seem fit.
It's not a "pretty good solution", which shows if you start breaking down how you would attempt to achieve this. How do you, first of all, "remove diplomas"? Do you suggest that we fundamentally overturn how our entire society works just to remove cheating?
A "diploma", "certification" or whatever you want to call it, can be issued by many different entities: a collection of nation-states, a state itself, non- and for-profit organizations, even individuals. These all have varying degrees of value depending on the trust placed in the issuing body, from a certificate of having completed Bob's Weekend Sales Course to a state-issued certificate to perform a specific type of surgery.
First of all, which of these are you saying should be "removed"? Only the ones from universities? All of them?
Secondly, how do you remove them? Do you outlaw them?
Thirdly, what happens when they're all gone? How do you certify a surgeon?
It's not a "pretty good solution", which shows if you start breaking down how you would attempt to achieve this. How do you, first of all, "remove diplomas"? Do you suggest that we fundamentally overturn how our entire society works just to remove cheating?
A "diploma", "certification" or whatever you want to call it, can be issued by many different entities: a collection of nation-states, a state itself, non- and for-profit organizations, even individuals. These all have varying degrees of value depending on the trust placed in the issuing body, from a certificate of having completed Bob's Weekend Sales Course to a state-issued certificate to perform a specific type of surgery.
First of all, which of these are you saying should be "removed"? Only the ones from universities? All of them?
Secondly, how do you remove them? Do you outlaw them?
Thirdly, what happens when they're all gone? How do you certify a surgeon?
> How do you, first of all, "remove diplomas"?
Very simple - just stop giving them to people and let them be forgotten as a concept.
> Do you suggest that we fundamentally overturn how our entire society works just to remove cheating?
Are you suggesting that university diplomas are a fundamental factor of how our society works? If so, would you please explain how?
> First of all, which of these are you saying should be "removed"? Only the ones from universities? All of them?
Only those from the universities. Universities are officially recognized "places to learn" and they should be kept that way. Studying for longer than "appropriate" number of years should not be frowned upon, but encouraged. The whole process of "verification" should be completely independent of learning.
Bundling "learning" and "verification", the way universities do, inevitably leads to hordes of people who want verification, but not learning - i.e. cheaters.
> Secondly, how do you remove them? Do you outlaw them?
Very simple - stop issuing them (I suppose a country-level ban of university diplomas could do, but politics depend on the country so I can't give you a general answer). If you want a certificate authority, make a certificate authority and make it its sole purpose to verify that people have the knowledge. Leave university out of that.
> Thirdly, what happens when they're all gone? How do you certify a surgeon?
A certificate authority (that only verifies surgeons' skills, and doesn't bundle the process with "learning").
Very simple - just stop giving them to people and let them be forgotten as a concept.
> Do you suggest that we fundamentally overturn how our entire society works just to remove cheating?
Are you suggesting that university diplomas are a fundamental factor of how our society works? If so, would you please explain how?
> First of all, which of these are you saying should be "removed"? Only the ones from universities? All of them?
Only those from the universities. Universities are officially recognized "places to learn" and they should be kept that way. Studying for longer than "appropriate" number of years should not be frowned upon, but encouraged. The whole process of "verification" should be completely independent of learning.
Bundling "learning" and "verification", the way universities do, inevitably leads to hordes of people who want verification, but not learning - i.e. cheaters.
> Secondly, how do you remove them? Do you outlaw them?
Very simple - stop issuing them (I suppose a country-level ban of university diplomas could do, but politics depend on the country so I can't give you a general answer). If you want a certificate authority, make a certificate authority and make it its sole purpose to verify that people have the knowledge. Leave university out of that.
> Thirdly, what happens when they're all gone? How do you certify a surgeon?
A certificate authority (that only verifies surgeons' skills, and doesn't bundle the process with "learning").
The proposal on the central verification authority is actually how pilot licenses are given. The flight schools have no legal power to exam. For example theoretical exams are done by the aeronautical authority of the country which itself only doles out exams with question from a standardized set of questions. Pilot training was for me how education should be. I was not the best pilot but I clearly now see how that was both my fault as well as not my calling.
Also in Portugal and in Poland there is a thing called national exam which is a nationwide exam at certain check points. It is very useful in showing per school social economic issues as well as grade inflations(school grade VS national exam grade). I honestly do not understand why the verification is not done independently of the teaching in all levels of education. It would also liberate teachers to focus on teaching while having a nationwide benchmark validation on their approach to teaching. Teachers ironically hate to be evaluated.
Another factor that is very hard to handle is that education is an industry that employs a very powerful class, the teachers. More often than not when education is in the news it is for teacher' labor issues. In Portugal recently they held a strike on national exam days. To give you an idea of how important national exams are, they are held in police stations and delivered by police officers to the schools on exam day to avoid leaks and so nobody has unfair advantages.
I will never forget that teachers held students national exams hostage for their negotiations. (they lost and suffered such a public backlash that their bargaining power was neutered for a few years).
Also in Portugal and in Poland there is a thing called national exam which is a nationwide exam at certain check points. It is very useful in showing per school social economic issues as well as grade inflations(school grade VS national exam grade). I honestly do not understand why the verification is not done independently of the teaching in all levels of education. It would also liberate teachers to focus on teaching while having a nationwide benchmark validation on their approach to teaching. Teachers ironically hate to be evaluated.
Another factor that is very hard to handle is that education is an industry that employs a very powerful class, the teachers. More often than not when education is in the news it is for teacher' labor issues. In Portugal recently they held a strike on national exam days. To give you an idea of how important national exams are, they are held in police stations and delivered by police officers to the schools on exam day to avoid leaks and so nobody has unfair advantages.
I will never forget that teachers held students national exams hostage for their negotiations. (they lost and suffered such a public backlash that their bargaining power was neutered for a few years).
So you’ve come full circle here, though. What’s the difference between trying to have people not cheat the test at university and not cheat the test at the certificate authority? I was with you until you brought in this part, because it’s literally the same thing now but at a different building, basically.
Employer verification made sense, you mention they have to deal with it if their hire is dumb. This secondary certificate authority idea undermines your entire argument though. Maybe I’m missing something though and you have a good idea for how the CA will mitigate cheating that a university can’t do.
Employer verification made sense, you mention they have to deal with it if their hire is dumb. This secondary certificate authority idea undermines your entire argument though. Maybe I’m missing something though and you have a good idea for how the CA will mitigate cheating that a university can’t do.
> So you’ve come full circle here, though. What’s the difference between trying to have people not cheat the test at university and not cheat the test at the certificate authority?
Because certificate authority will be separated from teaching, its sole purpose would be to prevent cheating, and they will be able to focus on it completely. Currently, universities don't have much incentive to focus on preventing cheating, because of overworked professors, or simply because they must print X diplomas a year or disappear.
Besides, when certificate authority has a sole purpose of verifying knowledge, it will become obvious which certificate authority allows cheating - people certified by it will fail at their jobs, thus ruining its reputation.
> This secondary certificate authority idea undermines your entire argument though. Maybe I’m missing something though and you have a good idea for how the CA will mitigate cheating that a university can’t do.
The difference is subtle but important - currently, universities don't suffer much reputational damage from cheaters, because the testing aspect of university is interleaved with the learning aspect - so if a university has good learning opportunities, nobody cares if a certain percentage of its diploma-holders are cheaters. They are on their own.
With certificate authorities, cheating will be naturally devastating, because the certificate authority will (I assume) serve just as a filter for employers - employers will choose employees which hold certificates from a trusted authority, i.e. the one that doesn't let people cheat. So there will be natural incentive to prevent cheating, and the free market will do its thing.
Because certificate authority will be separated from teaching, its sole purpose would be to prevent cheating, and they will be able to focus on it completely. Currently, universities don't have much incentive to focus on preventing cheating, because of overworked professors, or simply because they must print X diplomas a year or disappear.
Besides, when certificate authority has a sole purpose of verifying knowledge, it will become obvious which certificate authority allows cheating - people certified by it will fail at their jobs, thus ruining its reputation.
> This secondary certificate authority idea undermines your entire argument though. Maybe I’m missing something though and you have a good idea for how the CA will mitigate cheating that a university can’t do.
The difference is subtle but important - currently, universities don't suffer much reputational damage from cheaters, because the testing aspect of university is interleaved with the learning aspect - so if a university has good learning opportunities, nobody cares if a certain percentage of its diploma-holders are cheaters. They are on their own.
With certificate authorities, cheating will be naturally devastating, because the certificate authority will (I assume) serve just as a filter for employers - employers will choose employees which hold certificates from a trusted authority, i.e. the one that doesn't let people cheat. So there will be natural incentive to prevent cheating, and the free market will do its thing.
> A certificate authority (that only verifies surgeons' skills, and doesn't bundle the process with "learning").
It seems like you've just moved the cheating problem from one organization to a different organization? How would this new certificate authority measure learning better than universities are currently measuring learning? Are there examples of such certificate authorities existing now? Do they also have cheating problems?
It seems like you've just moved the cheating problem from one organization to a different organization? How would this new certificate authority measure learning better than universities are currently measuring learning? Are there examples of such certificate authorities existing now? Do they also have cheating problems?
> It seems like you've just moved the cheating problem from one organization to a different organization?
While that might seem redundant, keep in mind that most of the cheating happens because responsibility for both teaching and testing falls on the professor of the subject, and there is not much incentive to prevent cheating when the school must print X diplomas a year or disappear. I assume that an organization whose sole purpose is to certificate knowledge can be much more specialized for testing and spend most of their time trying to combat cheating.
> Are there examples of such certificate authorities existing now?
A sibling comment has mentioned pilot schools: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31548177
While that might seem redundant, keep in mind that most of the cheating happens because responsibility for both teaching and testing falls on the professor of the subject, and there is not much incentive to prevent cheating when the school must print X diplomas a year or disappear. I assume that an organization whose sole purpose is to certificate knowledge can be much more specialized for testing and spend most of their time trying to combat cheating.
> Are there examples of such certificate authorities existing now?
A sibling comment has mentioned pilot schools: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31548177
> My opinion - remove colleges, bring back guilds.
How do you prevent them from becoming corrupt gatekeepers that maximize their own profits while ignoring learning as much as possible?
"measuring understanding mechanically at scale" is exactly the tool to prevent that.
How do you prevent them from becoming corrupt gatekeepers that maximize their own profits while ignoring learning as much as possible?
"measuring understanding mechanically at scale" is exactly the tool to prevent that.
By removing any kind of formal authority by them. They should be places to learn, not a bureaucratic machine for deciding who is "worthy" and who is not.
There could be another organization that specializes in knowledge verification and certification. But that should be completely independent of learning.
Of course, now the question becomes "how do we prevent a verification and certification authority from abusing their power?" - but that question is not particular to this context and can be applied to any human organization of any kind. However, in this particular case, I think that employers would be the verification authorities themselves. They are the ones that need the real-world knowledge, so they should be the ones to measure it.
There could be another organization that specializes in knowledge verification and certification. But that should be completely independent of learning.
Of course, now the question becomes "how do we prevent a verification and certification authority from abusing their power?" - but that question is not particular to this context and can be applied to any human organization of any kind. However, in this particular case, I think that employers would be the verification authorities themselves. They are the ones that need the real-world knowledge, so they should be the ones to measure it.
It sounds more like we need students to be mentors so that the number of teachers scales with the number of students.
[deleted]
Interesting proposal.
Let's say this was formalized as follows:
Each student would be encouraged to serve as mentor for up to 3 younger students, starting on year 3 of their studies, and each semester thereafter, and receive some small stipend for each mentee.
At the start of each semester, prospective mentors would be listed and students would be allowed to seek them out. Both parties would be allowed to know the grades of each other, and the mentees would be allowed to reach out to former mentees of the same mentor. Mentors would also be allowed to do some kind of self-promotion where they could "sell" their abilities as mentors.
After each exam, the mentoring would count as having taken a course for the mentor, with the grade equal to the average grade of their students, and it would provide a numbe of "mentoring credits" equal to the number of students passing. This might seem unfair, but the idea is that this would encourage competition among mentors to "catch" the best students, encouraging the mentor to put effort in.
For the next semester/course, new mentor student connections could be set up, or the same as the semester before could be kept, if both sides agreed.
When a student receives their final diploma, all the mentoring results would be listed, both courses, average grade of students, and number of students, as well as total students*courses mentored and the average grade for those.
I can imagine a lot of employers would be highly interested in this information, as it could be extremely predictive for some kinds of positions (in particular positions of leadership or teaching). Students who had repeatedly mentored other students who achieved great results would be likely to, in the future, be able to recruit and keep high quality employees and help maximize the output of a team. In both cases, it might be it would be the very students they had been mentoring that would be potential hires.
Or, if employed by a university, would be likely to attract high quality post-graduate students as well be effective supervisors for them.
Now shy, intravert or people with bad social skills might find this unfair. But I think there would still be room for people who focused exclusively on learning the subjects themselves, and these would have more time available for that. These might also care less about those jobs where mentoring success would be seen as crucial.
Let's say this was formalized as follows:
Each student would be encouraged to serve as mentor for up to 3 younger students, starting on year 3 of their studies, and each semester thereafter, and receive some small stipend for each mentee.
At the start of each semester, prospective mentors would be listed and students would be allowed to seek them out. Both parties would be allowed to know the grades of each other, and the mentees would be allowed to reach out to former mentees of the same mentor. Mentors would also be allowed to do some kind of self-promotion where they could "sell" their abilities as mentors.
After each exam, the mentoring would count as having taken a course for the mentor, with the grade equal to the average grade of their students, and it would provide a numbe of "mentoring credits" equal to the number of students passing. This might seem unfair, but the idea is that this would encourage competition among mentors to "catch" the best students, encouraging the mentor to put effort in.
For the next semester/course, new mentor student connections could be set up, or the same as the semester before could be kept, if both sides agreed.
When a student receives their final diploma, all the mentoring results would be listed, both courses, average grade of students, and number of students, as well as total students*courses mentored and the average grade for those.
I can imagine a lot of employers would be highly interested in this information, as it could be extremely predictive for some kinds of positions (in particular positions of leadership or teaching). Students who had repeatedly mentored other students who achieved great results would be likely to, in the future, be able to recruit and keep high quality employees and help maximize the output of a team. In both cases, it might be it would be the very students they had been mentoring that would be potential hires.
Or, if employed by a university, would be likely to attract high quality post-graduate students as well be effective supervisors for them.
Now shy, intravert or people with bad social skills might find this unfair. But I think there would still be room for people who focused exclusively on learning the subjects themselves, and these would have more time available for that. These might also care less about those jobs where mentoring success would be seen as crucial.
This will also encourage unscrupulous mentors to help their kids cheat!
This is what we do in companies with “train-the-trainer” and with satellite/ambassador engineers/teams.
The only thing I know from education that does something similar is “Jena-plan” in elementary school and Teaching Assistants in uni. Nothing in our high school.
The only thing I know from education that does something similar is “Jena-plan” in elementary school and Teaching Assistants in uni. Nothing in our high school.
A minor critique and support for what you are saying.
The experts of pedagogy (academics and teachers) are rarely digitally literate (they can’t use technology in any competent, engaging or engaging enough way) enough compared to their students. This line was crossed about 15 years ago with most institutions still digitally functioning like they are in 2005.
Some neat studies out there about this. Profs are smart and know what they don’t know. Academic leadership often doesn’t have the will to modernize. We saw how many colleges resisted modernizing during the pandemic lockdowns and when they came back lamented how poor online was after designing a solution in 2 weeks.
Bureaucracies serve ultimately for their own self preservation.
Pedagogy is a red flag word. People who use it incorrectly often discount themselves pretty quickly. Pedagogy is about how children learn, it has less relevance in higher education, which is more about learning how to learn. Andragogy is how adults learn and I invite anyone to see how often that word is used.
It’s pretty telling when educational conferences how pedagogy is used every 3 words when… How adults learn (andragogy) including young adults is quite different than children.
When I hear the word pedagogy referring beyond high school it’s tell take sign of people using buzzwords, and a sign they might not really know the difference.
If experts really wanted to get into digital learning taxonomies based on old ones that don’t seem to bridge the divide, maybe that would be a start.
Instead academics have insisted on sharding the digital learning experience among dozens of digital tools for students ( how many different things do students have to log into), perhaps so it will not challenge their job security. Ironically most institutions have streamlined enrolment systems that are pretty complex but can take your money smoothly.
I think part of this is because too many academics are poor listeners though to openly entertaining ideas and positions that are not their own. There are amazing academics who get all of this and more (including the solutions) but they are often buried in the toxic cultures present at most post secondaries.
In Academia, afoption of ideas is gradual and slow, and too slow for the rapid changes taking place the past 2-3 years in society.
Another observation is that most universities only teach how to teach children, and churn out teachers. Maybe it’s why the word pedagogy is so present in academic circles. Do universities have a 4 year degree to teach university students like they do for K-12?
In this post - just reading about how WhatsApp and Google docs is used to learn together, for better and worse .. was created by students, not experts. Good on the prof for finding more ways to engage with the material. It’s a big problem.
Institutions have not kept up the skills of their staff. It’s decades behind. Probably another 10 years before the folks at the top wanting to keep things familiar enough start to retire and digitally native geriatric millennials can start getting into those roles and help change.
You have a good point about election cycles but it can go both ways to hurt education and curriculum too if that’s what politicians want.
Looking at students, Covid forced 10-15 years of change to happen in 2, while we have students who have missed a big chunk of education. There’s a need for our leaders, experts and institutions to recognize and do something about this, but bureaucracies ultimately serve their own self preservation at all costs.
One choice is expend all this effort fix the old institutions, or put the same effort into building new institutions for the future.
Education is no longer measured by hours of butts in seats. Education is no longer math not changing for 500 years so curriculum can take a few years to do minor tweaks.
It’s interesting to see how much more society has opened up to taking courses from anyone to learn the beginnings of any topic. If you ask me the clock is ticking on academic brands if they can’t create and revise curriculum faster than the 1-3 years it can take to approve and change a single sentence in a course.
If it’s relevant, I’ve built platforms to deliver online K-12, post-secondary education and industry training certification for a unusually long time. It feels like a weird world sometimes with the lens still stuck creating ad delivering education like it’s designed to be stored on encyclopedia CDs.
Meanwhile, Industry is often having to fill its own gaps to build the skills and competencies they need in people because education isn’t turning out people that are needed. The advances they put in place to keep their people safe shouldn’t be discounted.
Edit: Grammar, clarifications.
The experts of pedagogy (academics and teachers) are rarely digitally literate (they can’t use technology in any competent, engaging or engaging enough way) enough compared to their students. This line was crossed about 15 years ago with most institutions still digitally functioning like they are in 2005.
Some neat studies out there about this. Profs are smart and know what they don’t know. Academic leadership often doesn’t have the will to modernize. We saw how many colleges resisted modernizing during the pandemic lockdowns and when they came back lamented how poor online was after designing a solution in 2 weeks.
Bureaucracies serve ultimately for their own self preservation.
Pedagogy is a red flag word. People who use it incorrectly often discount themselves pretty quickly. Pedagogy is about how children learn, it has less relevance in higher education, which is more about learning how to learn. Andragogy is how adults learn and I invite anyone to see how often that word is used.
It’s pretty telling when educational conferences how pedagogy is used every 3 words when… How adults learn (andragogy) including young adults is quite different than children.
When I hear the word pedagogy referring beyond high school it’s tell take sign of people using buzzwords, and a sign they might not really know the difference.
If experts really wanted to get into digital learning taxonomies based on old ones that don’t seem to bridge the divide, maybe that would be a start.
Instead academics have insisted on sharding the digital learning experience among dozens of digital tools for students ( how many different things do students have to log into), perhaps so it will not challenge their job security. Ironically most institutions have streamlined enrolment systems that are pretty complex but can take your money smoothly.
I think part of this is because too many academics are poor listeners though to openly entertaining ideas and positions that are not their own. There are amazing academics who get all of this and more (including the solutions) but they are often buried in the toxic cultures present at most post secondaries.
In Academia, afoption of ideas is gradual and slow, and too slow for the rapid changes taking place the past 2-3 years in society.
Another observation is that most universities only teach how to teach children, and churn out teachers. Maybe it’s why the word pedagogy is so present in academic circles. Do universities have a 4 year degree to teach university students like they do for K-12?
In this post - just reading about how WhatsApp and Google docs is used to learn together, for better and worse .. was created by students, not experts. Good on the prof for finding more ways to engage with the material. It’s a big problem.
Institutions have not kept up the skills of their staff. It’s decades behind. Probably another 10 years before the folks at the top wanting to keep things familiar enough start to retire and digitally native geriatric millennials can start getting into those roles and help change.
You have a good point about election cycles but it can go both ways to hurt education and curriculum too if that’s what politicians want.
Looking at students, Covid forced 10-15 years of change to happen in 2, while we have students who have missed a big chunk of education. There’s a need for our leaders, experts and institutions to recognize and do something about this, but bureaucracies ultimately serve their own self preservation at all costs.
One choice is expend all this effort fix the old institutions, or put the same effort into building new institutions for the future.
Education is no longer measured by hours of butts in seats. Education is no longer math not changing for 500 years so curriculum can take a few years to do minor tweaks.
It’s interesting to see how much more society has opened up to taking courses from anyone to learn the beginnings of any topic. If you ask me the clock is ticking on academic brands if they can’t create and revise curriculum faster than the 1-3 years it can take to approve and change a single sentence in a course.
If it’s relevant, I’ve built platforms to deliver online K-12, post-secondary education and industry training certification for a unusually long time. It feels like a weird world sometimes with the lens still stuck creating ad delivering education like it’s designed to be stored on encyclopedia CDs.
Meanwhile, Industry is often having to fill its own gaps to build the skills and competencies they need in people because education isn’t turning out people that are needed. The advances they put in place to keep their people safe shouldn’t be discounted.
Edit: Grammar, clarifications.
> Pedagogy is about how children learn, it has less relevance in higher education, which is more about learning how to learn. Andragogy is how adults learn and I invite anyone to see how often that word is used.
It's always amusing to see lectures on correct usage from people who don't know the difference between etymology and meaning. (And also who don't know the etymology, either, since etymologically, pedagogy isn't “how children learn” but more like “the act of leading children”.)
In English, especially American English, “Andragogy” is mostly used in relation to a particular theory/approach to adult education originating with Martin Knowles, who leveraged the same conflation of etymology and meaning—even when it originated, pedagogy was well established with its modern and more general meaning despite the narrower sense of its Greek roots—to promote it; education for different audiences by age or other circumstance is not generally distinguished by different greek-root terms in English, but by English terms [“early childhood education”, “adult education”, “continuing professional education”, etc.)
It's always amusing to see lectures on correct usage from people who don't know the difference between etymology and meaning. (And also who don't know the etymology, either, since etymologically, pedagogy isn't “how children learn” but more like “the act of leading children”.)
In English, especially American English, “Andragogy” is mostly used in relation to a particular theory/approach to adult education originating with Martin Knowles, who leveraged the same conflation of etymology and meaning—even when it originated, pedagogy was well established with its modern and more general meaning despite the narrower sense of its Greek roots—to promote it; education for different audiences by age or other circumstance is not generally distinguished by different greek-root terms in English, but by English terms [“early childhood education”, “adult education”, “continuing professional education”, etc.)
That’s great. Thanks for the clarifications.
Hopefully you understood the meaning of what I was saying and that we might agree that pedagogy applies/refers to children, not adults.
Is there a term that better refers to adults?
Hopefully you understood the meaning of what I was saying and that we might agree that pedagogy applies/refers to children, not adults.
Is there a term that better refers to adults?
> Pedagogy is a red flag word. People who use it incorrectly often discount themselves pretty quickly. Pedagogy is about how children learn, it has less relevance in higher education, which is more about learning how to learn. Andragogy is how adults learn and I invite anyone to see how often that word is used.
The original root of "pedagogy" relates to children, but I still have a lot more time for someone who uses that industry-standard term than I do for anyone preaching 'andragogy'. It's a niche, culturally-bound and assumption-based theory with little research to actually support any of its claims.
Despite the grandiose name, 'andragogy' is just another 'learning styles' or 'growth mindset' - it's pop psychology designed to sell training courses.
The original root of "pedagogy" relates to children, but I still have a lot more time for someone who uses that industry-standard term than I do for anyone preaching 'andragogy'. It's a niche, culturally-bound and assumption-based theory with little research to actually support any of its claims.
Despite the grandiose name, 'andragogy' is just another 'learning styles' or 'growth mindset' - it's pop psychology designed to sell training courses.
It’s less about not having the time and being constructive.
Happy to use a better term than andragogy - I’m happy to learn what it is.
Any ideas or suggestions?
Happy to use a better term than andragogy - I’m happy to learn what it is.
Any ideas or suggestions?
Why do we need to measure it in the first place?
and then listen to the teachers and academics
Should we also always listen to the car mechanics, used car salesmen, and cops because after all they are the experts?
Should we also always listen to the car mechanics, used car salesmen, and cops because after all they are the experts?
I TA'd for a Prolog course at my university (Imperial College London) during the four years of my PhD there. As part of that work I helped correct students' papers. It was pretty clear to me that the students were sharing their code and only changing variable names etc. to make it look different.
It didn't work, because you could see the same, let's say, idiosyncracies, in their code. For example, there might be three or four different ways to solve a coding exercise and about 60-75% of the papers would solve it using the same way, which was not necessarily the best, or even the most obvious, way (what is the most obvious way to solve a Prolog exercise might not be common sense, but that's why you are given a lecture, first, and then the exercise).
What's most interesting is that I saw the same patterns repeated over the three years I TA'd for one of the Prolog courses. I guess they shared the answers between years, or somebody had put them online (I searched but couldn't find them). Or they just copied solutions to similar exercises they found online.
I didn't report the cheating because I felt there was no benefit in doing so. In particular with Prolog, because it's not a language commonly used in the industry, and it's taught at Imperial mainly for historical reasons (there are many of us logicists studying, or teaching, there) I reckoned that most students found it a useless chore and did not understand why they needed to learn it, and why they needed to "waste" time solving those coding problems. So they copied from each other in order to get the job done quickly and then have more time to spend on the things they felt were more useful to them (like learning Python or "ML" I suppose).
I personally thought, and still think, that learning to program in Prolog is useful, just to disentangle a programmer's mind from the particularities of the coding paradigms, and the programming languages, she's most familiar with. At CS schools today, programming is introduced with Python and I guess it's easy to get into a mindframe that all programming languages must necessarily work like Python. Studying languages from different paradigms, like Prolog or Haskell, can shake you off that mentality (it sure did me, back when I did my CS degree).
The problems is that you can't really force this appreciation of the need to learn different things on students, who are often in a terrible hurry and under terrible pressure to do good on their course, so they can get on with life. The Prolog course I TA'd was mandatory and so it must have really felt like someone was trying to force the knowledge down the studnets' throats.
I don't think that's a good idea. You can't teach people that way. They'll just see your obvious effort to force them to learn what you want, and they'll simply take the obvious route around it. And that ends up teaching them a lesson that you really weren't expecting to teach: the world is full of idiots who think they can teach you things, but you know better than they do and you'll show them who's boss.
That's what students do with tests, also. They can see they're a useless waste of time and they can see the obvious way around them is to cheat, and that it's to their benefit to cheat. And so they cheat. I don't have solutions to this. The students shouldn't have to fight the school, and the school shouldn't have to fight the students. The school is there for the students' benefit after all.
It didn't work, because you could see the same, let's say, idiosyncracies, in their code. For example, there might be three or four different ways to solve a coding exercise and about 60-75% of the papers would solve it using the same way, which was not necessarily the best, or even the most obvious, way (what is the most obvious way to solve a Prolog exercise might not be common sense, but that's why you are given a lecture, first, and then the exercise).
What's most interesting is that I saw the same patterns repeated over the three years I TA'd for one of the Prolog courses. I guess they shared the answers between years, or somebody had put them online (I searched but couldn't find them). Or they just copied solutions to similar exercises they found online.
I didn't report the cheating because I felt there was no benefit in doing so. In particular with Prolog, because it's not a language commonly used in the industry, and it's taught at Imperial mainly for historical reasons (there are many of us logicists studying, or teaching, there) I reckoned that most students found it a useless chore and did not understand why they needed to learn it, and why they needed to "waste" time solving those coding problems. So they copied from each other in order to get the job done quickly and then have more time to spend on the things they felt were more useful to them (like learning Python or "ML" I suppose).
I personally thought, and still think, that learning to program in Prolog is useful, just to disentangle a programmer's mind from the particularities of the coding paradigms, and the programming languages, she's most familiar with. At CS schools today, programming is introduced with Python and I guess it's easy to get into a mindframe that all programming languages must necessarily work like Python. Studying languages from different paradigms, like Prolog or Haskell, can shake you off that mentality (it sure did me, back when I did my CS degree).
The problems is that you can't really force this appreciation of the need to learn different things on students, who are often in a terrible hurry and under terrible pressure to do good on their course, so they can get on with life. The Prolog course I TA'd was mandatory and so it must have really felt like someone was trying to force the knowledge down the studnets' throats.
I don't think that's a good idea. You can't teach people that way. They'll just see your obvious effort to force them to learn what you want, and they'll simply take the obvious route around it. And that ends up teaching them a lesson that you really weren't expecting to teach: the world is full of idiots who think they can teach you things, but you know better than they do and you'll show them who's boss.
That's what students do with tests, also. They can see they're a useless waste of time and they can see the obvious way around them is to cheat, and that it's to their benefit to cheat. And so they cheat. I don't have solutions to this. The students shouldn't have to fight the school, and the school shouldn't have to fight the students. The school is there for the students' benefit after all.
> probably input from people who have never worked in the field is of pretty limited value in how to resolve the hard part, and will not do much
This is the story of hacker news. And of most other online forums. And of most meetings. Let’s bikeshed. Hi, I’m on the Internet and I read the whole post title. Let me share my thoughts.
People are stupid, lazy, and uninformed in the general case. People writing in an 8 line comment fields on mobile aren’t going to be the exception.
There is no need to be frustrated. Unless you enjoy that feeling. Then by all means embrace it.
Try this? Dip into the comments with right expectation. These are off the cuff uniformed thoughts of the masses. Maybe they make you laugh or cry or maybe something inspires you. Maybe there’s a gem buried here somewhere.
Don’t expect HN commenters to know anything deep. If you are in the mood for a deeper thought, go to the library.
This is the story of hacker news. And of most other online forums. And of most meetings. Let’s bikeshed. Hi, I’m on the Internet and I read the whole post title. Let me share my thoughts.
People are stupid, lazy, and uninformed in the general case. People writing in an 8 line comment fields on mobile aren’t going to be the exception.
There is no need to be frustrated. Unless you enjoy that feeling. Then by all means embrace it.
Try this? Dip into the comments with right expectation. These are off the cuff uniformed thoughts of the masses. Maybe they make you laugh or cry or maybe something inspires you. Maybe there’s a gem buried here somewhere.
Don’t expect HN commenters to know anything deep. If you are in the mood for a deeper thought, go to the library.
The other problem with the "we need to fix the system" arguments is that they often ignore the much greater problems in our society.
Our schools, in the aggregate, aren't that bad. We have a broad spectrum and inequality is severe, but even in the worst-off areas, it's not the schools so much as broader social conditions that are producing lousy academic performance. If kids are getting evicted, they're not going to be able to turn homework in on time. If they're doing nothing all summer, they're going to backslide. I also question the social value of "fun" projects like dioramas in grade school: the result seems to be that middle-class kids' parents do all the work, producing adult-quality work, while the less well-off students turn in projects that looks like they were made by kids.
We have ridiculous rates of cheating because we're in a society run by people who cheated and everyone knows it. Corporates cheat; you can't become (or stay) an executive if you don't lie and backstab your way to the top. The fish is rotting from the head, and young people are extremely alienated. This doesn't justify their actions, at an individual level, but it does explain the upsettingly high rate of dishonesty we're seeing.
People also underestimate the power of peer framing and moral drift. Generally, people don't wake up one day and decide that they want to cheat their way through college like some future insurance executive. It happens over time. They start with minor offenses like lifting a sentence without attribution, or looking up one answer on a phone... but, over time, they're plagiarizing whole papers and have stopped doing the actual work... and this is when they usually get caught.
Dishonesty also goes both ways. Grading might be broken, but a world without it would be worse--removing the SAT enhances the preexisting advantages of the rich. Once people become teenagers and realize that advancement in society isn't only based on merit but also requires playing social/nonacademic games (in high school, to be popular and appear "well-rounded" to admissions committes; in college, to get laid but also to get introduced to the best companies; in the work world, to ingratiate oneself to the right people and thus climb the ranks over more deserving but less likeable peers) at which everyone cheats, because everyone has to do so... because global corporate capitalism is itself a cheating system in which most of us are predestined to lose... it becomes harder to make a moral argument to them that cheating is categorically unacceptable.
Our schools, in the aggregate, aren't that bad. We have a broad spectrum and inequality is severe, but even in the worst-off areas, it's not the schools so much as broader social conditions that are producing lousy academic performance. If kids are getting evicted, they're not going to be able to turn homework in on time. If they're doing nothing all summer, they're going to backslide. I also question the social value of "fun" projects like dioramas in grade school: the result seems to be that middle-class kids' parents do all the work, producing adult-quality work, while the less well-off students turn in projects that looks like they were made by kids.
We have ridiculous rates of cheating because we're in a society run by people who cheated and everyone knows it. Corporates cheat; you can't become (or stay) an executive if you don't lie and backstab your way to the top. The fish is rotting from the head, and young people are extremely alienated. This doesn't justify their actions, at an individual level, but it does explain the upsettingly high rate of dishonesty we're seeing.
People also underestimate the power of peer framing and moral drift. Generally, people don't wake up one day and decide that they want to cheat their way through college like some future insurance executive. It happens over time. They start with minor offenses like lifting a sentence without attribution, or looking up one answer on a phone... but, over time, they're plagiarizing whole papers and have stopped doing the actual work... and this is when they usually get caught.
Dishonesty also goes both ways. Grading might be broken, but a world without it would be worse--removing the SAT enhances the preexisting advantages of the rich. Once people become teenagers and realize that advancement in society isn't only based on merit but also requires playing social/nonacademic games (in high school, to be popular and appear "well-rounded" to admissions committes; in college, to get laid but also to get introduced to the best companies; in the work world, to ingratiate oneself to the right people and thus climb the ranks over more deserving but less likeable peers) at which everyone cheats, because everyone has to do so... because global corporate capitalism is itself a cheating system in which most of us are predestined to lose... it becomes harder to make a moral argument to them that cheating is categorically unacceptable.
This comment is saying "No one else here knows as much about this as I do", and little else.
Your only concrete solution, produced by your years of study, seems to be "shut up and listen to educators". Well what are they saying?? How do we fix the problem of cheating and the other issues associated with measuring learning through testing?
If you have so much specialized knowledge about the problem, what does it tell you about how to fix it?
Your only concrete solution, produced by your years of study, seems to be "shut up and listen to educators". Well what are they saying?? How do we fix the problem of cheating and the other issues associated with measuring learning through testing?
If you have so much specialized knowledge about the problem, what does it tell you about how to fix it?
I said no such thing. I never even claimed to be a teacher (which I am not).
What I said was that we should listen to people who are active in the field for proposed solutions to problems we face. I also never said I was active in the field, in fact I said quite the opposite.
I really don’t understand why your comment is so confrontational. I never claimed to have the answers to all problems in all educational systems across the globe, I only suggested that if you want to resolve them you probably shouldn’t do it by having an open discussion involving only programmers (or any other non-pedagogical group of people for that matter).
What I said was that we should listen to people who are active in the field for proposed solutions to problems we face. I also never said I was active in the field, in fact I said quite the opposite.
I really don’t understand why your comment is so confrontational. I never claimed to have the answers to all problems in all educational systems across the globe, I only suggested that if you want to resolve them you probably shouldn’t do it by having an open discussion involving only programmers (or any other non-pedagogical group of people for that matter).
Is this what you really got from that comment? The implicit point is that the better you want to assess knowledge the less scalable it is, eg. giving oral/one-to-one interview style assessments to university students is not feasible even if it is a better knowledge assessment.
Therefore, saying "fix the system" isn't helpful, everyone knows some fixing needs to be done but not how or even if they do, don't have the power to. Look at problems like poverty, housing supply, climate change, I can look at all these and say the system is broken
Therefore, saying "fix the system" isn't helpful, everyone knows some fixing needs to be done but not how or even if they do, don't have the power to. Look at problems like poverty, housing supply, climate change, I can look at all these and say the system is broken
> This comment is saying "No one else here knows as much about this as I do", and little else.
No, it's not. Not at all.
But your comment is saying "How dare you suggest that we listen to experts? We all should have a say!". And that's the problem the gp post is pointing out. Do you argue like that with your doctor before surgery? With your lawyer before they defend you in court? With a chef before they cook a meal you ordered in a restaurant? No? Then why is education any different and suddenly everybody claims to know how it should work..
No, it's not. Not at all.
But your comment is saying "How dare you suggest that we listen to experts? We all should have a say!". And that's the problem the gp post is pointing out. Do you argue like that with your doctor before surgery? With your lawyer before they defend you in court? With a chef before they cook a meal you ordered in a restaurant? No? Then why is education any different and suddenly everybody claims to know how it should work..
This happened to me in undergrad with an autograded class. I remember soloing the class and thinking that the assignments were super hard. They would post grade averages for assignments and I was doing worse than usual.
I remember a TA posting about cheating being an issue. They even released a graph of anonymized student repositories with edges indicating a detected instance of cheating
Turned out that a HUGE cohort of people were cheating (I think maybe over half the class).
The scariest thing about cheating is that whenever a bunch of people do it (and aren't caught), it screws up the class curve so much that people who don't cheat will be forced to put in way more time studying, which will then take time away from other classes. It also screws up metrics that the professors and TAs use to understand how well they're teaching material, which assignments to drop, etc
imo this is why people shouldn't cheat. If nobody cheats, the grades might on average be lower but once the class is curved or assignments are dropped it will be a fair indicator of where everyone is at. If people cheat, it screws up the fairness and can encourage others to start cheating. If everyone (or most) are cheating, you have people who aren't getting anything out of the class, getting credits as prerequisite that they shouldn't be getting, moving on to future classes and continuing the cycle
I remember a TA posting about cheating being an issue. They even released a graph of anonymized student repositories with edges indicating a detected instance of cheating
Turned out that a HUGE cohort of people were cheating (I think maybe over half the class).
The scariest thing about cheating is that whenever a bunch of people do it (and aren't caught), it screws up the class curve so much that people who don't cheat will be forced to put in way more time studying, which will then take time away from other classes. It also screws up metrics that the professors and TAs use to understand how well they're teaching material, which assignments to drop, etc
imo this is why people shouldn't cheat. If nobody cheats, the grades might on average be lower but once the class is curved or assignments are dropped it will be a fair indicator of where everyone is at. If people cheat, it screws up the fairness and can encourage others to start cheating. If everyone (or most) are cheating, you have people who aren't getting anything out of the class, getting credits as prerequisite that they shouldn't be getting, moving on to future classes and continuing the cycle
Yes - it's similar to the situation in high school where there are kids who want to learn and kids who disrupt the class because they're lazy/not motivated/have issues/want attention.
Automated teaching and testing with social sharing automate that dynamic. There's less attention seeking, but much more passive aggressive subversion.
But that's not the scariest thing. The scary thing is that if it's a STEM field these students go on to get jobs in which they have no competence. This is truly catastrophic if you want software that works and buildings that don't collapse.
Worse - the skill they've learned best is gaming the system and hiding their incompetence.
It's a double failure - of culture as well as knowledge.
Kudos to the prof in the story for handling it so well. Most profs won't.
The underlying issue is that there's been far too little research into the social consequences of automating all kinds of interactions.
The 70s utopian ideal of "Give everyone a computer to empower them" turned out to be ridiculously naive. What happened instead is that various dysfunctional economic and cultural patterns were automated and enhanced.
Culture as a whole has no defences against this because hardly anyone has realised that it's a problem inherent within the culture-amplifying effects of automation, and not an unfortunate byproduct that just sort of happens sometimes - and who knows why?
Automated teaching and testing with social sharing automate that dynamic. There's less attention seeking, but much more passive aggressive subversion.
But that's not the scariest thing. The scary thing is that if it's a STEM field these students go on to get jobs in which they have no competence. This is truly catastrophic if you want software that works and buildings that don't collapse.
Worse - the skill they've learned best is gaming the system and hiding their incompetence.
It's a double failure - of culture as well as knowledge.
Kudos to the prof in the story for handling it so well. Most profs won't.
The underlying issue is that there's been far too little research into the social consequences of automating all kinds of interactions.
The 70s utopian ideal of "Give everyone a computer to empower them" turned out to be ridiculously naive. What happened instead is that various dysfunctional economic and cultural patterns were automated and enhanced.
Culture as a whole has no defences against this because hardly anyone has realised that it's a problem inherent within the culture-amplifying effects of automation, and not an unfortunate byproduct that just sort of happens sometimes - and who knows why?
> But that's not the scariest thing. The scary thing is that if it's a STEM field these students go on to get jobs in which they have no competence. This is truly catastrophic if you want software that works and buildings that don't collapse.
And also why we can’t trust a degree to show competence, leaving it to companies to figure out with LONNGG multi-part interviews
And also why we can’t trust a degree to show competence, leaving it to companies to figure out with LONNGG multi-part interviews
Businesses are still making out like bandits now that the cost of learning how to do the job has been offloaded onto kids.
Some do summer hires - a sort of 90-day interview - in their Junior year. Much better signal-to-noise.
I really appreciate this comment, especially the bit about how automation amplifies culture - that's something I've felt for a long time but you've stated it eloquently.
Schools want to churn out more students, industry wants more fresh grads. Online quizzes/assignments (which are vulnerable to cheating) and Leetcode screener questions (which are just a little better than rote memorization) are how schools and industry react to scaling issues.
I feel like everyone would have better outcomes if we could somehow be satisfied with less growth.
Schools want to churn out more students, industry wants more fresh grads. Online quizzes/assignments (which are vulnerable to cheating) and Leetcode screener questions (which are just a little better than rote memorization) are how schools and industry react to scaling issues.
I feel like everyone would have better outcomes if we could somehow be satisfied with less growth.
> Worse - the skill they've learned best is gaming the system and hiding their incompetence.
So they're ideally qualified for a career in politics.
So they're ideally qualified for a career in politics.
Or middle management at a large company.
You think STEM is bad? Think about, compounded by COVID-induced remote education, medical doctors...
Another thing (that the story goes into in depth) is that cheating creates a whole lot of extra work and stress for professors who would rather just be teaching material and not exerting enormous effort into policing other people's behavior and enforcing rules. (And that's really hard to do if you're afraid of making a mistake somewhere and punishing someone too harshly, or for something they didn't do.)
The students hunting for "the snitch" adds another layer of dysfunction. If someone joins the group chat and leaves because they notice other people cheating, then they could become targets of the other students. That's not the sort of college experience anyone wants to have.
The students hunting for "the snitch" adds another layer of dysfunction. If someone joins the group chat and leaves because they notice other people cheating, then they could become targets of the other students. That's not the sort of college experience anyone wants to have.
>imo this is why people shouldn't cheat. If nobody cheats, the grades might on average be lower but once the class is curved or assignments are dropped it will be a fair indicator of where everyone is at.
An excellent example of the prisoner's dilemma.
An excellent example of the prisoner's dilemma.
This is an issue that makes me feel conflicted in the case where there are already a lot of people cheating. If there's already a lot of people cheating, it doesn't make practical sense not to cheat, you're really just putting yourself at a big unfair disadvantage, and making an inefficient use of energy that could be used else where. It's unethical to join in the cheating, but a situation like that feels like there's just a lot of arguments to cheat. I think making the best of that situation would be to participate in the cheating but also make the best effort to understand the material as opposed to leveraging cheating to min-max on effort-grade.
On the other hand, all the effort could pay off in an unexpected way down the line because all the cheaters pushed you to achieve more than you would have normally, plus the ethical implications.
Full disclosure, I did have a situation where cheating like that happened, and I did take it. It was for a pretty irrelevant course, and I don't feel bad at all about it. I also haven't made much use of the course material afterwards.
On the other hand, all the effort could pay off in an unexpected way down the line because all the cheaters pushed you to achieve more than you would have normally, plus the ethical implications.
Full disclosure, I did have a situation where cheating like that happened, and I did take it. It was for a pretty irrelevant course, and I don't feel bad at all about it. I also haven't made much use of the course material afterwards.
option B, report the cheating
In the best case, you get nothing. Most probably half of the students turn against you. And possibly the teacher himself takes revenge on you for snitching. Some teachers are of the opinion that “snitches get stitches”, often as a way to cope with their own lack of teaching, and sometimes they see it as a good life lesson for the student.
So report the teacher. The whole snitches get stitches thing needs to stop. We aren’t in a goddamned prison yard. And if someone actually threatens you, call the police. Raise hell about it. Gangster, prison yard culture needs to die. Cheating is never ok. Cheaters should be thrown out of school with zero second chances. People in the US are often going into debt for tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars for college — when people cheat, that diminishes the value of that extraordinary expense. Not to mention honor and integrity ought to matter.
When I was in high school, a bunch of AP students cheated off the valedictorian our senior year...when it was exposed, they hushed everything up rather than allowing a scandal that would ruin the school's and the students' reputations (some of which were bound for Ivy League schools in a few months' time).
Sometimes, the entire community will protect its cheaters.
Sometimes, the entire community will protect its cheaters.
As Electrical engineering TAs in the late 80's, we knew who was copying class homework assignments from their classmates based on transcription errors in the handwritten work that was turned in. Since the class professor couldn't care less about the cheating, we would consistently score the source assignments a few points less than the ones that had copied the assignment. We kept this up for the entire semester.
You graded the original worse than the copies? So the copiers were rewarded?
they did lend their original out to be copied... thus facilitating dishonesty.
Sure; dock me a mark or two and tell me why. But why not just give a straight zero to the others that didn't actually do the work?
You must have thought it would discourage hardworking students from allowing other students to copy them. Did it work?
Companies will sue you if you report security vulnerabilities. So yeah definitely a good life lesson.
This world is messed up.
This world is messed up.
And “no situation can be improved by involving police.”
And the fact that Justice never correctly delivers justice in any country of the world, but adds 2 to 10 years and large expenses in the process.
And the fact that Justice never correctly delivers justice in any country of the world, but adds 2 to 10 years and large expenses in the process.
Option C, help the others students that cheat, let them copy your work, or even help them directly with the work. (Especially for things like home exercises, if not actual exams).
After you graduate, you will have a network of friends that consider you a super-smart, trustworthy, loyal and friendly person.
Chances are, you will learn more than the rest, and end up with a high GPA. And some of the lost opportunity to socialize in bars and clubs, and build networks that way, will be compensated by the relationships with people you helped.
Btw, this same behavior can still work once you're in a job. If you get a reputation as someone who can provide help when people are stuck in some difficult problem, and not shaming them for it to their boss, that tends to reflect positively back to you over time.
After you graduate, you will have a network of friends that consider you a super-smart, trustworthy, loyal and friendly person.
Chances are, you will learn more than the rest, and end up with a high GPA. And some of the lost opportunity to socialize in bars and clubs, and build networks that way, will be compensated by the relationships with people you helped.
Btw, this same behavior can still work once you're in a job. If you get a reputation as someone who can provide help when people are stuck in some difficult problem, and not shaming them for it to their boss, that tends to reflect positively back to you over time.
I think this is the right move, but only if you can do it without being known (at least, by the group).
The best solution is to report the cheating and have some F’ing integrity. Cheating or tolerating cheating is never ok. Full stop.
> This happened to me in undergrad with an autograded class.
I had a entirely autograded class on my first year at uni, it was awful. Immense amount of tests each week that were so basic yet so picky about the input, you lost points for no good reason and it frustrated me so much.
Ended up making a browser extension that parsed the tests, calculated answer probabilities based on previously completed tests that had similar questions. Unless the teachers were willing to hide the final score, it figured out the correct answer to each and every question.
It ended with a large majority of the class using the extension during the final exam, they couldn't really prove anything and nobody got caught. The next year the amount of tests was reduced and the exam was on paper (I'm sorry undergrads).
I don't feel bad about it, the lecturer abused our time and resources asymmetrically, listening to feedback was years overdue. It doesn't always boil down to "omg cheating bad"
I had a entirely autograded class on my first year at uni, it was awful. Immense amount of tests each week that were so basic yet so picky about the input, you lost points for no good reason and it frustrated me so much.
Ended up making a browser extension that parsed the tests, calculated answer probabilities based on previously completed tests that had similar questions. Unless the teachers were willing to hide the final score, it figured out the correct answer to each and every question.
It ended with a large majority of the class using the extension during the final exam, they couldn't really prove anything and nobody got caught. The next year the amount of tests was reduced and the exam was on paper (I'm sorry undergrads).
I don't feel bad about it, the lecturer abused our time and resources asymmetrically, listening to feedback was years overdue. It doesn't always boil down to "omg cheating bad"
Not at university, but at a company I worked for: the company had legal requirements to train its employees and contractors in various aspects of integrity. They'd made an app that gamified this, and at the end of every month, we should have out score above 70% in that app.
A coworker used our testing framework to write an app that would collect the correct answers and fill them in automatically, and only wait for user input if it didn't recognise a question. He gave to code to me when he left. I think I tried it once or twice, but it failed to work for me due to some network issue, so I figured I'd just stick to the spirit on the thing and keep my score up manually.
A coworker used our testing framework to write an app that would collect the correct answers and fill them in automatically, and only wait for user input if it didn't recognise a question. He gave to code to me when he left. I think I tried it once or twice, but it failed to work for me due to some network issue, so I figured I'd just stick to the spirit on the thing and keep my score up manually.
I was taking an upper level marine biology course - the tests were VERY difficult, but they were take-home, do them at your leisure. I was cool with it. But walked into a coffee shop one day and found 75% of the class sharing answers and cheating anyway.
It seems very funny to me as a programmer, that what university calls "cheating" and threatens consequences, the industry calls "consulting with your colleagues" and encourages.
There is an enormous difference between the people "consulting with colleagues" and the people openly cheating. When I was doing my engineering degree there were always groups of students who would go over assignments together, see if their answers matched up, and then look through the textbooks and course materials together to see which person was right. That's consulting.
There were also people who would pay someone else to do the assignments, and then upload PDFs of completed assignments to a private chat. World of difference.
There were also people who would pay someone else to do the assignments, and then upload PDFs of completed assignments to a private chat. World of difference.
Sure, but what the other person is describing as cheating sounds, to me at least, very much like the former case. There was a task, the students were allowed to work on the task in their own time, with their own resources, and chose to put their heads together rather than work on them individually. To me, that seems fairly reasonable.
That said, a lot of this stuff seems kind of culturally specific. At least for the two degrees that I experienced in the UK, there were roughly three types of graded work: exams (overseen, sit in silence, possibly with your own notes but generally not, fixed time limit around 1-2hrs); lab-work (usually done in the building although worked on outside of lab hours as well, fixed deadline of around a week or two, usually graded at least in part based on an oral conversation with the examiner); and coursework (take-home work, fixed deadline ranging from one week to a couple of months, allowed to discuss but direct copying is banned).
In these cases, it rarely makes sense to cheat by directly sharing answers. Obviously in an exam it would be useful, but the conditions of the exam make it largely prohibitively difficult. In coursework, it's usually obvious if people are handing copies of the same work in. And for lab work, the challenge was usually not to just complete the lab and get a "right" result, but rather to understand the task and be able to explain what was going on to the TA grading you. If you can cheat well enough to pass that, you probably understand what's going on - which is exactly the aim of the course anyway.
Whereas it feels like what people are talking about here is students being sent home with problem worksheets, being expected not to talk about them at all, and then getting grades based on those answers. That seems to me to be a system that practically encourages cheating - work together as a group, and you'll obviously be able to achieve more than any one individual, even if you could all pass the course in the first place. In contrast, we also had similar worksheets, but they were never graded, and we were usually encouraged to work together to figure out what was going on. We could then take our answers to tutorials and have a discussion about where we went wrong and why we went wrong usually in a group of any four or five.
So reading this article and some of the comments here, I'm really struggling to get an image of what these teachers are expecting from their students, if they're setting problems that are so obviously gameable.
That said, a lot of this stuff seems kind of culturally specific. At least for the two degrees that I experienced in the UK, there were roughly three types of graded work: exams (overseen, sit in silence, possibly with your own notes but generally not, fixed time limit around 1-2hrs); lab-work (usually done in the building although worked on outside of lab hours as well, fixed deadline of around a week or two, usually graded at least in part based on an oral conversation with the examiner); and coursework (take-home work, fixed deadline ranging from one week to a couple of months, allowed to discuss but direct copying is banned).
In these cases, it rarely makes sense to cheat by directly sharing answers. Obviously in an exam it would be useful, but the conditions of the exam make it largely prohibitively difficult. In coursework, it's usually obvious if people are handing copies of the same work in. And for lab work, the challenge was usually not to just complete the lab and get a "right" result, but rather to understand the task and be able to explain what was going on to the TA grading you. If you can cheat well enough to pass that, you probably understand what's going on - which is exactly the aim of the course anyway.
Whereas it feels like what people are talking about here is students being sent home with problem worksheets, being expected not to talk about them at all, and then getting grades based on those answers. That seems to me to be a system that practically encourages cheating - work together as a group, and you'll obviously be able to achieve more than any one individual, even if you could all pass the course in the first place. In contrast, we also had similar worksheets, but they were never graded, and we were usually encouraged to work together to figure out what was going on. We could then take our answers to tutorials and have a discussion about where we went wrong and why we went wrong usually in a group of any four or five.
So reading this article and some of the comments here, I'm really struggling to get an image of what these teachers are expecting from their students, if they're setting problems that are so obviously gameable.
[deleted]
In theory the purpose of the university is to help you develop skills independently, so that you can bring something to the table when you do consult with colleagues in the workplace.
> develop skills independently ... bring something to the table
this assumes that those skills are somehow unique and others cannot learn it.
this assumes that those skills are somehow unique and others cannot learn it.
That's basically the point of university isn't it? It assumes that not everyone can be qualified to do everything and imposes restrictions on who can be hired based on their known qualifications.
I'd rather say that the equivalent of what the industry calls "consulting with your colleagues" is more a "study session" than an exam (be it take-home).
This is when you learn things, and everyone brings something to the table.
I'd say the equivalent of an exam is a job interview. When the other party wants to see what the individual knows.
This is when you learn things, and everyone brings something to the table.
I'd say the equivalent of an exam is a job interview. When the other party wants to see what the individual knows.
Perhaps because these aren't equivalent environments. In school you are expected to learn, not copy answers...
Try consulting with your colleagues during your next interview and see if it’s encouraged.
Come on. In one case, you aim to prove that you have mastered an established body of knowledge. In the other case, you are trying to solve an open problem with any legitimate means available. Those are entirely different things, and conflating them is obtuse.
Or IP theft, depending upon the exact scenario. Off to prison you go.
Except if you consult with colleagues/friends outside of your company you would get fired. You are not allowed to "consult" with anyone, so why should you be allowed to consult with anyone about your homework.
> Except if you consult with colleagues/friends outside of your company you would get fired
What the hell are you talking about? I routinely consult with others and others routinely consult with me. That's afaik standard practice in most professions: engineering, medicine, architecture, psychology, marketing, and yes software development.
What the hell are you talking about? I routinely consult with others and others routinely consult with me. That's afaik standard practice in most professions: engineering, medicine, architecture, psychology, marketing, and yes software development.
You share confidential information with colleagues outside your job? I guess how much or what consulting you can do depends a lot on your job. I know quite a few companies which don't allow talking about specific problems you are facing because that would reveal information they consider confidential. Now if we are talking general questions, sure but you are very much allowed to do the same as a student. All this to show that sharing information/solutions has quite a gradient even in professional life.
Again: what the hell are you talking about? We were talking about professional consulting, not about sharing confidential information. These are two very different activities, and you can definitely do one without the other.
The statement saying "if you consult with colleagues/friends outside of your company you would get fired" is false.
The statement saying "if you consult with colleagues/friends outside of your company you would get fired" is false.
We are replying to a post which said cheating in education is what is consultation in professional life. Nowhere did we talk about general "consultation" we comparing copying others solutions (cheating) to "consultation", I would argue that the equivalent of copying someone's specific solution in many (most) cases would be a violation of ethical/company/workplace rules and is not just "consultation".
Asking someone for help with homework (much more equivalent to general consultation) is not generally considered cheating in education either.
Asking someone for help with homework (much more equivalent to general consultation) is not generally considered cheating in education either.
Absolutely, the equivalent of cheating is 'not just "consultation"', but in your original message you said "if you consult..." without qualification. And no, you don't get fired for "consulting" alone. Right below you already changed your statement to "they are rules in professional life about how you consult with others". Let's maybe leave it at that? This doesn't seem like a productive discussion and is entering flamewar territory.
I assumed it was clear from the parent I was replying to (like others did), that I meant my statement in the context of how they said it's equivalent to what's called cheating not a general statement about all consultation, but you're right I should have made that more clear.
You are also correct that this is not a productive discussion, because we are discussing a misunderstanding (due to me not being clear enough).
I did find your language and reaction a bit disproportionate though.
You are also correct that this is not a productive discussion, because we are discussing a misunderstanding (due to me not being clear enough).
I did find your language and reaction a bit disproportionate though.
I don't think so, grandparent was definitely talking about general consultation, and on your second post you clearly say you mean that all but the most generic kind of consultation is a fireable offence. But happy that we got to a common ground.
Also funny thing you bring up medicine, they have quite strict rules about what you can share.
Yes, so you just follow these rules when consulting with a colleague, what's the problem?
We are all replying to a post that said what is considered cheating in education is simply consultation in professional life. I responded that they are rules in professional life about how you consult with others. In other words there are rules about consultation in both education (there is usually no issue about studying together, but there are issues about just copying somebody else's homework) and professional life (e.g. a doctor can't just share a specific medical file with anyone asking for a solution, or an engineer can't ask someone at a different company to program some program for him).
> I responded that they are rules in professional life about how you consult with others.
No you didn't, you said "if you consult with colleagues/friends outside of your company you would get fired", which is clearly false. I'm the one who said rules should be followed. But I'm happy that the mistake was corrected and we're now on the same page.
No you didn't, you said "if you consult with colleagues/friends outside of your company you would get fired", which is clearly false. I'm the one who said rules should be followed. But I'm happy that the mistake was corrected and we're now on the same page.
I hope you told the professor what you discovered. Allowing cheating is complicity in the cheating without the benefits. But I remember the intense social pressure - glad I’m not a kid any more.
> If people cheat, it screws up the fairness
I think it's strange to think cheaters are anything other than selfish. To make an altruistic appeal seems misguided.
I think it's strange to think cheaters are anything other than selfish. To make an altruistic appeal seems misguided.
I can imagine some people cheating not out of selfishness but just to get by. In the case of a curved class (which has its own set of ethical dilemmas), if nobody cheats then people will be OK on average. But because some people decide to cheat, it screws up the dynamic.
This isn't going to convince anyone in particular who wants to cheat, that wasn't really my intention
This isn't going to convince anyone in particular who wants to cheat, that wasn't really my intention
what's the ethical dilemma of a grade curve? your grade reflects how well you learned.
Your grade reflects how well you learned with respect to your peers.
Getting 80% in an exam in a weak cohort of students might earn you an A, while doing so in a strong one might get you a B instead. Is this fair toward a student getting a B this year with the same score that earned somebody an A the year earlier just because they happened to enroll with different peers?
Also why should the grade distribution of an exam be determined beforehand?
Getting 80% in an exam in a weak cohort of students might earn you an A, while doing so in a strong one might get you a B instead. Is this fair toward a student getting a B this year with the same score that earned somebody an A the year earlier just because they happened to enroll with different peers?
Also why should the grade distribution of an exam be determined beforehand?
> why should the grade distribution of an exam be determined beforehand?
because we know beforehand that population density over repeated trials of some measure will fall in a normal distribution, especially when constructing such a test is more straightforward than 90% gets A, 80% gets B, etc
because we know beforehand that population density over repeated trials of some measure will fall in a normal distribution, especially when constructing such a test is more straightforward than 90% gets A, 80% gets B, etc
So, you are suggesting that if we have a class of 100 people, and we want to measure their height, we should just order them by length, and then the tallest one we call 2.1 meters, the one in the middle 1.8, and the smallest one 1.5, no matter how tall they actually are?
Wouldn't it be better if we measure their actual size?
Students will cheat. the solve is to get rid of curving classes in this manner
The Polish university I went to never even heard of grading on a curve, and yet cheating was rampant. I think it's just human nature - as long as cheating is not heavily penalised, many people will choose to do it.
During my studies, there was one professor who openly said that, if he caught you cheating, he will fail you in his class (which, in Polish universities, means going through a lot of bureucracy to not have to repeat the entire year) - as opposed to other professors, who will usually just allow you another attempt at later time. Also, during the written exams, he wasn't staring longlingly at the sky throught the window (like some other professor did - I assume they wanted to help us cheat, so that we can pass their class and be out of their lives), but was watching us like a hawk 100% of the time. In result, AFAIK there was no cheating in his class at all - it just didn't pay off.
Personally, this hypocrisy and game of cat and mouse was one of the main lessons I learned in high school and later in university ("it's ok to cheat as long as you don't get caught", "nobody cares about their work anyway" etc.). It's a shame that the education system is corrupting the morals of young people in such a way, but on the other hand, the grown up world they're about to join is pretty corrupt anyway, so maybe it's actually teaching valuable survival skills.
During my studies, there was one professor who openly said that, if he caught you cheating, he will fail you in his class (which, in Polish universities, means going through a lot of bureucracy to not have to repeat the entire year) - as opposed to other professors, who will usually just allow you another attempt at later time. Also, during the written exams, he wasn't staring longlingly at the sky throught the window (like some other professor did - I assume they wanted to help us cheat, so that we can pass their class and be out of their lives), but was watching us like a hawk 100% of the time. In result, AFAIK there was no cheating in his class at all - it just didn't pay off.
Personally, this hypocrisy and game of cat and mouse was one of the main lessons I learned in high school and later in university ("it's ok to cheat as long as you don't get caught", "nobody cares about their work anyway" etc.). It's a shame that the education system is corrupting the morals of young people in such a way, but on the other hand, the grown up world they're about to join is pretty corrupt anyway, so maybe it's actually teaching valuable survival skills.
I don't think the comment you replied to meant to say that getting rid of grading on a curve would stop cheaters, merely that it would stop some of the bad effects cheating can have on those not cheating.
This happened to me in an ML class. Somehow people went from not knowing what eigenvalues were to solving all the problems in Bishop's book correctly and exactly the way the TA wanted them. A bunch of them would go to his office hours and have him do a problem, then they would share his answers.
I didn't complain until after the term was over and was just chatting casually with him while waiting for lunch at a food truck on campus. He was completely oblivious and didn't believe it.
I didn't complain until after the term was over and was just chatting casually with him while waiting for lunch at a food truck on campus. He was completely oblivious and didn't believe it.
On the other hand you studied way harder than you normal would have, which if your goal is to learn the material, is in fact a good thing.
But yes I understand screwing up the curve has other negative effects. I think in some ways this is a tying of learning to employment and life success. People cheat because they don’t want to learn but they do want a good job. I don’t know how you separate these two things, or whether you should, but if you made the benefit of cheating simply not understanding the material it would end. In the mean time your best strategy is probably to snitch.
But yes I understand screwing up the curve has other negative effects. I think in some ways this is a tying of learning to employment and life success. People cheat because they don’t want to learn but they do want a good job. I don’t know how you separate these two things, or whether you should, but if you made the benefit of cheating simply not understanding the material it would end. In the mean time your best strategy is probably to snitch.
> it screws up the class curve
This is your problem right here. There is no rational argument for grading people on a class curve. That just makes the class a lottery and incentivises sabotaging for others to get an upper hand yourself.
This is your problem right here. There is no rational argument for grading people on a class curve. That just makes the class a lottery and incentivises sabotaging for others to get an upper hand yourself.
Curve grading is such a messed up thing. It leads to professors assuming you should get all A's in all of your classes basically, cuz of this nonsense from US unis.
I did an exchange year, and sent my grades over to a professor. Guy was like "What's up with all the non As" and I had to talk about how we do things differently here (giving points for right answers, and then adding them all up).
Of course there's always an overall curving happening on a high level because teachers choose how hard to make assignments or not, and ultimately grades are not really fundamentally important, but when people just have those to judge you on and choose to, it really fucks things up.
I did an exchange year, and sent my grades over to a professor. Guy was like "What's up with all the non As" and I had to talk about how we do things differently here (giving points for right answers, and then adding them all up).
Of course there's always an overall curving happening on a high level because teachers choose how hard to make assignments or not, and ultimately grades are not really fundamentally important, but when people just have those to judge you on and choose to, it really fucks things up.
I don't get it, don't curves limit the number of people who get an A each semester? But potentially everyone in a class that isn't curved could get an A (or F)
Well for example, in my school, basically nobody would get 90% on an exam. Very good people would get 80% but the average is more around 60%. So you stuff that into the grade conversion for foreign universities and ... well lots of people get C!
it depends on the curve. "curve" is kind of vague here, sometimes a prof will curve by adding so many percent to everyone's grade to get enough people over a certain threshold
but also the prof will know if the class is full of overachievers and curve in a way commensurate to the class
but also the prof will know if the class is full of overachievers and curve in a way commensurate to the class
I think that curves discourage cooperation and encourage zero-sum thinking. Curves are only really necessary when the professor is out of touch with the class and/or prerequisites.
I don't think that people would typically go to the lengths of trying to sabotage someone else, in practice it could just look like a bunch of people working separately and not cooperating at all
In an ideal world, there wouldn't be any curves and the coursework would be tailored sufficiently for every cohort of students for every semester
I don't think that people would typically go to the lengths of trying to sabotage someone else, in practice it could just look like a bunch of people working separately and not cooperating at all
In an ideal world, there wouldn't be any curves and the coursework would be tailored sufficiently for every cohort of students for every semester
I've always loved curved classes because they allow very good professors to give real mindfuck exam questions that cause you to walk away from the test with a new perspective on the material.
Those exams were often the most edifying couple hours of the whole semester. You also got a clear sense of the difference between you and a real master of the material which is a helpful lesson in humility.
I went back to grad school recently and it seems like that mode of testing has gone out of style in the last ten years. The exams I took were geared more towards establishing a minimum bar of competence, more for my future employers' benefit than my own.
Those exams were often the most edifying couple hours of the whole semester. You also got a clear sense of the difference between you and a real master of the material which is a helpful lesson in humility.
I went back to grad school recently and it seems like that mode of testing has gone out of style in the last ten years. The exams I took were geared more towards establishing a minimum bar of competence, more for my future employers' benefit than my own.
You don't need after-the-fact curving for that, though.
When I set (free-form written, math/CS) exams, I always made a point of designing the exam in a way where I didn't really expect anybody to get more than 90% of the points. I also made sure that students knew this.
I always set grade brackets before grading (e.g., 80% of points gets you an A, below 35% is a failing grade, and so on). I always ended up with a pretty reasonable grade distribution.
When I set (free-form written, math/CS) exams, I always made a point of designing the exam in a way where I didn't really expect anybody to get more than 90% of the points. I also made sure that students knew this.
I always set grade brackets before grading (e.g., 80% of points gets you an A, below 35% is a failing grade, and so on). I always ended up with a pretty reasonable grade distribution.
they allow very good professors to give real mindfuck exam questions that cause you to walk away from the test with a new perspective on the material
I think the problem with this is, although cool, very few professors are capable of doing this well and very few students benefit from it. IOW, it doesn't scale.
To my mind, oral finals or 'discussions" would repair the cheating issues quite well. But again, it's hard to scale and professors would need to be trained in how to do them.
I think the problem with this is, although cool, very few professors are capable of doing this well and very few students benefit from it. IOW, it doesn't scale.
To my mind, oral finals or 'discussions" would repair the cheating issues quite well. But again, it's hard to scale and professors would need to be trained in how to do them.
I took a class that gave mindfuck questions and did not need curved grading.
It was simple. The weekly assignments contained 6 questions. One of those was the mindfuck question and wasn’t graded (if you solved it you got extra credit, but hadn’t been solved so far).
You don’t even need to hide the crazy questions. Offering them as extra credit is a simple solution that works well.
It was simple. The weekly assignments contained 6 questions. One of those was the mindfuck question and wasn’t graded (if you solved it you got extra credit, but hadn’t been solved so far).
You don’t even need to hide the crazy questions. Offering them as extra credit is a simple solution that works well.
I think of helping each other as part of the reason we put students in the same room to begin with. So when a student asks another for help with understanding a concept and the other refuses that request, that's working against the purposes of group education, i.e. sabotage.
But I admit I might be a bit radical here compared to most people. (Who I am sure will argue that utilising teacher time to the maximum is the only reason to gather students in one room.)
But I admit I might be a bit radical here compared to most people. (Who I am sure will argue that utilising teacher time to the maximum is the only reason to gather students in one room.)
I agree with you, but also most of the time when people ask each other for help it isn't to help understand a concept. It's usually for source code.
In the class I mentioned above, the prof and TAs weren't pissed off about people using each other to understand concepts or even high level design. They were pissed because people were copying source code verbatim, comments and custom debug messages and all
On a related note, if someone ever asked me for help with a concept or high level design I would be more than happy to oblige. But (most of the time) people aren't asking for that, they want source code that they didn't contribute to
this could be fixed by making assignments collaborative, but then the professor has no means of verifying where everyone is in terms of understanding
In the class I mentioned above, the prof and TAs weren't pissed off about people using each other to understand concepts or even high level design. They were pissed because people were copying source code verbatim, comments and custom debug messages and all
On a related note, if someone ever asked me for help with a concept or high level design I would be more than happy to oblige. But (most of the time) people aren't asking for that, they want source code that they didn't contribute to
this could be fixed by making assignments collaborative, but then the professor has no means of verifying where everyone is in terms of understanding
Curve grading does have a place. But that is standardized tests or placing entire cohorts to buckets. So we are talking of hundreds if not thousands of students. For individual schools or classes inside thereof it is wrong method. Either the students know enough of the course material to pass or they do not.
So true. Curve grading works well when the cohort is large and heterogenous. (Like, say, Finnish matriculation exams. >20k people in a single cohort, and each individual exam within the whole thing with at least 5k people in them.)
As far as I'm concerned, curve grading single courses is just as bad as stack ranking at work. And in here, with high concentration of engineers who loathe stack ranking, a disproportionate fraction are somehow in favour of per-course curve grading.
Blind spot? Stockholm syndrome? Go figure.
As far as I'm concerned, curve grading single courses is just as bad as stack ranking at work. And in here, with high concentration of engineers who loathe stack ranking, a disproportionate fraction are somehow in favour of per-course curve grading.
Blind spot? Stockholm syndrome? Go figure.
Fun thing with Matriculation examination. The small subjects are not on curve. Like for example Latin... Or higher level Russian where there is enough native speakers to have an effect on it.
Whole stack ranking is just weird. Either the people are good enough to do the work or not. If not eventually fire them. On other hand at top the rewarding extra is an problem, but I don't know if you can do that without someone gaming it.
Whole stack ranking is just weird. Either the people are good enough to do the work or not. If not eventually fire them. On other hand at top the rewarding extra is an problem, but I don't know if you can do that without someone gaming it.
That's a good point, thank you. I wasn't aware of it, or at least didn't actively remember the fact. But it makes sense and circles on the same thing. Curve grading only makes sense when the cohort being evaluated is large and varied enough.
> Whole stack ranking is just weird. Either the people are good enough to do the work or not.
Even at the risk of veering quite far from the thread topic, I am not sure that's the only angle to look at things. In my experience, pretty much anyone who is genuinely curious and has the discipline to work at understanding how/why a ${THING} functions, is going to be good at their job. Some people just don't find what their thing is, and surprisingly many are in jobs where they are not even allowed to figure it out.
> Whole stack ranking is just weird. Either the people are good enough to do the work or not.
Even at the risk of veering quite far from the thread topic, I am not sure that's the only angle to look at things. In my experience, pretty much anyone who is genuinely curious and has the discipline to work at understanding how/why a ${THING} functions, is going to be good at their job. Some people just don't find what their thing is, and surprisingly many are in jobs where they are not even allowed to figure it out.
As far as I'm concerned, curve grading single
courses is just as bad as stack ranking at work.
In stack ranking you have to designate some team members as superior and some as bad. You could have a team of ineffective idiots and be forced to label some of them as high achievers, or a team of superstars and be forced to label some of them as bad. I agree that this is manifestly ridiculous.
I've never seen curve grading like that.
If you want to compare grades across semesters you have to either keep the difficulty of the tests constant or adjust the grades to compensate for how difficult the tests were relative to previous semesters.
BTW, I don't know if it's a named fallacy, but saying "there's no rational argument for X" is not a good argument against X. You can't prove a negative so you cannot know if there is not a rational argument for X.
BTW, I don't know if it's a named fallacy, but saying "there's no rational argument for X" is not a good argument against X. You can't prove a negative so you cannot know if there is not a rational argument for X.
Of course there’s a rational argument to using the distribution of scores to set the grades: If everyone in the class gets half the questions wrong on the final exam, you shouldn’t just fail the whole class! The test was probably just harder than expected
But in that same example, if many of the students get close to 100% on the final by cheating, then the remainder of the class will suffer
But in that same example, if many of the students get close to 100% on the final by cheating, then the remainder of the class will suffer
No, the proper response to that is still not a curve, it's to identify which block of questions wasn't appropriate and removing those from scoring or turning them into "bonus points" and similar measures.
That way you don't incur any of the (pretty severe) drawbacks of a curve but don't punish students for questions that were badly phrased or weren't properly taught.
That way you don't incur any of the (pretty severe) drawbacks of a curve but don't punish students for questions that were badly phrased or weren't properly taught.
Simply removing the offending questions after the fact doesn't solve everything. Students may have fruitlessly wasted a ton of time on those questions, causing their grade in other parts of the test to suffer.
Are how do you suppose an instructor can identify which questions were too hard when a big chunk of the class got them right by cheating?
I disgree. How hard it is to pass a class should be an absolute. It shouldn't be easier for one cohort over another just due to the first being, on average, less prepared than the second.
If an exam turns out to be too hard the teacher can investigate, consult their peers, talk to their students and decide if it's worth to scale all grades by a factor to correct.
If an exam turns out to be too hard the teacher can investigate, consult their peers, talk to their students and decide if it's worth to scale all grades by a factor to correct.
> How hard it is to pass a class should be an absolute.
It should be, but profs and TAs change from semester to semester. The coursework changes also. Also the profs, TAs, and coursework of prerequisites change too
> It shouldn't be easier for one cohort over another just due to the first being, on average, less prepared than the second.
A good professor will have the sense of discretion necessary to know when a class is half-assing on average
It should be, but profs and TAs change from semester to semester. The coursework changes also. Also the profs, TAs, and coursework of prerequisites change too
> It shouldn't be easier for one cohort over another just due to the first being, on average, less prepared than the second.
A good professor will have the sense of discretion necessary to know when a class is half-assing on average
A lot of my classes the average grade on a test could be as low as 30% with a P100 of 50%. The material was extraordinarily difficult. I’m glad it was because it stretched me in equally extraordinary ways to do my best. But I don’t see how they would have assigned grades without a curve. In most cases I agree with you, but in those classes I wouldn’t have changed to tests to dumb them down but I also wouldn’t have accepted score based grades. The curve felt fairly rational in the situation and I think the distribution of performance reflected a grade curve well enough. The GPA though for the department was depressed relative to others but it was also widely regarded and recognized internationally as extremely difficult.
There is no rational argument for grading people on a class curve
The counterargument is that it would be rare for a prof/teacher to absolutely nail the correct difficulty for an exam.
If they feel that their students' average exam grade fails to accurately reflect how well the class is learning the material, then some kind of adjustment makes sense... imagine a scenario where you have a classroom full of motivated and engaged students who are showing good understanding of the material, and yet the average exam score is 60%. This strongly suggests professor/teacher has erred and an adjustment is in order so that the scores better reflect actual mastery of the material.
There are of course also a lot of situations where grading on a curve is blatantly unfair and/or simply makes no sense.
This is why I'm generally against grades with more than three levels.
I would like to see a system where almost all (something like 99 %?) of students just plain "pass". Then we have the lower statistical anomalies (lowest 0.5 %) and upper statistical anomalies (highest 0.5 %) which fail and get an "excellence" type grade.
If the average score is too low or too high, that doesn't mean more students fail or perform excellently, that just means the teacher needs to recalibrate.
(Of course, these percentiles ought to be measured over as inclusive a reference class as practical. Ideally across schools and years simultaneously.)
I would like to see a system where almost all (something like 99 %?) of students just plain "pass". Then we have the lower statistical anomalies (lowest 0.5 %) and upper statistical anomalies (highest 0.5 %) which fail and get an "excellence" type grade.
If the average score is too low or too high, that doesn't mean more students fail or perform excellently, that just means the teacher needs to recalibrate.
(Of course, these percentiles ought to be measured over as inclusive a reference class as practical. Ideally across schools and years simultaneously.)
That sounds promising!
[deleted]
> imo this is why people shouldn't cheat.
Well, people shouldn't cheat for a whole lot of reasons. But the main take away from this is, in my opinion, that people should not be "graded on a curve".
Well, people shouldn't cheat for a whole lot of reasons. But the main take away from this is, in my opinion, that people should not be "graded on a curve".
You somewhat seem to miss the wood for all the trees. The problem is the curve - grading on a curve is inherently unfair and irrelevant. Why should it affect your grade if others in the class cheat/struggle/..?
Any teacher (and school system) worth their salt has by now dropped grading on a curve.
Any teacher (and school system) worth their salt has by now dropped grading on a curve.
Maybe not a literal curve, but tons of instructors will compensate if an exam ends up being too hard (or too easy). Except the main way they tell whether the test difficulty was off is by looking at the grade distribution which obviously ends up skewed if some people cheat
[deleted]
I never thought about it that way, but that's such a good point.
You should read up on Nash equilibriums. In general, the equilibrium only holds with information sharing. In the real world, winning due to a lack of information sharing is called things like "good business." Academia, and cheating in general, is rotted to the core because of ranked grading and curves. They fundamentally incentivize cheating, because of the game theoretical gain therein.
Cheaters by definition are not interested in fair, so this argument will not convince any of them.
Ah cheating ! I did a year abroad in California when I was studying computer science and I remember there was a huge difference between cheating there and cheating in my French school.
In the later, we were given harder exercises and asked to deliver a working program with some constraints. This program is then tested and graded by a CI and examined by TAs. Usually TAs would get a cheating report for reused bits of code and things that would solve an exercise with techniques far away from students knowledge or forbidden functions. TAs would ask you questions about your code and trigger cheating review if you could not explain why you wrote it this way. It was usually effective for detecting people that didn't wrote their own exercises. As the exercises were harder than expected for a class and projects were long and difficult, students were encouraged to talk, discuss and exchange ideas. Ideas sure, code meh.
Then, in the US, exercises were stupid checkboxes-style questions and graded on a curve. So of course everyone "cheated".. I must confess that I did it too. It was unworthy of my time and attention, as it was just about taking the course material and regurgitate it with different words. Of course, I can't imagine anyone learning anything from this way of working.
Stupid assignments encourage students to cheat. Make them interesting and this problem will go away.
In the later, we were given harder exercises and asked to deliver a working program with some constraints. This program is then tested and graded by a CI and examined by TAs. Usually TAs would get a cheating report for reused bits of code and things that would solve an exercise with techniques far away from students knowledge or forbidden functions. TAs would ask you questions about your code and trigger cheating review if you could not explain why you wrote it this way. It was usually effective for detecting people that didn't wrote their own exercises. As the exercises were harder than expected for a class and projects were long and difficult, students were encouraged to talk, discuss and exchange ideas. Ideas sure, code meh.
Then, in the US, exercises were stupid checkboxes-style questions and graded on a curve. So of course everyone "cheated".. I must confess that I did it too. It was unworthy of my time and attention, as it was just about taking the course material and regurgitate it with different words. Of course, I can't imagine anyone learning anything from this way of working.
Stupid assignments encourage students to cheat. Make them interesting and this problem will go away.
> Stupid assignments encourage students to cheat. Make them interesting and this problem will go away.
and yet
> Usually TAs would get a cheating report for reused bits of code and things that would solve an exercise with techniques far away from students knowledge or forbidden functions. TAs would ask you questions about your code and trigger cheating review if you could not explain why you wrote it this way. It was usually effective for detecting people that didn't wrote their own exercises.
So both courses have cheating, one possibly has less cheating, and that one has a more effective detection procedure, but cheating happens on both all the same. The problem does not go away with a better course but is - based on your anecdote and not from the presumably better view of the TAs - lessened somewhat.
Perhaps the same course could be run in California and would still attract the same level of cheating as the checkbox style one. Maybe it's simply that a course that appears more difficult to cheat on or is more difficult to cheat on attracts less cheating.
and yet
> Usually TAs would get a cheating report for reused bits of code and things that would solve an exercise with techniques far away from students knowledge or forbidden functions. TAs would ask you questions about your code and trigger cheating review if you could not explain why you wrote it this way. It was usually effective for detecting people that didn't wrote their own exercises.
So both courses have cheating, one possibly has less cheating, and that one has a more effective detection procedure, but cheating happens on both all the same. The problem does not go away with a better course but is - based on your anecdote and not from the presumably better view of the TAs - lessened somewhat.
Perhaps the same course could be run in California and would still attract the same level of cheating as the checkbox style one. Maybe it's simply that a course that appears more difficult to cheat on or is more difficult to cheat on attracts less cheating.
> The problem does not go away with a better course but is - based on your anecdote and not from the presumably better view of the TAs - lessened somewhat.
I was a TA in France, and did a bit of TA-ing unofficially in the US. So, my view is based on both experience, TA and Student.
While there was some cheating happening on both sides, it was practically non-existent in France after a few weeks of school. The abilities required to cheat and get away with it were extremely hard to master, and usually would carry much more risks than just complete the exercise. Successful cheating were, sometimes, rewarded if the problem solved was worthy enough. You could even get clearance from the professor in advance (not for copying code from StackOverflow, of course, but rather for using forbidden functions or libraries).
Finally, most important projects were done in groups of 2 to 5-6. Individual students putting a group at risk deliberately, would get caught extremely easily and carry a far worse sentence than just a bad grade: they would be excluded from other students groups and left to do their projects alone or with dropouts students. Finding back you way after this is very very difficult.
I was a TA in France, and did a bit of TA-ing unofficially in the US. So, my view is based on both experience, TA and Student.
While there was some cheating happening on both sides, it was practically non-existent in France after a few weeks of school. The abilities required to cheat and get away with it were extremely hard to master, and usually would carry much more risks than just complete the exercise. Successful cheating were, sometimes, rewarded if the problem solved was worthy enough. You could even get clearance from the professor in advance (not for copying code from StackOverflow, of course, but rather for using forbidden functions or libraries).
Finally, most important projects were done in groups of 2 to 5-6. Individual students putting a group at risk deliberately, would get caught extremely easily and carry a far worse sentence than just a bad grade: they would be excluded from other students groups and left to do their projects alone or with dropouts students. Finding back you way after this is very very difficult.
> Finally, most important projects were done in groups of 2 to 5-6
Much less reason to cheat in group work too. It's much easier to just put in minimal effort and let someone else in the group do the work. That's just another form of cheating.
In Germany we say "Team" in teamwork is an acronym for "Toll Ein Anderer Machts" (great someone else does the work) and especially in university there is a lot of truth to it. Especially so when there is a big difference in motivation in regards to the final grade.
Not to say there aren't a lot of upsides to group work. But stopping people that don't wanna engage with the subject isn't one of them.
Much less reason to cheat in group work too. It's much easier to just put in minimal effort and let someone else in the group do the work. That's just another form of cheating.
In Germany we say "Team" in teamwork is an acronym for "Toll Ein Anderer Machts" (great someone else does the work) and especially in university there is a lot of truth to it. Especially so when there is a big difference in motivation in regards to the final grade.
Not to say there aren't a lot of upsides to group work. But stopping people that don't wanna engage with the subject isn't one of them.
> Perhaps the same course could be run in California and would still attract the same level of cheating as the checkbox style one.
Actually, that's not a hypothetical scenario: School 42, an offshoot of the school GP described with the same cursus, has antennas in both Paris and California.
I wonder if the cheating rates differ between the two.
Actually, that's not a hypothetical scenario: School 42, an offshoot of the school GP described with the same cursus, has antennas in both Paris and California.
I wonder if the cheating rates differ between the two.
What school in CA was giving multiple choice assignments in a CS class?
What you describe in France is exactly how my classes in the US were (at UW Seattle) ~15 years ago.
What you describe in France is exactly how my classes in the US were (at UW Seattle) ~15 years ago.
I went to UW Seattle ~15 years ago, and some of the CS classes there were a fucking joke
I got a 2.7 in my CS classes because I had perfect scores on the tests and homework, but the teacher decided to make a huge percentage of your grade consist of quizzes about random factoids from the book that had literally nothing to do with computer science. (Literally: "What color was the elephant on page 12?") The book cost like $200, so I decided to just study from other books and the lectures and eat the loss of GPA
Man, I wish I could remember that professor's name so I could send him some hate mail..
I got a 2.7 in my CS classes because I had perfect scores on the tests and homework, but the teacher decided to make a huge percentage of your grade consist of quizzes about random factoids from the book that had literally nothing to do with computer science. (Literally: "What color was the elephant on page 12?") The book cost like $200, so I decided to just study from other books and the lectures and eat the loss of GPA
Man, I wish I could remember that professor's name so I could send him some hate mail..
[deleted]
UC Santa Cruz for example
Always a pleasure to see a fellow Epitech alumni on HN!
I recently took a CS class at Stanford with an interesting policy on cheating. While cheating almost certainly happened during the course, at the end of the quarter the course staff made a public post allowing any student who cheated to make a private message to the staff admitting they've done so.
If a student admitted to cheating, while they would face academic disciplinary action (i.e. receiving a failing or low grade), they would not be brought up to the administrative office that deals with issues of academic integrity, and therefore would not face consequences like expulsion or being on official academic probation.
However if a cheating student decided to risk it and not admit their guilt, they were at risk of a potentially even greater degree punishment. The course staff would run all students code through a piece of software to detect similarities between each other, as well as online solutions. Students who were flagged by this software would then have their code hand-checked by at least one course staff, who would make a judgement call as to whether it seemed like cheating.
I found this policy quite interesting. As a former high school teacher, I've certain encountered teaching in my own classes, and have historically oscillated between taking a very harsh stance, or perhaps an overly permissive one.
The one taken by the lecturers of this course offered a "second chance" to cheaters in a way I hadn't seen before.
If a student admitted to cheating, while they would face academic disciplinary action (i.e. receiving a failing or low grade), they would not be brought up to the administrative office that deals with issues of academic integrity, and therefore would not face consequences like expulsion or being on official academic probation.
However if a cheating student decided to risk it and not admit their guilt, they were at risk of a potentially even greater degree punishment. The course staff would run all students code through a piece of software to detect similarities between each other, as well as online solutions. Students who were flagged by this software would then have their code hand-checked by at least one course staff, who would make a judgement call as to whether it seemed like cheating.
I found this policy quite interesting. As a former high school teacher, I've certain encountered teaching in my own classes, and have historically oscillated between taking a very harsh stance, or perhaps an overly permissive one.
The one taken by the lecturers of this course offered a "second chance" to cheaters in a way I hadn't seen before.
That sounds great and all but I honestly have doubts about this software that detects similarities… there’s only so many ways to solve the bland questions that professors lift from books; kind of ironic. I’m assuming it’s basicallly doing AST analysis and it’s no smarter than eliminating things like variables being renamed.
They are basically stating that this “software” is 100% accurate. Furthermore it’s then left to whims of some TAs?
No algorithm can detect cheating unless the number of permutations are very very large (I.e being struck by lightening). Maybe one way to offset would be to use data as the student is entering the solution but that was never the case for us; just upload the source code to their custom made Windows app.
They are basically stating that this “software” is 100% accurate. Furthermore it’s then left to whims of some TAs?
No algorithm can detect cheating unless the number of permutations are very very large (I.e being struck by lightening). Maybe one way to offset would be to use data as the student is entering the solution but that was never the case for us; just upload the source code to their custom made Windows app.
Speaking from experience using similar software on students assignments, it is often blatantly obvious when cheating is occurring.
To start with, at an undergrad level, most students had fairly distinct coding styles - usually with quirks of not "proper" coding. Some cheaters had the exact same quirks in multiple students assignments.
Also, some cheaters had the exact same mistakes in their code, on top of the same code style.
Yes the software picks up people that write correct solutions with perfect syntax, but those are the ones that you just toss out because there isn't any proof there.
The people that get caught cheating generally don't know what correct solutions and good code look like, so they don't understand how obvious it is when they copy paste their friends mediocre code.
To start with, at an undergrad level, most students had fairly distinct coding styles - usually with quirks of not "proper" coding. Some cheaters had the exact same quirks in multiple students assignments.
Also, some cheaters had the exact same mistakes in their code, on top of the same code style.
Yes the software picks up people that write correct solutions with perfect syntax, but those are the ones that you just toss out because there isn't any proof there.
The people that get caught cheating generally don't know what correct solutions and good code look like, so they don't understand how obvious it is when they copy paste their friends mediocre code.
I agree with you. I run a days science department in a corporation and when I'm doing code review for a junior, I can tell what was original and what came from somewhere else. Fortunately, in the workplace context that just means trying to get people to paste the SO URL as a comment above the appropriate code block.
Assuming that the software detects a similarity between two or more student’s submissions, how do you know which students cheated? What if one of the students (the one that actually did the work) had their program stolen/copied somehow (eg left screen open in lab or print out of code)?
I teach some courses with coding assignments and we just tell the students very clearly and repeatedly, at the beginning of the course and before each submission deadline, that submitting duplicate material means failing. It doesn't matter if A copied from B, B from A, both copied from an external source, or even A stole B's password and downloaded their data. The penalty is the same. We cannot go into such details because we just don't have the means to find out, and some students are amazing at lying with a poker face.
It's a pity to have to fail students sometimes because they failed to secure their accounts and someone stole their code, but they have been warned and hey, securing your stuff is not the worst bitter lesson you can learn if you're going to devote your career to CS, I guess...
It's a pity to have to fail students sometimes because they failed to secure their accounts and someone stole their code, but they have been warned and hey, securing your stuff is not the worst bitter lesson you can learn if you're going to devote your career to CS, I guess...
Cheater Student enters the lab, turns on the video camera on their phone, walks casually behind other students recording their screens, reviews video for useful information. Other students fail. Seems like a poor outcome that is plausible and unfair to the student whose info was stolen to no fault of their own.
Indeed, it's plausible enough that I've actually caught students trying to do that.
The problem is: what's the realistic alternative? Just letting cheating happen is also unfair (to students who fail while the cheater passes). And finding out what exactly happened is not viable because students lie. We used to try to do that in the past, but the majority of the time all parties involved act as outraged and say they wrote the code and don't know what happened. Some students are very good actors, many others aren't, but even when you face the latter, your impression that they are lying is not proof that you can use in a formal evaluation process and would withstand an appeal.
So yes, it can be unfair, but it's the lesser evil among the solutions I know.
The problem is: what's the realistic alternative? Just letting cheating happen is also unfair (to students who fail while the cheater passes). And finding out what exactly happened is not viable because students lie. We used to try to do that in the past, but the majority of the time all parties involved act as outraged and say they wrote the code and don't know what happened. Some students are very good actors, many others aren't, but even when you face the latter, your impression that they are lying is not proof that you can use in a formal evaluation process and would withstand an appeal.
So yes, it can be unfair, but it's the lesser evil among the solutions I know.
Ask the students how their code works and how they came up with it. It shouldn't be hard to tell who actually wrote it.
On the one hand, as we know from the P vs. NP problem (at least if we assume the majority opinion), explaining a solution is much easier than coming up with it... and even easier if they copy from a good student who not only writes good code, but also documents it.
On the other hand, even if I am very confident that a student didn't write the code because they clearly don't understand it (which is often the case), this is difficult to uphold if the student appeals. For better or for worse, the greater accountability in grading and the availability of appeal processes means that you need to have some kind of objective evidence. "It was written in the rules that duplicate code would not be accepted, and this is clearly duplicate code" is objective. "I questioned both students and I found that this one couldn't correctly explain how the code works, so I'm sure he didn't write it" is not.
Note that I do this kind of questioning routinely (not only when cheating is involved) and take it into account in grades, because it of course makes sense to evaluate comprehension of the code... but outright failing a student on the grounds of an oral interview can easily get a professor into trouble.
On the other hand, even if I am very confident that a student didn't write the code because they clearly don't understand it (which is often the case), this is difficult to uphold if the student appeals. For better or for worse, the greater accountability in grading and the availability of appeal processes means that you need to have some kind of objective evidence. "It was written in the rules that duplicate code would not be accepted, and this is clearly duplicate code" is objective. "I questioned both students and I found that this one couldn't correctly explain how the code works, so I'm sure he didn't write it" is not.
Note that I do this kind of questioning routinely (not only when cheating is involved) and take it into account in grades, because it of course makes sense to evaluate comprehension of the code... but outright failing a student on the grounds of an oral interview can easily get a professor into trouble.
> On the one hand, as we know from the P vs. NP problem (at least if we assume the majority opinion), explaining a solution is much easier than coming up with it... and even easier if they copy from a good student who not only writes good code, but also documents it.
You can ask “tricky” questions that someone who understands the material shouldn't have a problem answering, such as “if the problem required you to also do this, how would you change your code?”.
"I questioned both students and I found that this one couldn't correctly explain how the code works, so I'm sure he didn't write it" is not.
Fair enough. But at least you can give a bad grade for not understanding the course material.
You can ask “tricky” questions that someone who understands the material shouldn't have a problem answering, such as “if the problem required you to also do this, how would you change your code?”.
"I questioned both students and I found that this one couldn't correctly explain how the code works, so I'm sure he didn't write it" is not.
Fair enough. But at least you can give a bad grade for not understanding the course material.
I would let 100 people cheat if it meant I was sure 1 innocent student wasn’t punished unjustly.
People that don’t cheat may benefit in the future for not doing so.
I said May here because I generally found university education to be useless for myself. Instead, I wish I had met folks I consider mentors at work, earlier in my life.
People that don’t cheat may benefit in the future for not doing so.
I said May here because I generally found university education to be useless for myself. Instead, I wish I had met folks I consider mentors at work, earlier in my life.
> I would let 100 people cheat if it meant I was sure 1 innocent student wasn’t punished unjustly.
This makes sense in the justice system, but in the justice system you often can find proof as to what happened, so the system still acts as a deterrent even if a fraction criminals get away with no punishment. In university assignments, most of the time it's practically impossible to find evidence of who copied from whom, so applying that principle would basically mean no enforcement, that everyone would be free to cheat and assignments would just not make sense at all.
Also, failing a course is far from such a big deal as going to jail or paying a fine. At least in my country, you can take the course again next year and the impact on your GPA is zero or negligible. You will have an entry in your academic record saying that you failed in the first attempt, but it won't be any different from that of someone who failed due to, e.g., illness.
If the consequences were harsher (e.g. being expelled from the institution, or something like that) then I would agree with you.
This makes sense in the justice system, but in the justice system you often can find proof as to what happened, so the system still acts as a deterrent even if a fraction criminals get away with no punishment. In university assignments, most of the time it's practically impossible to find evidence of who copied from whom, so applying that principle would basically mean no enforcement, that everyone would be free to cheat and assignments would just not make sense at all.
Also, failing a course is far from such a big deal as going to jail or paying a fine. At least in my country, you can take the course again next year and the impact on your GPA is zero or negligible. You will have an entry in your academic record saying that you failed in the first attempt, but it won't be any different from that of someone who failed due to, e.g., illness.
If the consequences were harsher (e.g. being expelled from the institution, or something like that) then I would agree with you.
Put a security camera in the lab. Catch a student doing something like that and you have grounds for expulsion.
When I was a TA checking "Intro to programming" HW assignments, my brain was the similarity check software.
Anyway, when I detected two basically-identical submissions, I would call in both students to my office. I would chide them, explain to them that learning to code happens with your fingers, and that if they don't do it themselves, then even though they might sneak past the TA, they'll just not know programming, and would be stuck in future courses.
The I would tell them this:
"Look, I have a single assignment here, with a grade, on its own, of X% (out of a total of 100%), and two people. I'm going to let you decide how you want to divide the credit for the assignment among yourselves, and will not second-guess you. Please take a few minutes to talk about it outside and let me know who gets what."
Most times, one person would confess to cheating and one person got their grade. For various reasons I would not report these cases further up the official ladder, and left it at that.
Anyway, when I detected two basically-identical submissions, I would call in both students to my office. I would chide them, explain to them that learning to code happens with your fingers, and that if they don't do it themselves, then even though they might sneak past the TA, they'll just not know programming, and would be stuck in future courses.
The I would tell them this:
"Look, I have a single assignment here, with a grade, on its own, of X% (out of a total of 100%), and two people. I'm going to let you decide how you want to divide the credit for the assignment among yourselves, and will not second-guess you. Please take a few minutes to talk about it outside and let me know who gets what."
Most times, one person would confess to cheating and one person got their grade. For various reasons I would not report these cases further up the official ladder, and left it at that.
It becomes obvious when you ask them to explain the code. At my university I once overheard a boy and a girl presenting some code "they" had written to a TA. The TA asked them some basic questions on while-loops and function calls. It became obvious that the boy had written all the code and the girl had no clue. So the TA decided that the boy had passed but that the girl had to come back and present the code herself on the next session.
It doesn't matter, both violated academic integrity by letting the copy happen. (Submissions are never stolen) If you think letting copying happen is less severe, you ask them and rebalance based on the work. Most of the time 'they made it together'.
Curves are the lesser evil. There are professors who dont give good grades at all. If you select a curse run by them cant get more than a grade C.
Meanwhile there are other professors where everyone gets an A easily.
Most students will probably pick the easy professors who give only As - because for them the degree is just a ticket for the job.
In fact those "tough" professors can have an adverse effect on those who picked the harder route. If you dont get good grades, you will have a lower GPA and that dream company will not even invite you for an interview. Some automated HR system will reject your application. They dont care that you went to a professor who taught you a lot -> they only see the low grade.
Same for scholarships - tough professor makes it already difficult to have good grades, but if you are graded without a curve, you get bad grade -> and can lose your scholarship.
Nobody cares about you as a person, or your knowledge, they measure you by your grades.
This is a tragedy of the commons in some ways: professors are supposed to give good grades, otherwise students wont choose them. Those who want to know more, are punished for it - in multiple way (first of all, they need to study more, but then they get a lower grade, which means lower GPA, what can lead to worse job offers, no scholarships etc).
If you want to be a "popular" professor, just pass everyone?
On a side note, in those great universities, dont they pass everyone anyway? I think frontpage had an article some time ago, that when you get to Ivy League, you will get a B or C even if you are bad, they generally dont kick out students who try to study, but arent particularly good.
Curves wouldnt be needed if every course had an objective list of material that should be learned - but even this is difficult - and not comparable between professors on same university, not to mention different ones - despite standards and various efforts (not to mention measuring if students really can know the whole list)
Most students will probably pick the easy professors who give only As - because for them the degree is just a ticket for the job.
In fact those "tough" professors can have an adverse effect on those who picked the harder route. If you dont get good grades, you will have a lower GPA and that dream company will not even invite you for an interview. Some automated HR system will reject your application. They dont care that you went to a professor who taught you a lot -> they only see the low grade.
Same for scholarships - tough professor makes it already difficult to have good grades, but if you are graded without a curve, you get bad grade -> and can lose your scholarship.
Nobody cares about you as a person, or your knowledge, they measure you by your grades.
This is a tragedy of the commons in some ways: professors are supposed to give good grades, otherwise students wont choose them. Those who want to know more, are punished for it - in multiple way (first of all, they need to study more, but then they get a lower grade, which means lower GPA, what can lead to worse job offers, no scholarships etc).
If you want to be a "popular" professor, just pass everyone?
On a side note, in those great universities, dont they pass everyone anyway? I think frontpage had an article some time ago, that when you get to Ivy League, you will get a B or C even if you are bad, they generally dont kick out students who try to study, but arent particularly good.
Curves wouldnt be needed if every course had an objective list of material that should be learned - but even this is difficult - and not comparable between professors on same university, not to mention different ones - despite standards and various efforts (not to mention measuring if students really can know the whole list)
How is sharing knowledge "violating academic integrity"? Unless given specific and explicit instructions not to reveal working solutions, then sharing your code is literally just "helping" others, it's up to them to either study it and produce their own versions, or jut blatantly copy & cheat.
Because each university has university-wide rules forbidding sharing assignment solutions. It is explicitly forbidden even before starting the course unless the syllabus or professor directs you so.
You can't "help" others on their own assignments by giving your solution. You can't receive direct "help" either.
Edit: here's the text of my alma mater: Any behavior of individual students by which they make it impossible or attempt to make it impossible to make a correct judgment about the knowledge, insight and/or skills of themselves or of other students, in whole or in part, is considered an irregularity that may give rise to an adjusted sanction.
A special form of such irregularity is plagiarism, i.e. the copying without adequate source reference of the work (ideas, texts, structures, designs, images, plans, codes, ...) of others or of previous work of one's own, in an identical manner. or in slightly modified form.
[https://www.kuleuven.be/onderwijs/oer/2021/?faculteit=500004... translated with Google]
Edit: here's the text of my alma mater: Any behavior of individual students by which they make it impossible or attempt to make it impossible to make a correct judgment about the knowledge, insight and/or skills of themselves or of other students, in whole or in part, is considered an irregularity that may give rise to an adjusted sanction.
A special form of such irregularity is plagiarism, i.e. the copying without adequate source reference of the work (ideas, texts, structures, designs, images, plans, codes, ...) of others or of previous work of one's own, in an identical manner. or in slightly modified form.
[https://www.kuleuven.be/onderwijs/oer/2021/?faculteit=500004... translated with Google]
In my time in college I helped a lot of fellow students work through a lot of assignments. I sat down with them and helped them to think through the problem and find examples to learn from that weren't full solutions to the assignment. I helped them find difficult bugs in their implementation by pointing them in the right direction or showing them debugging tricks I found helpful.
What I didn't do was show them my implementation or even talk about how I solved it. Yeah, doing it the long way takes a bit more effort, but the result is that the students I helped actually understood the code they submitted and were better equipped to solve the next assignment without help.
What I didn't do was show them my implementation or even talk about how I solved it. Yeah, doing it the long way takes a bit more effort, but the result is that the students I helped actually understood the code they submitted and were better equipped to solve the next assignment without help.
You ask them to do it again in front of you
I implemented the widely used MOSS algorithm (mentioned by a sibling) for my CS department in my senior year. That algorithm doesn't do AST analysis, it just looks at the plain text in a way that is resistant to most small refactorings. MOSS compares sets of k-grams (strings of k characters) between every pair of projects that are under test and produces the number of shared k-grams for each pair of projects. On any given assignment in a given semester, there's a baseline amount of of similarity that is "normal". You then test for outliers, and that gives you the projects that need closer scrutiny.
On the test data we were given (anonymized assignments from prior semesters together with known public git repos), we never had a false positive. On the flip side, small refactorings like variable renames or method re-ordering still turned up above the "suspicious" threshold because there would be enough remaining matching k-grams to make that pair of projects an outlier.
Our school explicitly did not use the algorithm's numbers as evidence of cheating and did not involve the TAs--the numbers were used only to point the professor in the right direction. We excluded all k-grams that featured in the professor's materials (slides, examples, boilerplate code). It also helped that they only used it on the more complex assignments that should have had unique source code (our test data was a client and server for an Android app).
My sense was that this was a pretty good system. Cheaters stood out in the outliers test by several orders of magnitude, so false positives are extremely unlikely. At the same time, the k-gram approach means that if you actually manage to mangle your project enough that it's not detected as copied, you had to perform refactorings in the process that clearly show you know how the program works--anything less still leaves you above the safe zone of shared k-grams.
On the test data we were given (anonymized assignments from prior semesters together with known public git repos), we never had a false positive. On the flip side, small refactorings like variable renames or method re-ordering still turned up above the "suspicious" threshold because there would be enough remaining matching k-grams to make that pair of projects an outlier.
Our school explicitly did not use the algorithm's numbers as evidence of cheating and did not involve the TAs--the numbers were used only to point the professor in the right direction. We excluded all k-grams that featured in the professor's materials (slides, examples, boilerplate code). It also helped that they only used it on the more complex assignments that should have had unique source code (our test data was a client and server for an Android app).
My sense was that this was a pretty good system. Cheaters stood out in the outliers test by several orders of magnitude, so false positives are extremely unlikely. At the same time, the k-gram approach means that if you actually manage to mangle your project enough that it's not detected as copied, you had to perform refactorings in the process that clearly show you know how the program works--anything less still leaves you above the safe zone of shared k-grams.
From doing some cursory research, it appears the software in question is called MOSS (Measure of Software Similarity) and is currently being provided as a service [0].
Since it is intended to be used by instructors and staff, the source is restricted (though "anyone may create a MOSS account"). According to the paper describing how it's used [1], "False positives have never been reported, and all false negatives were quickly traced back to the source, which was either an implementation or a user misunderstanding."
Sources:
[0]: https://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/moss
[1]: http://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/publications/papers/sigmod...
Since it is intended to be used by instructors and staff, the source is restricted (though "anyone may create a MOSS account"). According to the paper describing how it's used [1], "False positives have never been reported, and all false negatives were quickly traced back to the source, which was either an implementation or a user misunderstanding."
Sources:
[0]: https://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/moss
[1]: http://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/publications/papers/sigmod...
I used something similar when I was a TA 20 years ago and while your assumption seems reasonable, there are actually a lot of different ways to solve even quite simple tasks and most cheating is very obvious on manual inspection.
Yep... If you're going to go through the effort of completely rewriting a piece of code to try and dodge an AST analysis algorithm, you've effectively just done 70% of the work and put your grade/position at the institution on the line. It's not worth it, and so people don't tend to do that. It's the same thing with plagiarism—students could very well resynthesize a stolen work in their own words. It would still be plagiarism, sure, but it's also putting in a large amount of effort while still being risky.
If you rewrite everything you steal (e.g. never copy/paste), it’s no different from using an especially well written source.
Well, no. It's still plagiarized if you fail to communicate that it isn't your original work. You can't just steal ideas from someone else's paper, even if you rewrite everything. If you rely on another paper for inspiration, you have to cite it. If a student submitted a paper that was just another paper entirely rephrased, that would not be acceptable in the least even if they cited their source because the expectation of writing a paper is that you contribute something novel and not just regurgitate someone else's argument
If the problem is large enough, I do submit that there are multiple (even many) ways of solving it.
I will also say that there’s problems where that is not the case. For example, we were told to write simulators for scheduling schemes (RR, MLFQ). Other than using different data structures (even that’s a bit of a stretch) not sure how much variance there will be.
Using the right tool for the right job is important.
Just above your post another author posted/cited results of a system that “never produced false positives”.
I think that cited number another author shared is probably correct but presumably, the tool is used in cases where problems are big enough to warrant it.
I will also say that there’s problems where that is not the case. For example, we were told to write simulators for scheduling schemes (RR, MLFQ). Other than using different data structures (even that’s a bit of a stretch) not sure how much variance there will be.
Using the right tool for the right job is important.
Just above your post another author posted/cited results of a system that “never produced false positives”.
I think that cited number another author shared is probably correct but presumably, the tool is used in cases where problems are big enough to warrant it.
I noticed a swap in your prose (still comprehensible), but just realized that cheating and teaching are semi-spoonerisms (swapping the sound order of a single word)... how appropos!
I have the same policy at my uni in Poland.
Admit to cheating without being called out? Depending on the professor mood, they either allowed you to retake exam (though the best grade you'd get was the lowest passing one), or you just fail the course and try again next year.
Both they had less paperwork, and well, they wouldn't report that person.
Both they had less paperwork, and well, they wouldn't report that person.
[deleted]
> I've certain encountered teaching in my own classes,
This kind of mistyping reminds me of those example of people whose names fit their job but it's rare to find such an apropos example.
Sorry to derail your point but the juxtaposition of "ch" and "t" here is perfect.
This kind of mistyping reminds me of those example of people whose names fit their job but it's rare to find such an apropos example.
Sorry to derail your point but the juxtaposition of "ch" and "t" here is perfect.
Not juxtaposition, transposition. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/juxtaposition
Yes, my mistake, thanks.
The results of checking against existing and other test takers solutions must be taken with a strong human judgment. Programming problems such as would be asked in tests are essentially like mathematical formulas/algorithms, and there isn't much variation in how a given formula or algorithm can be implemented.
I don't think these techniques are often applied to problems in tests - there are other, simpler ways of catching cheaters there.
They are much more likely to be applied to homework assignments, where the opportunity for copying is large, but the chance of two students producing the exact same >500-1000 line program is slim to none. Perhaps once in a while a critical function will be copied and no one will realize or similarities in a trivial function will be unnecessarily flagged, but this will be relatively rare and quickly discovered in manual review.
They are much more likely to be applied to homework assignments, where the opportunity for copying is large, but the chance of two students producing the exact same >500-1000 line program is slim to none. Perhaps once in a while a critical function will be copied and no one will realize or similarities in a trivial function will be unnecessarily flagged, but this will be relatively rare and quickly discovered in manual review.
There is a lot of syntactic variation possible, both for formula and algorithms. Even for something as simple as quicksort there is enough natural variation for a class of 30 maybe even 100 (if no references can be used).
Anything more complex and even with references it should be unique.
It's not _just_ trying to be lenient and offer a second chance - it's a way to catch more cheaters. "Turn yourself in and we'll go easy on you... because we might not catch you."
>I knew that my students wanted a second chance, I wasn’t sure how many of them would take it. Part of completing the academic integrity assignment was a tacit admission of cheating, and some students seemed set on not admitting to anything. So, I was thrilled when I received the first completed academic integrity assignment.
>What did the student have to say? There were many full sentences and as I read them I got that feeling again. So, I copied and pasted some sentences into Google, and yup, the student was plagiarizing the academic integrity assignment. Whole swaths of text verbatim copied.
How broken of a person do you have to be to reflexively cheat on a simple assignment intended to give you a second chance after you’ve been caught cheating already? How can that be the first thing you go for? This is really sad. I seriously don’t understand the thinking here.
>What did the student have to say? There were many full sentences and as I read them I got that feeling again. So, I copied and pasted some sentences into Google, and yup, the student was plagiarizing the academic integrity assignment. Whole swaths of text verbatim copied.
How broken of a person do you have to be to reflexively cheat on a simple assignment intended to give you a second chance after you’ve been caught cheating already? How can that be the first thing you go for? This is really sad. I seriously don’t understand the thinking here.
> How broken of a person do you have to be to reflexively cheat on a simple assignment intended to give you a second chance after you’ve been caught cheating already?
My opinion is that most people only go to college these days because they perceive it as the only path to a good paying job, not because they are terribly interested in the material.
Given that assumption, it's easy for me to understand why people would try to minimize the amount of work they have to do for something they didn't want in the first place.
They are mostly just there for the "job ticket".
My opinion is that most people only go to college these days because they perceive it as the only path to a good paying job, not because they are terribly interested in the material.
Given that assumption, it's easy for me to understand why people would try to minimize the amount of work they have to do for something they didn't want in the first place.
They are mostly just there for the "job ticket".
> My opinion is that most people only go to college these days because they perceive it as the only path to a good paying job, not because they are terribly interested in the material.
I know most people here refer to American system and universities but my experience in Poland is, degrees, especially related to computer science, mostly teach you useless, outdated stuff, that you will never need to know. Most people here approach CS degree as something that you simply have to do to get a decent job in IT(though it's slowly changing toward not doing a degree at all), or simply because your family expects you to. Most universities here pump out diplomas to get paid by government and industry, so they can pump out more diplomas. Honestly I haven't met a single employer or even coworker that ever cared if I had CS degree. Most of stuff I learned there is 'nice to know it exists' but nothing I've ever used in real life work, most professors clearly have never even worked in the industry. Best thing that came out of my BEng in CS are friends and realization that noone cares about me so I needed to solve issues and learn on my own.
I know most people here refer to American system and universities but my experience in Poland is, degrees, especially related to computer science, mostly teach you useless, outdated stuff, that you will never need to know. Most people here approach CS degree as something that you simply have to do to get a decent job in IT(though it's slowly changing toward not doing a degree at all), or simply because your family expects you to. Most universities here pump out diplomas to get paid by government and industry, so they can pump out more diplomas. Honestly I haven't met a single employer or even coworker that ever cared if I had CS degree. Most of stuff I learned there is 'nice to know it exists' but nothing I've ever used in real life work, most professors clearly have never even worked in the industry. Best thing that came out of my BEng in CS are friends and realization that noone cares about me so I needed to solve issues and learn on my own.
100%. People I know here at a T-20 Southern California school just cheated their way through classes, just grinded leetcode through university and have high paying FAANG jobs. It's just a matter of what you want from an university education and why you want a degree tbh.
These people don't know how to do their own work, full stop. I've encountered the type before. They literally wouldn't know what to do.
What's interesting is those people are not necessarily maladapted to their future adult work lives.
In some lines of work finding the correct stuff to use for a task is way more important than ability to create it yourself from scratch.
Finding the plug that fits the given socket vs building the plug from scratch.
In some lines of work finding the correct stuff to use for a task is way more important than ability to create it yourself from scratch.
Finding the plug that fits the given socket vs building the plug from scratch.
The original cheating, maybe. Cheating, doubling down by lying, and then cheating again on the get-out-of-cheating-free assignment seems like it’s only adapted to a future life of white-collar crime.
I could imagine someone seeing this assignment as a formal requirement. And googling "integrity assignment", just like one might google how to fill out some tax related forms. Or perhaps even how people google "birthday wishes".
Mental illness, trolling, apathy.
Or habit, it's just your writing process at this point.
Quite a read, indeed.
As a student witnessing the amount of cheating going on, I was always surprised about the noise raised by teachers on it: I always felt that my score was my own, and didn't care about comparing against others.
Perhaps that's why I didn't care?
Another thing is that college is voluntary, and everyone takes the courses for some perceived gain. If it's just a diploma with high GPA, I let them be.
There are also plenty of ways to legitimately score a high grade without really engaging with a course (basically silly ways to study just to pass), which in the end result is not much different from simply cheating (there was no appropriate engaging in the material) — while the main difference is in fairness, that's a moral value that's beyond some random teacher's ability to teach adult students — so I don't see why bother.
The main question I have for the author is if they would have offered the same get-out-of-trouble alternative syllabus if they had 10% of the students cheating? Basically, how influential was the proportion of students to be failed in their huge investment in reworking the course?
Obviously, they did a bad job with the original syllabus in promoting exactly the behaviour they didn't condone, but one should never discount the thrill humans experience in engaging in risky behaviour (like figuring ways out to cheat which is sometimes more work than studying, but more thrilling — and helping others along the way adds a nice cherry on top).
As a student witnessing the amount of cheating going on, I was always surprised about the noise raised by teachers on it: I always felt that my score was my own, and didn't care about comparing against others.
Perhaps that's why I didn't care?
Another thing is that college is voluntary, and everyone takes the courses for some perceived gain. If it's just a diploma with high GPA, I let them be.
There are also plenty of ways to legitimately score a high grade without really engaging with a course (basically silly ways to study just to pass), which in the end result is not much different from simply cheating (there was no appropriate engaging in the material) — while the main difference is in fairness, that's a moral value that's beyond some random teacher's ability to teach adult students — so I don't see why bother.
The main question I have for the author is if they would have offered the same get-out-of-trouble alternative syllabus if they had 10% of the students cheating? Basically, how influential was the proportion of students to be failed in their huge investment in reworking the course?
Obviously, they did a bad job with the original syllabus in promoting exactly the behaviour they didn't condone, but one should never discount the thrill humans experience in engaging in risky behaviour (like figuring ways out to cheat which is sometimes more work than studying, but more thrilling — and helping others along the way adds a nice cherry on top).
I always felt that my score was my own, and didn't care about comparing against others.
Tough to do when you’re sharing a curve with a bunch of cheaters, and the grades matter for your future.
I know in the program I attended I was up against a fair few who were taking cognition enhancing drugs, others who had exam copies from prior years to help them prep, and a lot of people who copied each others’ homework. It was frustrating to be on a curve with them.
I had a few professors who didn’t use curves. It was wonderful.
I think curves are in general unethical due to cheating, and feel they’re a sign that a professor hasn’t done the hard work to really zero in on exactly what knowledge the student is expected to master.
Open to counterarguments.
Tough to do when you’re sharing a curve with a bunch of cheaters, and the grades matter for your future.
I know in the program I attended I was up against a fair few who were taking cognition enhancing drugs, others who had exam copies from prior years to help them prep, and a lot of people who copied each others’ homework. It was frustrating to be on a curve with them.
I had a few professors who didn’t use curves. It was wonderful.
I think curves are in general unethical due to cheating, and feel they’re a sign that a professor hasn’t done the hard work to really zero in on exactly what knowledge the student is expected to master.
Open to counterarguments.
> cognition enhancing drugs, others who had exam copies from prior years to help them prep, and a lot of people who copied each others’ homework
I feel drugs and copying are quite different - the guy on drugs did put in the work and the effort, after all.
I feel drugs and copying are quite different - the guy on drugs did put in the work and the effort, after all.
For what it's worth, I feel similar to you, including for sports. Basically, life threatening things should be prohibited, but everything else is free-for-all.
This would eliminate a lot of cheating, and a lot of advantages for those in a good position (better access to new drugs and nutrition, better recovery programs, better training programs — aren't they all unfair at some level?)...
The ultimate goal is to get us to experience the top level combination of talent and effort, both in science/work and otherwise. Getting there is never going to be completely fair (hey, you scored better on it even though you prepared for 3 days and I took 30: tough luck for me, I guess, but the fact you are more talented for that exam is not something I can do anything about).
I've also seen non-cheating people who are excellent at exam taking (great scores) without ever taking anything from the actual material (zero learnings). I've never felt threatened by them either, though maybe I would have if I wanted to pursue an academic career.
This would eliminate a lot of cheating, and a lot of advantages for those in a good position (better access to new drugs and nutrition, better recovery programs, better training programs — aren't they all unfair at some level?)...
The ultimate goal is to get us to experience the top level combination of talent and effort, both in science/work and otherwise. Getting there is never going to be completely fair (hey, you scored better on it even though you prepared for 3 days and I took 30: tough luck for me, I guess, but the fact you are more talented for that exam is not something I can do anything about).
I've also seen non-cheating people who are excellent at exam taking (great scores) without ever taking anything from the actual material (zero learnings). I've never felt threatened by them either, though maybe I would have if I wanted to pursue an academic career.
There's a big grey area between the life threatening stuff, and the stuff that will slowly mess you up for life. Simple example, but the drugs people take for pain increase your odds of a heart attack if taken habitually. It feels deeply unethical to have "take drugs that will ruin you once your career is over" be the minimum requirement for a career in sports.
Sure, that big grey area also includes paracetamol, alcohol, smoking, even caffeine... — all allowed for both students and athletes even though we know of harm they can produce.
Many sports are life-ruinous by nature (check out those NFL head injury studies), yet we incentivise people to take part in them (by paying a lot for the games).
I always cringe when I hear from pro sportspeople how engaging in sports is promoting a healthy lifestyle: I mean, sure, unless overdone like all pro sports do.
Many sports are life-ruinous by nature (check out those NFL head injury studies), yet we incentivise people to take part in them (by paying a lot for the games).
I always cringe when I hear from pro sportspeople how engaging in sports is promoting a healthy lifestyle: I mean, sure, unless overdone like all pro sports do.
I would pay money to have a "open rules" olympics kind of event. Drugs? Cybernetics? Let's do it.
For both academics and the olympics though, this ends up being an arms race that ends up just hurting those who participate. You wouldn't want an all natural, 90th percentile athlete to feel like the only way they can get ahead (or, worse, even just stay where they are) is by taking drugs with dangerous side effects. Similarly, we surely don't want students who are already doing just alright to feel like they need to get an off-script bottle of adderall in order to not fall behind their peers.
A 90th percentile athlete today is likely anything but all natural today.
By the same measure, pain killers, kinesio tapes, surgeries, ice baths: they are routine stuff for common athletes over-exerting themselves.
I've never seen anyone naturally grow a kinesio tape, yet I think 90% of people in pro sports wear them. :)
It always was and remains a question of where we draw the line?
I think that the rule should be the same for the entire population — if we are aware of the adverse effects, prescription required.
By the same measure, pain killers, kinesio tapes, surgeries, ice baths: they are routine stuff for common athletes over-exerting themselves.
I've never seen anyone naturally grow a kinesio tape, yet I think 90% of people in pro sports wear them. :)
It always was and remains a question of where we draw the line?
I think that the rule should be the same for the entire population — if we are aware of the adverse effects, prescription required.
Okay, then I'm going up against people who are willing to risk their health to gain an advantage. Should I be penalized because I'm trying to make sure my equipment's going to last as long as I need it?
I suppose we accept that in sports -- even without doping, if somebody's gonna sacrifice their body to make a play then that's their call -- but in academia, too?
I suppose we accept that in sports -- even without doping, if somebody's gonna sacrifice their body to make a play then that's their call -- but in academia, too?
That's what people do all the time.
In academia, pulling all-nighters to meet unreasonable demands, psychological toll of political games, jerk mentors and professors...
In sports, I know of no-one participating even recreationally who does not have a lingering sports injury (me included).
Basically, if you want "your equipment to last", you would not participate in any high level sports at all.
In academia, pulling all-nighters to meet unreasonable demands, psychological toll of political games, jerk mentors and professors...
In sports, I know of no-one participating even recreationally who does not have a lingering sports injury (me included).
Basically, if you want "your equipment to last", you would not participate in any high level sports at all.
I don't. Steroids are banned from competitive sports for a reason.
grades matter for your future
Here’s the real problem. Grad programs and/or employers are cheating—-they aren’t doing their own homework.
Here’s the real problem. Grad programs and/or employers are cheating—-they aren’t doing their own homework.
“and the grades matter for your future”
There’s the key problem.
A vitality curve is a performance management practice that calls for individuals to be ranked or rated against their coworkers. It is also called stack ranking, forced ranking, and rank and yank. Pioneered by GE's Jack Welch in the 1980s, it has remained controversial. Numerous companies practice it, but mostly covertly to avoid direct criticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve
There’s the key problem.
A vitality curve is a performance management practice that calls for individuals to be ranked or rated against their coworkers. It is also called stack ranking, forced ranking, and rank and yank. Pioneered by GE's Jack Welch in the 1980s, it has remained controversial. Numerous companies practice it, but mostly covertly to avoid direct criticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve
It's my opinion that Jack Welch was extremely bad for America. He did everything Deming pointed out didn't work long term and focused on profit above all, and got extremely lucky in the financial sector. As soon as the economy soured, his vaunted techniques failed miserably. Worst of all, he trained hundreds of future leaders to follow that model.
I’d agree that a zero-sum weakness-focused approach is maladaptive.
Trying to consider the other hand reminds me of question I had at an all-hands last year: “If the only raises are annual review based, does the inflation rate mean that everyone else takes an effective pay cut?” The response hedged on HR doing market adjustments. Maybe Welch was just being realistic? Maybe encouraging folks to change employment until they are in a position in which they excel is the better option long term?
I don’t know. There’s a saying “it’s cruel to be kind” and maybe I’m too soft to survive.
Trying to consider the other hand reminds me of question I had at an all-hands last year: “If the only raises are annual review based, does the inflation rate mean that everyone else takes an effective pay cut?” The response hedged on HR doing market adjustments. Maybe Welch was just being realistic? Maybe encouraging folks to change employment until they are in a position in which they excel is the better option long term?
I don’t know. There’s a saying “it’s cruel to be kind” and maybe I’m too soft to survive.
It's not only that, though - if you reward the top 10% of performers and fire the bottom 10%, say, but don't actually make sure that said performance is due to skill and not a degree of randomness you may not improve at all.
You also create an attitude of fear which is not conducive to a productive and adaptable environment in the long term. You can get away with it for a while, but it's not a good principle.
Get rid of the annual review entirely. Active management is better than passive with guiderails like prodding reviews. I've never been motivated by an annual review nor have I seen it successfully motivate others; have you?
The opposite is true in my experience. People fear it and become less productive as it nears, it takes time that would be better spent on other things and it's not personally rewarding for the manager or the worker. If done poorly, it also lowers team unity and especially doesn't work as a reward because people don't recognize the behavior that led to it. If you reward behavior right after it happens, people associate the behavior with the reward. If you wait six months, they don't. They can intellectually but the team impact is lowered. Not to mention if you're individually evaluating a team based on arbitrary statistics you miss the people who hold everything together. Nobody wants to help their teammate if it will cause their teammate to get a raise instead of them.
Finally, it causes people to game the system instead of improving their work because the work improvement has less impact on their remuneration.
All that to say I don't think the annual review is a good tool.
You also create an attitude of fear which is not conducive to a productive and adaptable environment in the long term. You can get away with it for a while, but it's not a good principle.
Get rid of the annual review entirely. Active management is better than passive with guiderails like prodding reviews. I've never been motivated by an annual review nor have I seen it successfully motivate others; have you?
The opposite is true in my experience. People fear it and become less productive as it nears, it takes time that would be better spent on other things and it's not personally rewarding for the manager or the worker. If done poorly, it also lowers team unity and especially doesn't work as a reward because people don't recognize the behavior that led to it. If you reward behavior right after it happens, people associate the behavior with the reward. If you wait six months, they don't. They can intellectually but the team impact is lowered. Not to mention if you're individually evaluating a team based on arbitrary statistics you miss the people who hold everything together. Nobody wants to help their teammate if it will cause their teammate to get a raise instead of them.
Finally, it causes people to game the system instead of improving their work because the work improvement has less impact on their remuneration.
All that to say I don't think the annual review is a good tool.
I agree with your opinion on curves (which aren't even a thing where I'm from), but cheating matters even in the absence of curves.
If GPA is a factor to achieve certain jobs, positions, grants, PhD programs, etc. (which it obviously is, to varying extents depending on countries, but AFAIK it always is) then someone who is inflating their GPA via cheating can basically "steal" your job/PhD/etc., curve or not.
If GPA is a factor to achieve certain jobs, positions, grants, PhD programs, etc. (which it obviously is, to varying extents depending on countries, but AFAIK it always is) then someone who is inflating their GPA via cheating can basically "steal" your job/PhD/etc., curve or not.
> I think curves are in general unethical due to cheating, and feel they’re a sign that a professor hasn’t done the hard work to really zero in on exactly what knowledge the student is expected to master.
I disagree; there's no objective criteria for what students should be "expected to master" in a particular course. it's inherently relative to what the typical student at that institution is capable of. a class where everyone gets an A is probably a waste of time for everyone involved. it strongly implies that more material could have been covered.
if a whole institution is like this, it gets back to the original problem. when everyone else is graduating with a 4.0, a 3.8 looks a lot like a 2.0 from a more rigorous school.
ideally, the material itself would be designed to get a good distribution of As, Bs, and Cs with a few Ds and Fs for people who didn't try or understand at all. but it's pretty hard to get this exactly right. better to err on the side of making things a little too hard. then the occasional bright student will really shine, and you have enough signal to compress the range into the expected letters at the end.
I disagree; there's no objective criteria for what students should be "expected to master" in a particular course. it's inherently relative to what the typical student at that institution is capable of. a class where everyone gets an A is probably a waste of time for everyone involved. it strongly implies that more material could have been covered.
if a whole institution is like this, it gets back to the original problem. when everyone else is graduating with a 4.0, a 3.8 looks a lot like a 2.0 from a more rigorous school.
ideally, the material itself would be designed to get a good distribution of As, Bs, and Cs with a few Ds and Fs for people who didn't try or understand at all. but it's pretty hard to get this exactly right. better to err on the side of making things a little too hard. then the occasional bright student will really shine, and you have enough signal to compress the range into the expected letters at the end.
there's no objective criteria for what students should be "expected to master" in a particular course
Not exactly, but depending on the course you can get pretty close. In my engineering statics and solids classes, it mapped well with what you'd be expected to do when working as a stress engineer (which is what I worked in after school). In my heat transfer course, it mapped well with the responsibilities of a thermal engineer.
ideally, the material itself would be designed to get a good distribution of As, Bs, and Cs with a few Ds and Fs for people who didn't try or understand at all. but it's pretty hard to get this exactly right. better to err on the side of making things a little too hard. then the occasional bright student will really shine, and you have enough signal to compress the range into the expected letters at the end.
And that's exactly what my professors who didn't curve managed to do. It was clear they worked very hard at prioritizing the important material, teaching it well, and testing it fairly. It was a breath of fresh air.
But when the average score on an exam in one of my other classes was 22% -- and they weren't looking for the next Einstein, it was just another upper division engineering class, presumably the geniuses would have revealed themselves by that point -- it was clear that the professor wasn't even trying. Throw a bunch of crap on the test and let the curve sort it out, so the professor could get back to what they really wanted to spend their time on: research.
Not exactly, but depending on the course you can get pretty close. In my engineering statics and solids classes, it mapped well with what you'd be expected to do when working as a stress engineer (which is what I worked in after school). In my heat transfer course, it mapped well with the responsibilities of a thermal engineer.
ideally, the material itself would be designed to get a good distribution of As, Bs, and Cs with a few Ds and Fs for people who didn't try or understand at all. but it's pretty hard to get this exactly right. better to err on the side of making things a little too hard. then the occasional bright student will really shine, and you have enough signal to compress the range into the expected letters at the end.
And that's exactly what my professors who didn't curve managed to do. It was clear they worked very hard at prioritizing the important material, teaching it well, and testing it fairly. It was a breath of fresh air.
But when the average score on an exam in one of my other classes was 22% -- and they weren't looking for the next Einstein, it was just another upper division engineering class, presumably the geniuses would have revealed themselves by that point -- it was clear that the professor wasn't even trying. Throw a bunch of crap on the test and let the curve sort it out, so the professor could get back to what they really wanted to spend their time on: research.
Research also happens to be what they are evaluated on for tenure/promotion etc. Teaching evaluations are generally a tiny part of that equation.
[deleted]
> when everyone else is graduating with a 4.0, a 3.8 looks a lot like a 2.0 from a more rigorous school.
I've never heard of this interpretation before, it seems this is a difference in whether the GPA should represent a student's actual grade on assignments, or the student's overall achievement relative to their piers. It seems the curve exists for the latter ideology - you can't expect every FAANG recruiter to say "well they got 2.9 from Georgia Tech, that's better than this 3.4 from Duke", if they did, you'd probably have pretty arbitrary hirings (although, if it became policy, I can see some Googler making an internal tool to 'normalize' school GPAs); although it seems MIT has a "no curves" policy and graduates still manage top-tier GPAs.
I've never heard of this interpretation before, it seems this is a difference in whether the GPA should represent a student's actual grade on assignments, or the student's overall achievement relative to their piers. It seems the curve exists for the latter ideology - you can't expect every FAANG recruiter to say "well they got 2.9 from Georgia Tech, that's better than this 3.4 from Duke", if they did, you'd probably have pretty arbitrary hirings (although, if it became policy, I can see some Googler making an internal tool to 'normalize' school GPAs); although it seems MIT has a "no curves" policy and graduates still manage top-tier GPAs.
I can't speak to what goes on in FAANG recruiting, but I was involved in hiring for a smaller company that recruited heavily from regional schools. we absolutely knew which schools were harder, as most of the younger engineers had graduated recently from that same set of schools. obviously GPA doesn't tell the whole story, and we preferred to decide based on work experience. but for junior hires and especially interns, there's not always a lot of signal to decide on. all things being equal, we would prefer someone with a 3.0 (or even lower, with a good explanation) from the rigorous stem school over someone with a 4.0 from the well-known party school. which is too bad, I'm sure there were some very bright people who went to the "party school", but their grading policy made it very difficult to distinguish them from their peers who barely had a pulse.
I always share the exams I set (and the solutions) with my students. Inhace necer understood the idea that keeping them “secret” is somehow useful.
Yes, writing a new exam each time is a bore but I prefer my students learning my style rather yhan not.
Yes, writing a new exam each time is a bore but I prefer my students learning my style rather yhan not.
Curves typically ignore outliers (because otherwise they would be useless, there’s always that one kid) so unless everyone except you is cheating you’re usually fine.
There are two cases, usually, where curves make sense.
* When the professor doesn’t actually know how hard the exam is because it’s a new test. And since people save tests that’s most classes.
* When the professor is actually trying to find that one kid. This is super common in theoretical maths. The exams are incredibly hard with the expectation that you won’t finish it and graded on a curve or some other measure like “the test is out 100 points but there are 200 possible.” But when someone gets a perfect score you direct them to the phd program.
There are two cases, usually, where curves make sense.
* When the professor doesn’t actually know how hard the exam is because it’s a new test. And since people save tests that’s most classes.
* When the professor is actually trying to find that one kid. This is super common in theoretical maths. The exams are incredibly hard with the expectation that you won’t finish it and graded on a curve or some other measure like “the test is out 100 points but there are 200 possible.” But when someone gets a perfect score you direct them to the phd program.
Curves typically ignore outliers (because otherwise they would be useless, there’s always that one kid) so unless everyone except you is cheating you’re usually fine
There's a big range between "that one kid" and "everyone". In some of my courses it'd be easy to believe 15% were cheating in some way. Another comment in this thread put the share at 50%. How's a curve going to deal with that?
There's a big range between "that one kid" and "everyone". In some of my courses it'd be easy to believe 15% were cheating in some way. Another comment in this thread put the share at 50%. How's a curve going to deal with that?
> Tough to do when you’re sharing a curve with a bunch of cheaters
Are curves still that common these days? In my time at university, the only classes that got curved were a couple math classes that were curved in the students' favor.
Are curves still that common these days? In my time at university, the only classes that got curved were a couple math classes that were curved in the students' favor.
Curves are extremely common in STEM classes today at Berkeley. I think I've only had a handful of upper division classes that were not curved. A lot of the internal discussion on curving vs not curving is based on the fact that building an exam which generates a good distribution is really hard, especially for classes where the understanding is very stratified due to differing backgrounds in the area.
Cheating still a fairness issue even if the curve is "in your favor". The higher the scores of your classmates, the lower your post-curve score will be.
Sometimes a "curve" can be a test that isn't norm-referenced, but instead just curved up on a straight static curve. For example, 10*sqrt(n) on a very difficult final can provide a grade boost to lower grades. It might be easier to just raise grades than to modify the test, if you see students that you feel should have passed, fail.
Yeah, fair.
I think it highly depends on the school and degree. All my math classes and most of my CS classes at Purdue were curved.
over a decade ago, the only curved class I took was a calculus class entirely full of kids who went to college at 16, and the guy teaching it seemed to have no issue declaring that this class should contain the same proportion of C's as all his others, regardless of how well we learned calculus :)
> sharing a curve
It's beyond me why is this even allowed.
Are you grading results of your educational effort or are you organizing a beauty pageant?
Not grading on a curve should be part of academic integrity standards.
It's beyond me why is this even allowed.
Are you grading results of your educational effort or are you organizing a beauty pageant?
Not grading on a curve should be part of academic integrity standards.
In my experience it's to help more people pass. If the natural distribution has 70% as the average, no curve is applied. Above-average outliers (the occasional 100% scores) would be removed from the calculation.
How do you know if grades matter for your future? In my first uni year, I had no idea I'd get a job before my studies were over.
If there's an actual correspondence (eg you get next year scholarship for your studies only if your GPA remains above X), that's an incentive to cheat, so there is one issue.
And while curves do suck, it also sucks to be compared with someone having photographic memory in most exams where that is a very useful skill (even though the exam is not sttempting to favout photographic memory). Or some lazy bag who is more talented at something so it took you 10x more effort to get the same understanding. Basically, you are stacked against so much, that cheating is just a small part of all of that.
In short, it sucks being compared to people using everything they can to their advantage. But then again, that's what happens past university too, so it's just real life.
If there's an actual correspondence (eg you get next year scholarship for your studies only if your GPA remains above X), that's an incentive to cheat, so there is one issue.
And while curves do suck, it also sucks to be compared with someone having photographic memory in most exams where that is a very useful skill (even though the exam is not sttempting to favout photographic memory). Or some lazy bag who is more talented at something so it took you 10x more effort to get the same understanding. Basically, you are stacked against so much, that cheating is just a small part of all of that.
In short, it sucks being compared to people using everything they can to their advantage. But then again, that's what happens past university too, so it's just real life.
Any professor who has to grade on a curve is a professor who shouldn't be allowed to make tests or assignments.
> As a student witnessing the amount of cheating going on, I was always surprised about the noise raised by teachers on it: I always felt that my score was my own, and didn't care about comparing against others.
Years ago a few students in my class were complaining about cheaters. They were frustrated, and one even accused me of missing "obvious" cheaters. It was embarrassing for me, and brought down morale in the class. I have policed exams more aggressively ever since.
In another class, I caught a cheater during an exam (Calculus 2 or 3), and one of his classmates e-mailed thanking me, noting the student cheated his way through the prerequisite class the prior semester.
This stuff really matters.
Years ago a few students in my class were complaining about cheaters. They were frustrated, and one even accused me of missing "obvious" cheaters. It was embarrassing for me, and brought down morale in the class. I have policed exams more aggressively ever since.
In another class, I caught a cheater during an exam (Calculus 2 or 3), and one of his classmates e-mailed thanking me, noting the student cheated his way through the prerequisite class the prior semester.
This stuff really matters.
Oh, it sure does matter. Like it matters to most every student (teenage or college) how they are perceived by their most popular peers. I.e. it's a human trait to care about things that should not really bother us.
What I am saying is that it shouldn't.
What I am saying is that it shouldn't.
Another thing is that college is voluntary
You voluntarily agree to abide by the academic integrity rules. If you don't want to do that, you can voluntarily go to a different institution with different rules and standards. The goal of the place is learning not pointscoring and cheating undermines that.
You voluntarily agree to abide by the academic integrity rules. If you don't want to do that, you can voluntarily go to a different institution with different rules and standards. The goal of the place is learning not pointscoring and cheating undermines that.
Yea but the pointscoring is literally all that matters, if you change the incentives you’ll see the behavior change with it.
If you take away the aspect of college as “a place to get a credential” you’ll see the cheating stop. Instead for those credentials just hold exams like the AP, ACT, SAT, RHCSE, or the 7 Actuarial exams. No college required. Whatever you do to pass them is fine.
Then make college totally ungraded except as a mechanism for student feedback. Have tracks for people that just want the credentials (just like the APs) that terminate at the exams. All other courses are just for people who are genuinely interested and confer no status or praise.
Now the incentives are aligned. Outside of the testing areas there is literally zero reason for anyone to cheat, and non-credential classes have to actually be interring, engaging, and useful to students for anyone to take them.
If you take away the aspect of college as “a place to get a credential” you’ll see the cheating stop. Instead for those credentials just hold exams like the AP, ACT, SAT, RHCSE, or the 7 Actuarial exams. No college required. Whatever you do to pass them is fine.
Then make college totally ungraded except as a mechanism for student feedback. Have tracks for people that just want the credentials (just like the APs) that terminate at the exams. All other courses are just for people who are genuinely interested and confer no status or praise.
Now the incentives are aligned. Outside of the testing areas there is literally zero reason for anyone to cheat, and non-credential classes have to actually be interring, engaging, and useful to students for anyone to take them.
>If you take away the aspect of college as “a place to get a credential” you’ll see the cheating stop.
No, you won't. People will cheat because it is perceived to be easier than doing the work generally, even if they don't have the external incentive of the score meaning something.
People cheat at casual games of "Call of Duty;" not even ranked.
No, you won't. People will cheat because it is perceived to be easier than doing the work generally, even if they don't have the external incentive of the score meaning something.
People cheat at casual games of "Call of Duty;" not even ranked.
If you are doing that, why do you care about others not doing it?
I went there for learning, and I never felt that was undermined by others' cheating.
How does cheating undermine learning for non-cheaters in college?
I can see loss of motivation or external pressures (family or scholarship demanding a particular GPA) when you are curve graded, but that means that one cares not only about learning — which is ok, we all care about ranking to some extent, but as long as you recognize that it's a flawed system, you can either focus on that or focus on learning imho. And accepting that someone else cares about grading more than you do (which pushes many into cheating as well).
Edit: Oh, and loss of motivation for the teacher, as brought up by the author in the article.
I went there for learning, and I never felt that was undermined by others' cheating.
How does cheating undermine learning for non-cheaters in college?
I can see loss of motivation or external pressures (family or scholarship demanding a particular GPA) when you are curve graded, but that means that one cares not only about learning — which is ok, we all care about ranking to some extent, but as long as you recognize that it's a flawed system, you can either focus on that or focus on learning imho. And accepting that someone else cares about grading more than you do (which pushes many into cheating as well).
Edit: Oh, and loss of motivation for the teacher, as brought up by the author in the article.
If you are doing that, why do you care about others not doing it?
Because there is no way to measure whether the teaching and learning is effective if you just make stuff up. There is no way to do research if you just make stuff up. There is no way to advance human knowledge if you just make stuff up. It's not some convoluted thing, a lot of systems, probably most you encounter in adult life in an industrialized society, depend on essentially voluntary cooperation.
That's not to say the way universities work is somehow optimal but again, as you point out yourself, you don't have participate if you think their methods are too poor to bother with.
Because there is no way to measure whether the teaching and learning is effective if you just make stuff up. There is no way to do research if you just make stuff up. There is no way to advance human knowledge if you just make stuff up. It's not some convoluted thing, a lot of systems, probably most you encounter in adult life in an industrialized society, depend on essentially voluntary cooperation.
That's not to say the way universities work is somehow optimal but again, as you point out yourself, you don't have participate if you think their methods are too poor to bother with.
college is voluntary like taxes are voluntary
The goal of college is to receive a degree to unlock job postings.
I did not go to college to “learn”, and I’m not sure I know anyone who did.
I did not go to college to “learn”, and I’m not sure I know anyone who did.
It can be both. You can learn and earn those credentials.
I did. I didn't graduate with a great GPA but I learned a heck of a lot and got that same degree, unlocking job postings.
From a purely depressingly pragmatic perspective, yes you are correct. But for me it was an opportunity to be immersed in a world of abstract knowledge and the exchange of ideas - an experience that I would not trade for anything.
It is depressing when I hear from people otherwise, I can't imagine missing out on the joy of learning.
It is depressing when I hear from people otherwise, I can't imagine missing out on the joy of learning.
Some people simply have better things to do, or don't care about learning a specific thing. For example, I care about learning programming in my CS classes. No, I don't care about learning who died in 1938.
I'm sorry to hear that. Care to share a bit of your story?
So I think the teacher missed the main point of his own essay:
"The argument was that chat groups have become indispensable tools for students taking courses online during the pandemic. The essay detailed all of the useful info passed around in chats. I totally agreed with this point....Their strategy was to leave the chat before every quiz and midterm so that they couldn’t be there for the cheating. Then they rejoined afterward."
So, in order to be competitive in a class where (whether explicitly curved or not) the difficulty will be adjusted up or down until the "right" portion of students are passing, even a student who wanted to not cheat needed to be in the chat. He made a course in which it required extraordinary efforts to find a way to be able to both pass and not cheat, and then acted surprised that so many students cheated.
Any teacher who can fire up R to process the chat group logs, could have figured out a better system for quizzes and tests, so that it wasn't this hard to be competitive without cheating. Also, if he hasn't ever taken a course on game theory, he should; if he has, he shouldn't have passed.
"The argument was that chat groups have become indispensable tools for students taking courses online during the pandemic. The essay detailed all of the useful info passed around in chats. I totally agreed with this point....Their strategy was to leave the chat before every quiz and midterm so that they couldn’t be there for the cheating. Then they rejoined afterward."
So, in order to be competitive in a class where (whether explicitly curved or not) the difficulty will be adjusted up or down until the "right" portion of students are passing, even a student who wanted to not cheat needed to be in the chat. He made a course in which it required extraordinary efforts to find a way to be able to both pass and not cheat, and then acted surprised that so many students cheated.
Any teacher who can fire up R to process the chat group logs, could have figured out a better system for quizzes and tests, so that it wasn't this hard to be competitive without cheating. Also, if he hasn't ever taken a course on game theory, he should; if he has, he shouldn't have passed.
I don't think your interpretation is supported: it's not that the course was "too hard" without cheating, the cheating began at the outset.
Not only was the course not "too hard", the author give plenty of indications that the course is actually pretty easy. The quizzes everyone was cheating on were open-book. At one point, a student in the group chat recommended that people look things up in the course textbook:
"The best advice was a student telling everyone they could just go to the website for the textbook, then control-F in the textbook and search for words in the question to find the answers. I mean, ya. It’s in the textbook."
This does not sound like a difficult course to me. I have taken courses where it's rather trivial to ace the online quizzes by looking things up in the textbook (I am taking one right now, in fact). Students who can't even do this and resort to sharing the answers in a group chat must have become incredibly jaded about their education. I fully agree with the author's decision to both sanction them for cheating and give them a second chance to engage with the course material. It was very satisfying to see that all of the effort paid off in the end.
"The best advice was a student telling everyone they could just go to the website for the textbook, then control-F in the textbook and search for words in the question to find the answers. I mean, ya. It’s in the textbook."
This does not sound like a difficult course to me. I have taken courses where it's rather trivial to ace the online quizzes by looking things up in the textbook (I am taking one right now, in fact). Students who can't even do this and resort to sharing the answers in a group chat must have become incredibly jaded about their education. I fully agree with the author's decision to both sanction them for cheating and give them a second chance to engage with the course material. It was very satisfying to see that all of the effort paid off in the end.
Which is one of the most interesting takeaways for me. What this guy was dealing with was a cultural problem - a toxic culture had developed in the temporary group/space.
His goal is clearly stated: for people to honestly connect with the course material. That's hard if a group like this is poisoned with cynicism. My thought here is how these types of messaging groups spaces have become an incredibly important aspect of the educational experience and beyond. I think about all the 'toxic' cultures in places I have been in and how they usually revolve around people trading information and socializing.
His goal is clearly stated: for people to honestly connect with the course material. That's hard if a group like this is poisoned with cynicism. My thought here is how these types of messaging groups spaces have become an incredibly important aspect of the educational experience and beyond. I think about all the 'toxic' cultures in places I have been in and how they usually revolve around people trading information and socializing.
From the author:
"The argument was that chat groups have become indispensable tools for students taking courses online during the pandemic...I totally agreed with this point"
"The argument was that chat groups have become indispensable tools for students taking courses online during the pandemic...I totally agreed with this point"
I think this meant for social purposes, more than academic ones
He did find a better system, I recommend reading the article in depth.
As much as the OP claims they take cheating seriously and as an opportunity to engage with students and have them learn amongst other noble undertakings.
I think they just really enjoy catching people cheat and see how far it goes. Sort of masochistic tbh
I think they just really enjoy catching people cheat and see how far it goes. Sort of masochistic tbh
I’d like to add, that supposed “superstar” student who read the chat to learn the other class info and left to not read the cheating… “sent no texts”.
As someone who recently graduated, this student is a freeloader. Comparable to companies who heavily use OSS but never contribute. I expect them to be a terrible coworker.
As someone who recently graduated, this student is a freeloader. Comparable to companies who heavily use OSS but never contribute. I expect them to be a terrible coworker.
I had to stop in the middle of the article due to all the annoying animations.
But something that stood out to me is this:
> For consequences, I came up with a three strikes and you are out rule.
and then
> I wasn’t ready to inform them about what was going on until I had processed all of the facts, so I just pressed on with the lectures. My goal was to have all of the forms filled out and emailed before the next midterm. I tried as hard as I could. But, I couldn’t get it done. I had to give the next midterm, and I knew that probably meant a bunch more cheating.
So basically, this professor know about "low-impact cheating" (cheating in quizzes, where "[t]he quizzes were low stakes"), but instead of saying anything just kept pushing forward.
I wonder if anyone even told those students up front in clear terms that sharing answers on the quizzes was not allowed. In school we're often told to co-operate in assignment. Where is the line between an assignment and a quiz?
Just letting the whole group slide gradually into cheating territory is a lose-lose strategy.
But something that stood out to me is this:
> For consequences, I came up with a three strikes and you are out rule.
and then
> I wasn’t ready to inform them about what was going on until I had processed all of the facts, so I just pressed on with the lectures. My goal was to have all of the forms filled out and emailed before the next midterm. I tried as hard as I could. But, I couldn’t get it done. I had to give the next midterm, and I knew that probably meant a bunch more cheating.
So basically, this professor know about "low-impact cheating" (cheating in quizzes, where "[t]he quizzes were low stakes"), but instead of saying anything just kept pushing forward.
I wonder if anyone even told those students up front in clear terms that sharing answers on the quizzes was not allowed. In school we're often told to co-operate in assignment. Where is the line between an assignment and a quiz?
Just letting the whole group slide gradually into cheating territory is a lose-lose strategy.
Give me a break. The professor went above and beyond to be understanding. The mental gymnastics from many on this thread seeking to blame anyone but the students lack of integrity is pathetic. It's from the Boris Johnson school of 'I didn't know it was a party'.
I mean, the man was ambushed by cake.
This is a college course, right? Do you really not understand what it means to cheat by the time you get to college? A quiz especially--you should not be sharing the answers to questions with other students. It's just about the most basic understanding of cheating you can imagine.
You also shouldn't be sharing the answers to assignments unless the teacher/professor says you can do so.
And finally, read your school's handbook for a proper definition of cheating.
You also shouldn't be sharing the answers to assignments unless the teacher/professor says you can do so.
And finally, read your school's handbook for a proper definition of cheating.
You seem to understand integrity very well, but fail to see that probably 50% of students cheat.
I dont even say that it is good, I just say that is the way it is, was and probably will be.
So you kind of not understand life?
Lots of jobs come through networking, another fact of life.
I dont even say that it is good, I just say that is the way it is, was and probably will be.
So you kind of not understand life?
Lots of jobs come through networking, another fact of life.
What are you even on about? How you could glean any of that from my comment is beyond me.
The professor sets up the expectation they are going to come down hard on everyone but ends up putting in an obscene amount of work to give almost everyone a chance to succeed.
After the halfway point they tilt strongly from justice to mercy and ethics education.
After the halfway point they tilt strongly from justice to mercy and ethics education.
He was curious how far rhis would go, and enjoying this undercover cop thing a little too much.
A course should tell you what works and what doesn't early on, just like a good computer game. If people go down the wrong path early on, it means early on something failed.
A course should tell you what works and what doesn't early on, just like a good computer game. If people go down the wrong path early on, it means early on something failed.
Anyway, I don't see anything in the article about what the academic office said when he turned all those reports in. I'm really curious, these kinds of situations tend to make national news when some prof brings a large number of students up on academic honor code violations. (ex: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/08/20/least-100-nav...)
I'm firmly of the opinion that the negatives of group study out weight the positives and generally should be banned in college. Banging your head against a problem for hours at a time assures you understand all the wrong ways of getting the right answer. This means you have a far more detailed understanding, and there is always formal academic study/the prof/etc and the possibility of asking about difficulties in class.
And finally, group chat is small potato's, I'm fairly certain there is a fair bit of 3rd parties basically doing assignments/taking tests these days for students. Primary because I was "mentoring" a student in a subject and found myself in a situation that I had to extract myself from because it crossed a line of mine.
I'm firmly of the opinion that the negatives of group study out weight the positives and generally should be banned in college. Banging your head against a problem for hours at a time assures you understand all the wrong ways of getting the right answer. This means you have a far more detailed understanding, and there is always formal academic study/the prof/etc and the possibility of asking about difficulties in class.
And finally, group chat is small potato's, I'm fairly certain there is a fair bit of 3rd parties basically doing assignments/taking tests these days for students. Primary because I was "mentoring" a student in a subject and found myself in a situation that I had to extract myself from because it crossed a line of mine.
> I'm firmly of the opinion that the negatives of group study out weight the positives and generally should be banned in college
That's a... strong opinion.
I'm genuinely at a loss of how you can think that. If studying in groups was harmful enough to be banned by colleges, then shouldn't online classes have been tremendous boons to learning? On a personal level, I can barely straighten out two thoughts in my head unless I have someone I can talk it over with, I couldn't imagine collaborative study being outright banned.
Am I missing something here?
That's a... strong opinion.
I'm genuinely at a loss of how you can think that. If studying in groups was harmful enough to be banned by colleges, then shouldn't online classes have been tremendous boons to learning? On a personal level, I can barely straighten out two thoughts in my head unless I have someone I can talk it over with, I couldn't imagine collaborative study being outright banned.
Am I missing something here?
> I'm fairly certain there is a fair bit of 3rd parties basically doing assignments/taking tests these days for students.
I can confirm this.
Personally, I have seen as high as 10 %, but those numbers were heavily skewed towards students who could only speak Chinese. Not sure what was up with them.
I do not teach anymore, but I have heard that the situation became much worse in the last few years.
I can confirm this.
Personally, I have seen as high as 10 %, but those numbers were heavily skewed towards students who could only speak Chinese. Not sure what was up with them.
I do not teach anymore, but I have heard that the situation became much worse in the last few years.
The tuition rates paid by foreign governments on behalf of some International students is astronomical and hard to be ethical about.
This thread, more than any I have read on Hacker News shows the
greatest variation of opinion, and the least ability for us to have
common agreement upon terms, normative behaviours, standards of
judgement or goals. Sadly, education really is a mess. I think it
reflects the schisms within wider society.
After 30 years in and out of "academia" I am exasperated and despondent at the state of affairs and what I consider the total bastardisation of the function of education.
The OP story of rampant, shameless cheating is all too familiar and is simply grist for the mill. It's something to which most professors have grown thick skins. This is the ordinary background against which we have to teach, day in, day out.
Despite being a optimist in so many areas of life I see little prospect of fixing this without extraordinary and radical changes in the governance, funding and mission of universities.
After 30 years in and out of "academia" I am exasperated and despondent at the state of affairs and what I consider the total bastardisation of the function of education.
The OP story of rampant, shameless cheating is all too familiar and is simply grist for the mill. It's something to which most professors have grown thick skins. This is the ordinary background against which we have to teach, day in, day out.
Despite being a optimist in so many areas of life I see little prospect of fixing this without extraordinary and radical changes in the governance, funding and mission of universities.
Kids cheating seems to be an universal behavior, it happens in very different educational systems (US, Europe, Eastern Europe).
I remember when I was a student, cheating didn't seem that much of a crime, to me, or to my peers. We mostly understood that if you cheat you might (or not) have problems later because you just basically wasted time in that course. So it was an assumed risk.
It feels to me that the fight against cheating is basically fighting against (kids) human nature.
Also, snitching on cheaters was unthinkable. And not because of retaliation, but it just felt like very scummy behavior. In a way, like how criminal law in most places doesn't require family members to snitch on other family members who committed a crime.
I remember when I was a student, cheating didn't seem that much of a crime, to me, or to my peers. We mostly understood that if you cheat you might (or not) have problems later because you just basically wasted time in that course. So it was an assumed risk.
It feels to me that the fight against cheating is basically fighting against (kids) human nature.
Also, snitching on cheaters was unthinkable. And not because of retaliation, but it just felt like very scummy behavior. In a way, like how criminal law in most places doesn't require family members to snitch on other family members who committed a crime.
> It feels to me that the fight against cheating is basically fighting
against (kids) human nature.
Yes you're absolutely right. Wars on symptomatic abstractions like "drugs", "terrorism" and "poverty" are always failures and become ad-hominem, as wars on addicts, wars of terror, and wars against the poor.
As surely as thieving loaves of bread is a response to starvation, cheating is just another symptom - as you say, a naturally human response - to an unjust and impossible circumstances. That doesn't make it "right", but the context at least offers us some understanding.
People will stop seeing "selfishly gaming the system" as acceptable social behaviour once our systems resume serving the fullest interests of the people instead of trying to control, manipulate and limit them to the benefit of the few.
Yes you're absolutely right. Wars on symptomatic abstractions like "drugs", "terrorism" and "poverty" are always failures and become ad-hominem, as wars on addicts, wars of terror, and wars against the poor.
As surely as thieving loaves of bread is a response to starvation, cheating is just another symptom - as you say, a naturally human response - to an unjust and impossible circumstances. That doesn't make it "right", but the context at least offers us some understanding.
People will stop seeing "selfishly gaming the system" as acceptable social behaviour once our systems resume serving the fullest interests of the people instead of trying to control, manipulate and limit them to the benefit of the few.
I've personally never witnessed any cheating, heard any friends or students even allude to doing so, I never cheated myself and I can't even comprehend how you would cheat at most of the coursework I did in uni in Sweden.
Sure you could copy your friends code, but you still had to present it to a TA who would certainly get suspicious if you couldn't answer to what you had written. Ditto for exams and essays/reports.
Cheating, or elaborating on how to cheat, just wasn't efficient use of my time as a student, disregarding the morality of it. Frankly, it seems to me the way these students are being tested is not appropriate as it's easy to abuse and creates incentives for students to cheat.
Sure you could copy your friends code, but you still had to present it to a TA who would certainly get suspicious if you couldn't answer to what you had written. Ditto for exams and essays/reports.
Cheating, or elaborating on how to cheat, just wasn't efficient use of my time as a student, disregarding the morality of it. Frankly, it seems to me the way these students are being tested is not appropriate as it's easy to abuse and creates incentives for students to cheat.
> I've personally never witnessed any cheating, heard any friends or
students even allude to doing so, I never cheated myself and I can't
even comprehend how you would cheat at most of the coursework I did
in uni in Sweden.
For most of my life I would've been frightened to even say so, or risk accusations of being a "swot", "teachers pet" or as the Aussies call it, "a tall poppy".
But the attitude that it's "normal" to cheat is common within US/UK/AUS culture now. Truth is I always considered cheating beneath me and was simply _WAY_ ahead of every class I ever took - but you can't say that in "polite" US/UK culture - one cannot be too pious and clean-cut, one must seem little bit like "everybody else" - even if everybody else is not really like that, if that makes sense.
So actually I've taught at universities in Sweden (Stockholm) and Finland (Helsinki) and notice similar attitudes to those you say. But those cultures aren't without dirty hands either. Here's the weird thing: Tall Poppy Syndrome is culturally closest to Jante Law [1], a Scandinavian ethos of "Don't think you're better than anyone else" which is precisely the corrosive culture that means people cheat because everybody else is cheating and causes a downward spiral or race to the bottom.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
For most of my life I would've been frightened to even say so, or risk accusations of being a "swot", "teachers pet" or as the Aussies call it, "a tall poppy".
But the attitude that it's "normal" to cheat is common within US/UK/AUS culture now. Truth is I always considered cheating beneath me and was simply _WAY_ ahead of every class I ever took - but you can't say that in "polite" US/UK culture - one cannot be too pious and clean-cut, one must seem little bit like "everybody else" - even if everybody else is not really like that, if that makes sense.
So actually I've taught at universities in Sweden (Stockholm) and Finland (Helsinki) and notice similar attitudes to those you say. But those cultures aren't without dirty hands either. Here's the weird thing: Tall Poppy Syndrome is culturally closest to Jante Law [1], a Scandinavian ethos of "Don't think you're better than anyone else" which is precisely the corrosive culture that means people cheat because everybody else is cheating and causes a downward spiral or race to the bottom.
"When you've done your very best
When things turn out unpleasant
When the best of men take bribes
Isn't it the fool who doesn't?"
-- Human League 1978
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
To clarify, I'm not saying I would never cheat. Rather that cheating meant more complications and risks than completing my coursework in the way it was intended.
If we were given take-home multiple choice forms to be judged by I'm certain people would cheat. But I've never seen that, possibly because it feels like a pretty lousy (and lazy) way of evaluating and educating students.
If we were given take-home multiple choice forms to be judged by I'm certain people would cheat. But I've never seen that, possibly because it feels like a pretty lousy (and lazy) way of evaluating and educating students.
I'm curious, what changes in governance and funding to higher ed institutions would you change? What did you teach/study?
Thanks for asking. I am an international visiting professor of
computer science (specialising in DSP, signals and systems). I'd
submit that's given me a fairly wide experience of higher education at
least around the north-western hemisphere over three decades. Enough
that I write regular and quite popular features for the Times. Any
sincere answer is surely the contents of at least one whole book, so
my response here would disappoint you. Instead please read my more
positive commentary here [1] and here [2].
[1] https://www.timeshighereducation.com/author/andy-farnell
[2] https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/authors/andy-far...
[1] https://www.timeshighereducation.com/author/andy-farnell
[2] https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/authors/andy-far...
Also, how would that impact cheating? I don't see the connection.
Cheating is a consequence of unfair values that push otherwise morally
upright, hard-working people to transgress. Governance determines the
values of a system. Therefore rampant cheating may be seen as symptom
of a failure of governance, so improving it would reduce cheating.
Hope that helps you to see the connection.
I taught two courses to undergrad CS students at Stanford. I think about half of students cheated on problem sets and tests. The answers were all way too uniform and done without correction.
In the first course, there was a student who definitely didn’t cheat and was objectively horrible at all tasks assigned, consuming a frustratingly large portion of my grading time. This student ended up with a massively impressive resume including all the best places, and became the founder of a billion dollar cryptocurrency.
In the second course, the worst student also clearly didn’t cheat, and sometimes I gave extra points for answers that were wrong but the only ones in the class that were invented rather than regurgitated. That student founded one of the most influential companies in modern computer science, and also a 10 billion-dollar cryptocurrency.
I’m not sure what the lesson is. I had honest and very good students that didn’t do much of note, but there were only two honest but awful students, and both had superlative success. Just for reference, I was honest and pushed hard to land somewhere in the low middle, and I’ve had my share of ups and downs, but definitely no competition for the lanterne rouges.
In the first course, there was a student who definitely didn’t cheat and was objectively horrible at all tasks assigned, consuming a frustratingly large portion of my grading time. This student ended up with a massively impressive resume including all the best places, and became the founder of a billion dollar cryptocurrency.
In the second course, the worst student also clearly didn’t cheat, and sometimes I gave extra points for answers that were wrong but the only ones in the class that were invented rather than regurgitated. That student founded one of the most influential companies in modern computer science, and also a 10 billion-dollar cryptocurrency.
I’m not sure what the lesson is. I had honest and very good students that didn’t do much of note, but there were only two honest but awful students, and both had superlative success. Just for reference, I was honest and pushed hard to land somewhere in the low middle, and I’ve had my share of ups and downs, but definitely no competition for the lanterne rouges.
Interesting that they both founded cryptocurrencies. It’s not surprising that academic success is uncorrelated with being able to run a good Ponzi scheme. Bernie Madoff was extremely successful in his time, but he wasn’t a prodigy either.
So by and by you're saying something like Cardano is definitely not a ponzi because it's extremely focused on doing everything academically?
https://docs.cardano.org/explore-cardano/relevant-research-p...
If this is a ponzi then I have to give them credit, to be doing research at a university level in order to swipe me of a bundle of dollars is amazing. They don't have anything about making themselves richer at the expense of new users either, for some reason it's all focused on developing a great blockchain that is sustainable and is usable for dapps which ultimately provides utility for end users.
https://docs.cardano.org/explore-cardano/relevant-research-p...
If this is a ponzi then I have to give them credit, to be doing research at a university level in order to swipe me of a bundle of dollars is amazing. They don't have anything about making themselves richer at the expense of new users either, for some reason it's all focused on developing a great blockchain that is sustainable and is usable for dapps which ultimately provides utility for end users.
I know what Cardano is because I've heard of it through the Haskell community. I bet most people have not. How do you sift through the thousands of ridiculous coins out there and say to yourself, "Oh, they probably have integrity"?
This continues to be a mystery to me as it seems no one can put themselves in the common man shoes. The common man doesn't care about tech. They don't care about the integrity behind it. They care about whether it can make them money.
List 5 coins I've never heard of and I'd probably say, "ponzi scheme" without hesitation. Do I actually know if it is? No. Does it matter? No. If the majority of shitcoins come off as a ponzi scheme, then why would anyone think something like Cardano isn't?
This continues to be a mystery to me as it seems no one can put themselves in the common man shoes. The common man doesn't care about tech. They don't care about the integrity behind it. They care about whether it can make them money.
List 5 coins I've never heard of and I'd probably say, "ponzi scheme" without hesitation. Do I actually know if it is? No. Does it matter? No. If the majority of shitcoins come off as a ponzi scheme, then why would anyone think something like Cardano isn't?
You don't need to know or trust any underlying technology though. The only thing you need is a basic grasp of Darwinian natural selection.
The "shittier" those "shitcoins" are, the quicker they'll die out. The ones that heavily incentivize early adopters might hang around longer, but they too will inevitably fizzle out if they don't offer any practical innovation.
But if something has a steadily growing user base year after year, maybe it's worth some attention after all?
Or you can just keep screeching "Shitcoins! Shitcoins!". I guess we can all settle for ourselves what form of discourse we consider more constructive and worthwhile.
The "shittier" those "shitcoins" are, the quicker they'll die out. The ones that heavily incentivize early adopters might hang around longer, but they too will inevitably fizzle out if they don't offer any practical innovation.
But if something has a steadily growing user base year after year, maybe it's worth some attention after all?
Or you can just keep screeching "Shitcoins! Shitcoins!". I guess we can all settle for ourselves what form of discourse we consider more constructive and worthwhile.
GP said uncorrelated. I don’t think that’s an effective counterpoint, although GP seems to be indicating anti-correlation. Either way, this is about undergraduate students, and I also don’t think you can claim superlative undergraduate performance for that particular founder. Maybe crypto is where motivated underperformers found a place at the table because the overperformers are settled in more civilized places. Also, these research papers in cryptocurrency are probably not comparable to serious contemporary work in mainstream journals of pure math and theoretical computer science, but I am personally fascinated by the way that old research is slowly finding it’s way into applications through the sometimes absurd financialization of these ideas, enough to get scammed and swindled a bit myself.
That wouldn't be a 'billion dollar'+ cryptocurrency though would it
It’s a 16 billion dollar market cap currently.
Guess we'll find out which it is in the next few months. Proof of stake is just as vulnerable to Ponzi, especially if promising any sort of outsized interest returns through middle-men services. The 'scientific, peer-reviewed philosophy' statements appear as marketing, with peer review appearing to be crypto tech conferences (not itself a poor measure), not the classical 'peer-review' format the statements would allude to.
We're finding out it seems...
We are still saying that the entirety of CryptoCurrencies are Ponzi schemes ?
Yes some of them are, but its a very legitimate technology that will change the world.
Yes some of them are, but its a very legitimate technology that will change the world.
Becoming successful requires a stubborn conviction that you can make your own ideas a reality. Doing well on tests requires the ability to re-enact the ideas of others.
They're both valuable skills of course, but they should be recognized as being distinct from each other; and measuring "intelligence" as some one-dimensional modality is a spectacular failure to do so, IMO.
This idea is also to an extent analogous to the tradeoff between exploration and exploitation in reinforcement learning (AI).
They're both valuable skills of course, but they should be recognized as being distinct from each other; and measuring "intelligence" as some one-dimensional modality is a spectacular failure to do so, IMO.
This idea is also to an extent analogous to the tradeoff between exploration and exploitation in reinforcement learning (AI).
I’ve known a fair number of very successful people, and the strongest theme among them is ignorance of the challenges they had committed themselves to, perhaps even a stubborn disability to heed warning that there is yet another layer of the onion after years of peeling. I really don’t think it’s some kind of dreamer attitude or deceptive nature; maybe just blissful ignorance. In most cases, it starts with a simple idea that everybody had, e.g. a CS50 class project that everybody else did, but they all saw the technical and legal and market and competitive challenges, and most importantly and predictably failed to answer the biggest question, “why me?”. Somehow the person with the worst answer to that question is always the one that fails to ask it. Despite this observation, none of this has changed the way I see things in my real life. I have read that the parasympathetic nervous system causes people to pay attention to details and become overwhelmed by risks. Chronic pain or fear or lack of sleep or overtraining or infection can do that. I recently had a lidocaine injection into a painful joint deformity, and the rest of that day I experienced astonishing positivity. So something tells me that it’s not really all that complicated, but simple things like happiness and good health and relationships are far more rare than we would expect, at least among those with curiosity for difficult subjects.
Perhaps that shows that these students figured out they're not so great at computer science, but ended up knowing a lot of people who were - and how to use their skills to make a small fortune.
those who know, code. those who don't, find someone who can
You can buy problem sets and answers online and I suspect that's one way people might cheat especially on homework. A lot of schools just reuse textbook problem sets or have a bank of questions they use for problem sets and exams, especially for larger classes, and people can buy all the answers online and find the ones they need. I think during the Covid pandemic when things moved online that really accelerated but previously it was a grey area since it could be just a form of studying.
It's sad because I think a lot of those classes are curved and people who don't cheat probably have a disadvantage. Despite putting more effort in and maybe even knowing more than other students, people who don't cheat could end up at the bottom of the curve but might have actually fared better under different conditions.
It's sad because I think a lot of those classes are curved and people who don't cheat probably have a disadvantage. Despite putting more effort in and maybe even knowing more than other students, people who don't cheat could end up at the bottom of the curve but might have actually fared better under different conditions.
Tests always get leaked somehow. The students that were hit by the curve were, like me in school, struggling honestly toward the middle. That method is probably not as good at knowledge acquisition as the various methods of cheating, but hopefully better at flexible problem solving. I think these unique bottom cases were playing a different game where the rules are made up and the scores don’t matter; the curve probably did not affect them.
> Tests always get leaked somehow.
Tangentially, it seems incredibly unfair that self-plagarism is a thing because "if you're not coming up with new material then you're not engaging with the course" and yet professors aren't even taking the incredibly simple step of changing a few numbers between repeats of an exam. It's basically self-plagarism from the professor, the professor isn't engaging with the course in the same way that a self-plagarizing student is not.
The dead-simple answer to students who are looking at test banks is to produce semi-novel material for each course, in the same fashion that students are expected to produce semi-novel material for each course. In both cases, yeah, it's kinda trite, there's only so many novel takes you can have on the best way to factor an integer or the implications of shakespeare on russian 20th century literature, but that's the system we've agreed upon.
It should cut both ways and the fact that professors suffer consequences and difficulty from not producing novel material is not really the student's problem. The solutions of forcing syllabus-level contracts-of-adhesion above and beyond the school academic policies is not a fair solution either.
I realize there's usually a "and whatever the syllabus says goes" clause but that's shitty, a lazy professor should not be able to exempt themselves from academic diligence by adding a "and it's OK for this professor to be lazy" clause in a contract of adhesion.
Tangentially, it seems incredibly unfair that self-plagarism is a thing because "if you're not coming up with new material then you're not engaging with the course" and yet professors aren't even taking the incredibly simple step of changing a few numbers between repeats of an exam. It's basically self-plagarism from the professor, the professor isn't engaging with the course in the same way that a self-plagarizing student is not.
The dead-simple answer to students who are looking at test banks is to produce semi-novel material for each course, in the same fashion that students are expected to produce semi-novel material for each course. In both cases, yeah, it's kinda trite, there's only so many novel takes you can have on the best way to factor an integer or the implications of shakespeare on russian 20th century literature, but that's the system we've agreed upon.
It should cut both ways and the fact that professors suffer consequences and difficulty from not producing novel material is not really the student's problem. The solutions of forcing syllabus-level contracts-of-adhesion above and beyond the school academic policies is not a fair solution either.
I realize there's usually a "and whatever the syllabus says goes" clause but that's shitty, a lazy professor should not be able to exempt themselves from academic diligence by adding a "and it's OK for this professor to be lazy" clause in a contract of adhesion.
> Tests always get leaked somehow.
This is the side effect of lazy teaching. Unique tests cannot be leaked. Problem solved.
Or maybe don't do stupid tests for computer science.
This is a space where whiteboarding is a good idea, in fact, interactive whiteboarding with a whole class is a great way to teach and work through problems.
Any type of interactive test is hard to fake.
This is the side effect of lazy teaching. Unique tests cannot be leaked. Problem solved.
Or maybe don't do stupid tests for computer science.
This is a space where whiteboarding is a good idea, in fact, interactive whiteboarding with a whole class is a great way to teach and work through problems.
Any type of interactive test is hard to fake.
Fun example about lazy teaching: Our undergrad's HKN chapter kept a test bank of past exams in Physics, CS, etc. When I was studying for my Physics final I went back to past midterms and realized the professor recycled questions from previous years with some numbers changed up. I ended up filling my entire cheat sheet with the questions that weren't already on midterms but were in the test bank.
The result? The final contained a majority of questions from that cheat sheet. I still pose this scenario to a couple friends nowadays asking if this would be considered cheating, and the responses are actually a mix of "no, you're just taking what's publicly available" and "yes, you're manipulating the system to get where you are and taking spots from someone with academic integrity".
The result? The final contained a majority of questions from that cheat sheet. I still pose this scenario to a couple friends nowadays asking if this would be considered cheating, and the responses are actually a mix of "no, you're just taking what's publicly available" and "yes, you're manipulating the system to get where you are and taking spots from someone with academic integrity".
Just ask yourself. Did you learn the course well enough that you could have done as well without those questions saved?
As others have said, we go to college these days for a fastpass to middle class. If you haven’t needed the knowledge since, maybe you got what you needed out of the class and you worked the system in a legal way. Or maybe you paid a lot of money for that class and yet cheated yourself out of the knowledge you were paying to be taught. On some level it comes down to how you feel about it.
As others have said, we go to college these days for a fastpass to middle class. If you haven’t needed the knowledge since, maybe you got what you needed out of the class and you worked the system in a legal way. Or maybe you paid a lot of money for that class and yet cheated yourself out of the knowledge you were paying to be taught. On some level it comes down to how you feel about it.
Since that class I've reached the conclusion that school is not the best way to learn concepts and materials but to learn how to work a bureaucratic organization to reach your own end goal (whether it's a job, ticket to the middle class, or simply knowledge), which in itself is a valuable skill. I think museums, seminars, and some NPR shows ended up being the best ways for me to really master the material I would've otherwise learned in school.
I think anyone who is naive enough to think that school is about anything but conformance deserves to fail. I did some courses before college and got a high grade and when I went there for my bachelor's degree, they didn't count that course towards my credit points, I had to do it again. In other words, my knowledge means jackshit at a educational institution. The only thing that matters is whether I can navigate the bureaucracy. Get that in your head.
> This is the side effect of lazy teaching. Unique tests cannot be leaked. Problem solved.
I have never heard of lazy teachers ever getting any consequences, so why should they stop doing these things? You could make it a part of their job, but of course lazy principals wont do that either. There just aren't any incentives to run a school properly.
I have never heard of lazy teachers ever getting any consequences, so why should they stop doing these things? You could make it a part of their job, but of course lazy principals wont do that either. There just aren't any incentives to run a school properly.
The fact is few teachers at the university level are interested in teaching the majority of classes that students take. Some professors may enjoy teaching the higher grad level coursework, but overall professors are generally terrible teachers.
Teachers go to learn how to teach, in the abstract sense, for 4 years, to go to teach high school kids. They learn the techniques and tools to effectively translate subjects and educate people.
Professors do not do this.
Teachers go to learn how to teach, in the abstract sense, for 4 years, to go to teach high school kids. They learn the techniques and tools to effectively translate subjects and educate people.
Professors do not do this.
>I think these unique bottom cases were playing a different game where the rules are made up and the scores don’t matter
you may be on to something with this one
you may be on to something with this one
this was a huge deal back in the 40s-70s. They were called 'bibles'
they got into Stanford, which confers above average intelligence and also bestows connections, so that probably helped. Interesting stories.
[deleted]
What do you mean by "confers above average intelligence?"
They become more intelligent when they receive the admission letter.
become recognized as more intelligent
> billion-dollar cryptocurrency
> I’m not sure what the lesson is
Gambling is a profitable business.
> I’m not sure what the lesson is
Gambling is a profitable business.
That you should leave your cheating until you've left education because there are fewer checks, people are more credulous and the rewards are greater?
[deleted]
It sounds like they were occupied with something that isn't college.
Was it Do Kwon?
My own feelings aside, Do might be a good case study. I don’t think he’s an intentional scammer; he just had an idea that he was convinced was brilliant, without the knowledge or maybe imagination to see how spectacularly dangerous it was. I personally avoided Terra/UST from genesis because I immediately saw that is was exploitable with a big enough position on UST. But it took some searching to find the exact peg mechanism, and by the time it collapsed, it had gotten so big that I started to question my own judgement. Do might have caught whiffs of the already risky ideas surrounding algorithmic stablecoins, and pushed forward something that looked passably similar at his introductory level of knowledge. The apparent possibilities at this level are far greater than what is possible with more knowledge in the area. The investor class is also stuck at this level of knowledge, because they make their money by raising from and selling to the level down from there. I don’t see any distinction between crypto and traditional equities in this regard, except that the SEC is supposed to protect ignorant consumers, which they clearly can’t, and the government is there to backstop any disasters at the expense of everybody smart enough to avoid it in the first place, which makes them the dumb ones in the end. So yeah, it was a stupid idea, but look hard enough and you’ll find the same stupid ideas behind every investment with any hope of keeping up with the cost of feeding, housing, and educating your kids. If there is evidence that shows that Do is the one who pulled the rug, then my theory is flawed. Basically, it is that people who achieve great investment success are operating at a level of genuine enthusiastic ignorance that cannot be faked by a scammer or an expert.
From my understanding of cryptocurrency and the people in it, I don't have the premise that founding a billion dollar (or 10 billion dollar) cryptocurrency is laudable.
It strikes me that your comment would read by crypto fanbase as a success story, and yet as crypto detractors like myself as even further reason to regard them as terrible... you may have just invented the "completely unintentional if-by-whiskey argument[1]"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey
It strikes me that your comment would read by crypto fanbase as a success story, and yet as crypto detractors like myself as even further reason to regard them as terrible... you may have just invented the "completely unintentional if-by-whiskey argument[1]"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey
As a benefit to society? Not laudable IMO. But it does take hard work to swindle people into your crypto - that's the perspective I read OPs comment in.
If it were a 216B cryptocurrency then it would indeed be laudable. It’s Ethereum and it is innovating in every aspect.
Cryptocurrencies were innovating in one particular aspect, solving the double spending problem for truly anonymous transactions. Beyond that it's not as innovative as people think. Even Bitcoin supports smart contracts, and the only real noteworthy achievement in the real world Ethereum has achieved is becoming a massive platform for gamblers in the form of speculation, which makes up almost the entirety of Ethereum's activity. No name engineers at companies like Google deal with far more complex and far more practical problems as part of their job. I say this as someone who has written their own block chain from scratch (not a fork) and understands how incredibly niche and overblown cryptocurrencies are.
Just because you went through a “how to build a blockchain in 1 hour” YouTube tutorial doesn’t make you an expert on the topic anymore than someone who “built a Twitter clone in 1 hour” is an expert on distributed databases.
The idea that no name engineers at Google work on more interesting problems is laughable to me as someone who worked there for 3 years and saw the vast majority of them work on garbage Angular apps or borgcfg . Not exactly designing a zero knowledge roll up chain in complexity.
The “cryptocurrency=bad” bros on hacker news are getting so tiresome. Many people think things like adtech are scams yet if every single time someone brought up Google we derailed into that conversation it would rightfully get moderated but with crypto, dang is asleep at the wheel.
Actual cryptography experts like Dan Boneh and Silvio Macali are full time on cryptocurrency, but since your L4 Google buddy thinks it’s a scam, that settles it so we bring it up every damn time.
The idea that no name engineers at Google work on more interesting problems is laughable to me as someone who worked there for 3 years and saw the vast majority of them work on garbage Angular apps or borgcfg . Not exactly designing a zero knowledge roll up chain in complexity.
The “cryptocurrency=bad” bros on hacker news are getting so tiresome. Many people think things like adtech are scams yet if every single time someone brought up Google we derailed into that conversation it would rightfully get moderated but with crypto, dang is asleep at the wheel.
Actual cryptography experts like Dan Boneh and Silvio Macali are full time on cryptocurrency, but since your L4 Google buddy thinks it’s a scam, that settles it so we bring it up every damn time.
There’s cool cryptography going on in Ethereum, but it’s not helping economize anything useful. At some point you have to notice that all of the “cool new stuff” in Ethereum for the last 7 years all seems to disappear once greater fool liquidity has been exhausted.
Meanwhile adtech is making the internet awful, and thus stories increasingly show up about how bad Google has been getting as well.
I used to read all the white papers for all the new coins, and was definitely on the side of Ethereum as an interesting experiment when it released, but nothing has happened to make me think a premined securities play hasn’t turned out to be a scam.
Meanwhile adtech is making the internet awful, and thus stories increasingly show up about how bad Google has been getting as well.
I used to read all the white papers for all the new coins, and was definitely on the side of Ethereum as an interesting experiment when it released, but nothing has happened to make me think a premined securities play hasn’t turned out to be a scam.
I did not use any guides or tutorials, it was truly from scratch with some of the cryptography concepts borrowed from bitcoin, but with a completely different auth scheme for transactions designed specifically for business application. https://github.com/Salgat/FangChain
And not everyone at companies like Google are doing the same thing. Just because you didn't know them doesn't mean there wasn't brilliant work being done there, especially with regard to their scaling and machine learning. The folks at deep mind are doing far more brilliant and innovative work than Ethereum.
And not everyone at companies like Google are doing the same thing. Just because you didn't know them doesn't mean there wasn't brilliant work being done there, especially with regard to their scaling and machine learning. The folks at deep mind are doing far more brilliant and innovative work than Ethereum.
> it is innovating in every aspect
Could you expand on what you mean here? What are the aspects?
Could you expand on what you mean here? What are the aspects?
Well decentralisation is hard, it's particularly hard when it's dealing with real peoples money, it's hard to scale and hard to maintain, Ethereum is getting closer and closer day by day to moving to an alternative system called Proof of Stake, it's a different system from Proof of Work, you may be familiar with Bitcoin and its energy use.
You can read more about issues on Vitaliks website for example when Musk tried to become a blockchain expert overnight he looked a bit silly:
https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/05/23/scaling.html
Vitalik is probably the only Billionaire in the world I don't hate and ethereums innovations are incredible.
You can read more about issues on Vitaliks website for example when Musk tried to become a blockchain expert overnight he looked a bit silly:
https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/05/23/scaling.html
Vitalik is probably the only Billionaire in the world I don't hate and ethereums innovations are incredible.
> Ethereum is getting closer and closer day by day to moving to an alternative system called Proof of Stake
At least this is honest and doesn't provide a date given how many times the planned date has slipped.
At least this is honest and doesn't provide a date given how many times the planned date has slipped.
EVM based deterministic execution has proven to be a resilient model for smart contracts. The other major inventions are not Ethereum itself, but it led to, to name a few, PoS consensus and zero knowledge proofs which I particularly admired. It has grown into a huge ecosystem of practical cryptographic schemes. Ponzi schemes are possible with just Bitcoin, and yeah Ethereum is full of crypto ponzis at the moment, but all these useful cryptographic inventions may not have been made practical without Ethereum.
The first is not revolutionary nor a swindle. The second is on that level or more so.
> If you punish a child for being naughty, and reward him for being good, he will do right merely for the sake of the reward; and when he goes out into the world and finds that goodness is not always rewarded, nor wickedness always punished, he will grow into a man who only thinks about how he may get on in the world, and does right or wrong according as he finds advantage to himself. — Immanuel Kant
I think it’s pretty widely established that, as far as raising children goes and the “infractions” are minor (throwing with toys, screaming), the correct strategy is to reward good behavior and ignore (as in: not acknowledge or react to) bad behavior.
These are college students (ie, legal adults), not children. This professor went way too easy on them, he should have failed them, especially the person who plagiarized the “repentance essay”. If I’d had taken the course I’d not be happy knowing I’d done everything the right way and those who cheated still ended up with an A+ (he mentioned this happened). If anything it would make me lose trust in my education.
I really admire the author of this post, He is very responsible of his students and takes his course seriously, how lucky his students are.
When I was in college I was attending a course teaching to build C++ project, the professor checks plagiarism by checking the creation date of source code files, since the project was built step by step with new files being added progressively.
I was being perfectionism about my code and did a lot of refactoring before submitting the project, and got a very low score because the professor saw the dates of my files were new and all the same and thought I copied my homework from someone else. While the ones who actually did plagiarize the homework got high scores, because they copied other students' source code lesson by lesson.
My professor obviously did not even read the source code of our homework, otherwise he would easily know who was writing original code and who was just copying.
When I was in college I was attending a course teaching to build C++ project, the professor checks plagiarism by checking the creation date of source code files, since the project was built step by step with new files being added progressively.
I was being perfectionism about my code and did a lot of refactoring before submitting the project, and got a very low score because the professor saw the dates of my files were new and all the same and thought I copied my homework from someone else. While the ones who actually did plagiarize the homework got high scores, because they copied other students' source code lesson by lesson.
My professor obviously did not even read the source code of our homework, otherwise he would easily know who was writing original code and who was just copying.
I had a professor who would do this. I scored low once because I always did homework last minute. That’s when I learned how got actually works, and how you can edit timestamps on commits. That’s helped a couple times in my work life too.
As a Spanish professor, it's interesting to read this because it highlights various cultural differences.
- Here, it is always assumed that many students (maybe 50%?) will cheat if they believe they can do so without being caught. When the pandemic hit and we moved to online testing, basic anti-cheat measures like shuffling the order of questions in a test or not allowing going back to previous questions were taken from the get go, it's considered obvious here that you need to do that (just like, in an on-site multiple-choice test, you have to either have several shuffled versions of the test, or enough distance between students that they can't see each other's test, or really good surveillance). It's shocking to me that this professor is surprised that cheating happened under these conditions.
- On the other hand, while cheating students are failed and/or otherwise penalized when caught, we would never penalize, or even scold, a student for not snitching. Snitching on your classmates is almost universally considered a bad thing to do here, and we would never demand that students do that, not only due to the fear of retaliation mentioned in the post, because... it's just not right, they're your classmates!
- When I myself was a student (also here in Spain), I had a professor who spent some time in an American university and used to talk enthusiastically about how in America they had a very strict academic integrity culture and cheating just didn't happen at all. No students would even think about it, because it would be a dishonor, they would be deeply ashamed if they got caught and no one would want to talk to them anymore, or something like that. While this professor was a good guy and I'm sure he really believed what he was saying, I never really believed it. Accounts like this confirm I was right. I think he probably saw there this attitude of not accepting as a given that cheating will just happen when possible, similarly to the post author, and confused his American colleagues' thoughts with reality. I often wonder how many professors in America live in this bubble where cheating does not exist if you don't see it, and whether it's just naiveté or hypocrisy.
- Here, it is always assumed that many students (maybe 50%?) will cheat if they believe they can do so without being caught. When the pandemic hit and we moved to online testing, basic anti-cheat measures like shuffling the order of questions in a test or not allowing going back to previous questions were taken from the get go, it's considered obvious here that you need to do that (just like, in an on-site multiple-choice test, you have to either have several shuffled versions of the test, or enough distance between students that they can't see each other's test, or really good surveillance). It's shocking to me that this professor is surprised that cheating happened under these conditions.
- On the other hand, while cheating students are failed and/or otherwise penalized when caught, we would never penalize, or even scold, a student for not snitching. Snitching on your classmates is almost universally considered a bad thing to do here, and we would never demand that students do that, not only due to the fear of retaliation mentioned in the post, because... it's just not right, they're your classmates!
- When I myself was a student (also here in Spain), I had a professor who spent some time in an American university and used to talk enthusiastically about how in America they had a very strict academic integrity culture and cheating just didn't happen at all. No students would even think about it, because it would be a dishonor, they would be deeply ashamed if they got caught and no one would want to talk to them anymore, or something like that. While this professor was a good guy and I'm sure he really believed what he was saying, I never really believed it. Accounts like this confirm I was right. I think he probably saw there this attitude of not accepting as a given that cheating will just happen when possible, similarly to the post author, and confused his American colleagues' thoughts with reality. I often wonder how many professors in America live in this bubble where cheating does not exist if you don't see it, and whether it's just naiveté or hypocrisy.
> It's shocking to me that this professor is surprised that cheating happened under these conditions.
I think it's a bit of laziness and religious mentality. In US it is believed, I think, that making the rules, framing them in language of morality and harshly punishing the ones that don't obey them is as good as understanding and solving the actual problem.
Holy word, sin, punishment.
And when enough money is involved you my go light on punishment which is beneficial for enforcers and provides outlet for people who otherwise would bring down this system and replace it with something more reasonable. There's so much gray area everywhere under the overt strictness of the rules.
This mentality is visible in so many systems in the US.
I think it's a bit of laziness and religious mentality. In US it is believed, I think, that making the rules, framing them in language of morality and harshly punishing the ones that don't obey them is as good as understanding and solving the actual problem.
Holy word, sin, punishment.
And when enough money is involved you my go light on punishment which is beneficial for enforcers and provides outlet for people who otherwise would bring down this system and replace it with something more reasonable. There's so much gray area everywhere under the overt strictness of the rules.
This mentality is visible in so many systems in the US.
> Snitching on your classmates is almost universally considered a bad thing to do here, and we would never demand that students do that, not only due to the fear of retaliation mentioned in the post, because... it's just not right, they're your classmates!
Why exactly is it "not right"?
I agree that the student should be compelled to police their peers. Both because everyone should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to take the risk reprisals, and also because it may create perverse incentives.
But I don't accept that it's "not right". College is a golden opportunity for young people to participate in building the kind of society they want to spend the rest of their lives living in. Do they want one where corruption and other injustices are exposed in the open, or one where they are swept under the rug and allowed to perpetuate themselves?
A quick cheat or bribe for a shortcut to meet your goal feels good when you can get away with it, but how will it feel down the line when you're the one who have fallen victim and nobody will speak on your behalf? Because this is the precedent you're setting for your students here.
Why exactly is it "not right"?
I agree that the student should be compelled to police their peers. Both because everyone should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to take the risk reprisals, and also because it may create perverse incentives.
But I don't accept that it's "not right". College is a golden opportunity for young people to participate in building the kind of society they want to spend the rest of their lives living in. Do they want one where corruption and other injustices are exposed in the open, or one where they are swept under the rug and allowed to perpetuate themselves?
A quick cheat or bribe for a shortcut to meet your goal feels good when you can get away with it, but how will it feel down the line when you're the one who have fallen victim and nobody will speak on your behalf? Because this is the precedent you're setting for your students here.
Not right in the way, that probably 50% do this - and you will be stuck with them for few years in multiple classes.
> College is a golden opportunity for young people to participate in building the kind of society they want to spend the rest of their lives living in
For most, it is just a piece of paper that allows them to get a job -> and often doesnt even prepare for that job in useful ways. Also it is a place that is supposed to teach you lots of useful stuff, or at least "winder your horizons" stuff - but it fails at all of those.
Nearly everything I learned during university was done on my own.
> College is a golden opportunity for young people to participate in building the kind of society they want to spend the rest of their lives living in
For most, it is just a piece of paper that allows them to get a job -> and often doesnt even prepare for that job in useful ways. Also it is a place that is supposed to teach you lots of useful stuff, or at least "winder your horizons" stuff - but it fails at all of those.
Nearly everything I learned during university was done on my own.
> As a Spanish professor, it's interesting to read this because it highlights various cultural differences.
> - Here, it is always assumed that many students (maybe 50%?) will cheat if they believe they can do so without being caught. […]
It really is a cultural difference. Spain and the UK have ticket barriers for their public transport, while Germany and Switzerland don’t, preferring to rely on random controls.
It really is a cultural difference. Spain and the UK have ticket barriers for their public transport, while Germany and Switzerland don’t, preferring to rely on random controls.
My sister works with an institution that gives professional development and certification courses for financial institutions. Being the heavily regulated industry that it is, and that fact that in some places you can't sell mortgages unless your staff are certified, you can imagine the exams are scrutinized for any cheating.
Anyway, last month, some ditzy 20-something banker posted up on TikTok her scheme to cheat on the test, and referenced the institution. This got back to my sister and her colleagues before the exam, and when time came, the cheater was exposed, and ultimately sacked from what promised to be a lucrative career.
Probably more often than not cheaters prosper, but it does gladden the heart to see the odd one get their just desserts.
Anyway, last month, some ditzy 20-something banker posted up on TikTok her scheme to cheat on the test, and referenced the institution. This got back to my sister and her colleagues before the exam, and when time came, the cheater was exposed, and ultimately sacked from what promised to be a lucrative career.
Probably more often than not cheaters prosper, but it does gladden the heart to see the odd one get their just desserts.
It’s so odd to see people expose themselves on Tiktok like that. It’s very clearly a public forum, I don’t use it but based on all the videos that have been shared with me off-platform I assume there isn’t even a way to set privacy settings, so all videos are all public.
And yet people regularly share things they’ve recorded themselves that they are then embarrassed by or claim they’re being doxxed when the video gets shared widely. Why would you publicly state that you’re gonna cheat? Why would you publicly state that you’re gonna break the law? Why would you publicly record and share yourself breaking the law? Using an app made by a regime that sees privacy as an inconvenience.
100% of Tiktok users are not anonymous to Tiktok, which means with a simple subpoena are not anonymous to anyone.
And yet people regularly share things they’ve recorded themselves that they are then embarrassed by or claim they’re being doxxed when the video gets shared widely. Why would you publicly state that you’re gonna cheat? Why would you publicly state that you’re gonna break the law? Why would you publicly record and share yourself breaking the law? Using an app made by a regime that sees privacy as an inconvenience.
100% of Tiktok users are not anonymous to Tiktok, which means with a simple subpoena are not anonymous to anyone.
This is also what hit me while reading the OP. The students were cheating on a Whatsapp group their own teacher was a member of.
I could perhaps turn a blind eye to the gross lack of integrity (I wouldn't, but I could); it's the sheer ineptitude that drives me up a wall.
I could perhaps turn a blind eye to the gross lack of integrity (I wouldn't, but I could); it's the sheer ineptitude that drives me up a wall.
I guess I can share a similar story, being a student and all. Last year, even though we were in lock down, most courses delayed the final exams, so they could be taken in person. The exception was a machine learning course, where we were allowed to do the exams online.
When students heard about this, they got really excited, because cheating would be easier. So, the day of the exam comes, and I hear multiple say they didn't even study, and that it is going to be the easiest exam ever. Almost everybody I knew cheated on that exam, and the teachers found out. The funny thing is that there were no sanctions, because everyone used the excuse of "we are so stressed with the pandemic situation", and the teachers bought it. Needless to say that it was all lies. Almost no one was suffering with the pandemic. As a matter of fact, I still haven't met someone that didn't love being home playing games and talking with friends while in class.
When students heard about this, they got really excited, because cheating would be easier. So, the day of the exam comes, and I hear multiple say they didn't even study, and that it is going to be the easiest exam ever. Almost everybody I knew cheated on that exam, and the teachers found out. The funny thing is that there were no sanctions, because everyone used the excuse of "we are so stressed with the pandemic situation", and the teachers bought it. Needless to say that it was all lies. Almost no one was suffering with the pandemic. As a matter of fact, I still haven't met someone that didn't love being home playing games and talking with friends while in class.
Yup, I fully agree,
I think the "stress of the pandemic" execuse is very overused and often is not real.
For many students the pandemic was epic, no school for a while, unlimited gaming time, and nothing to stop them from doing what they wanted.
At least that's how I felt it, and they time I had definitely changes where I was heading in my life.
For many students the pandemic was epic, no school for a while, unlimited gaming time, and nothing to stop them from doing what they wanted.
At least that's how I felt it, and they time I had definitely changes where I was heading in my life.
This... was hard to read for me. I am not the type who jumps on the bandwagon of "schools are dead" but I had to pause here:
> This was the first time when 75% of the class was cheating way beyond the pale for half a semester
I know people who are on school for immigration reasons. Specially with computer science, there is so much nonsense that sometimes people must work through. This doesn't mean they don't have integrity.
The author says they sympathize with students. But do they really? Making the students write a humiliating "academic integrity essay" is not engagement. It's forcing someone to smile and then boasting that they have a good time.
I am forever grateful for my bachelor's. Not because they thought us a lot, actually the opposite. I happened to be in a unique situation in which course work was practically non-existent.
It was marvelous! As a 19 year old I was just learning to have adult social experiences and the school really allowed me to do that. The classes were not about pass or fail. They were about being in an environment and finding what's interesting within it. I know it sounds like this sort of thing will create terrible candidates for FAANG, and maybe so (not in our case), but perhaps it could also avoid the need to question the integrity of a teenager.
> This was the first time when 75% of the class was cheating way beyond the pale for half a semester
I know people who are on school for immigration reasons. Specially with computer science, there is so much nonsense that sometimes people must work through. This doesn't mean they don't have integrity.
The author says they sympathize with students. But do they really? Making the students write a humiliating "academic integrity essay" is not engagement. It's forcing someone to smile and then boasting that they have a good time.
I am forever grateful for my bachelor's. Not because they thought us a lot, actually the opposite. I happened to be in a unique situation in which course work was practically non-existent.
It was marvelous! As a 19 year old I was just learning to have adult social experiences and the school really allowed me to do that. The classes were not about pass or fail. They were about being in an environment and finding what's interesting within it. I know it sounds like this sort of thing will create terrible candidates for FAANG, and maybe so (not in our case), but perhaps it could also avoid the need to question the integrity of a teenager.
This is a bizarre post. The author is disconnected from reality.
When cheating is easy, and especially if the grades are curved, non-cheaters are harshly punished.
The author intentionally created such an environment and is surprised cheating is going on.
The only possible solution I can see is that the majority of the grade is derived from non-online exams held under strict conditions:
* IDs are checked
* Randomized seating that is announced just before entering the class.
* Enforced distance between test takers.
* Outside proctors that have no sentiments towards the students.
* Even going to the bathrooms should be regulated.
* Smart devices are deposited during the exams.
* Swift harsh punishment to cheaters, and policy violaters (e.g. use of smartphone during exam)
* Constant vigilance in adapting to new methods of cheating.
Without all the above, non-cheaters are effectively punished.
Nothing is perfect, but such steps limit cheating and reduce the incentive for cheating.
When cheating is easy, and especially if the grades are curved, non-cheaters are harshly punished.
The author intentionally created such an environment and is surprised cheating is going on.
The only possible solution I can see is that the majority of the grade is derived from non-online exams held under strict conditions:
* IDs are checked
* Randomized seating that is announced just before entering the class.
* Enforced distance between test takers.
* Outside proctors that have no sentiments towards the students.
* Even going to the bathrooms should be regulated.
* Smart devices are deposited during the exams.
* Swift harsh punishment to cheaters, and policy violaters (e.g. use of smartphone during exam)
* Constant vigilance in adapting to new methods of cheating.
Without all the above, non-cheaters are effectively punished.
Nothing is perfect, but such steps limit cheating and reduce the incentive for cheating.
To say the author "intentionally created" an environment where cheating is commonplace I think may be a little unfair to them. Whether they run a given course online or in person is almost certainly well above their pay grade. While the situation was far from ideal and I believe he may have been too lenient in some situations (the plagiarism on the academic integrity assignment for one), at the end of the day he made the best of a very bad situation. No doubt, in-person exams as you described are the most cheat-proof way, but in a scenario where the author has no say in this, it's not a terrible outcome. Look at the semester following the one with widespread cheating - he made significant changes based on the past issues and in the process managed to eliminate a lot of the issues.
I like your line of discussion so I will add some more thoughts regarding the author’s need for self-reflection. I have recently graduated so may provide some perspective:
* They read comments about their teaching, and shrugged it off as “a vocal minority”. I cannot guarantee it’s the case, but it’s not a “minority” it’s most likely the median opinion that most students are too shy to share. And then the online course evals are sent out the last week of the semester and most don’t care anymore to share what they really think.
* The author made no discussion of the add/drop deadline which is usually around Midterm 2. If I was a student not cheating but in the group chat and realized the professor was running a sting operation (instead of reporting cheaters when they discovered them?) I would probably be inclined to drop.
* The Author explains their love of R analysis, then gives no data or statistics on students who were in the chat and still did well on Midterm 2 (still learned material).
* I prefer the weekly quizzes that are basically homework, with free discussion / question compiling on google docs, but then have very strict exams. To claim something is “open notes” but then also that discussing the questions afterwords is cheating seems silly.
* They read comments about their teaching, and shrugged it off as “a vocal minority”. I cannot guarantee it’s the case, but it’s not a “minority” it’s most likely the median opinion that most students are too shy to share. And then the online course evals are sent out the last week of the semester and most don’t care anymore to share what they really think.
* The author made no discussion of the add/drop deadline which is usually around Midterm 2. If I was a student not cheating but in the group chat and realized the professor was running a sting operation (instead of reporting cheaters when they discovered them?) I would probably be inclined to drop.
* The Author explains their love of R analysis, then gives no data or statistics on students who were in the chat and still did well on Midterm 2 (still learned material).
* I prefer the weekly quizzes that are basically homework, with free discussion / question compiling on google docs, but then have very strict exams. To claim something is “open notes” but then also that discussing the questions afterwords is cheating seems silly.
Did you miss the whole pandemic bit or are you too “disconnected from reality”?
Much of the world returned to offline teaching "last semester".
It was like that before the pandemic. If you expect academic integrity in an online class, you are deluded. The students here were just dumb enough to do it in a class-wide chat. Smart cheaters do it in small, trusted, cliques.
I have pre-pandemic experience as a student and as a TA in both an Israeli university and a top American publish university.
The Israeli systems does it as I described above, and the American university does not. The US university held an exam for 350 students in a single conference hall. The proctors were the TAs. We could not check IDs, students seated themselves, and there were no effective supervision. The easiest way to cheat was just to switch the exam forms with a friend.
We intentionally created a massive incentive to cheat. Worse, we curved the grades, punishing non-cheaters.
I tried to protest, but was completely ignored because it was always done like that.
The pandemic only made this worse.
It was like that before the pandemic. If you expect academic integrity in an online class, you are deluded. The students here were just dumb enough to do it in a class-wide chat. Smart cheaters do it in small, trusted, cliques.
I have pre-pandemic experience as a student and as a TA in both an Israeli university and a top American publish university.
The Israeli systems does it as I described above, and the American university does not. The US university held an exam for 350 students in a single conference hall. The proctors were the TAs. We could not check IDs, students seated themselves, and there were no effective supervision. The easiest way to cheat was just to switch the exam forms with a friend.
We intentionally created a massive incentive to cheat. Worse, we curved the grades, punishing non-cheaters.
I tried to protest, but was completely ignored because it was always done like that.
The pandemic only made this worse.
I think a lot of people here are missing the root cause of why students cheat.
College for the longest time has not had anything to do with learning for the VAST majority of students. You go to college because you have to have a degree to get a job. And you have to have a good GPA on that degree to get a job. College is not about actually learning anything - it's a purely monetary investment, where you go into debt totaling up to hundreds of thousands of dollars because you know that it will net you more money in the future. Not cheating is completely risking any hope of financial independence you can ever have for your entire life.
Given all of this, why wouldn't you cheat? You take an extremely minimal risk (most profs don't have any clue, or do not care about cheating at all) to avoid a much greater risk (you not getting good grades and potentially never getting any return on your lifelong 6 figure deep debt).
College for the longest time has not had anything to do with learning for the VAST majority of students. You go to college because you have to have a degree to get a job. And you have to have a good GPA on that degree to get a job. College is not about actually learning anything - it's a purely monetary investment, where you go into debt totaling up to hundreds of thousands of dollars because you know that it will net you more money in the future. Not cheating is completely risking any hope of financial independence you can ever have for your entire life.
Given all of this, why wouldn't you cheat? You take an extremely minimal risk (most profs don't have any clue, or do not care about cheating at all) to avoid a much greater risk (you not getting good grades and potentially never getting any return on your lifelong 6 figure deep debt).
We're going to college at the worst time in our lives. When I was in college I did exactly what you described. I didn't really cheat much (I remember just one time), but all I cared about was grades and getting a job. I couldn't have cared less about learning or retaining anything. And I didn't learn much. This strategy worked out well for me, but it was a huge waste of time.
I'm in my 30s now and I would absolutely love to go back to school to learn. Now I feel like I'm in a position where I can appreciate academic material and concepts because I understand how they relate to the real world. Please give me those advanced graph algorithm, database, and real analysis classes that I couldn't appreciate 15 years ago due to a lack of real-world experience.
I'm in my 30s now and I would absolutely love to go back to school to learn. Now I feel like I'm in a position where I can appreciate academic material and concepts because I understand how they relate to the real world. Please give me those advanced graph algorithm, database, and real analysis classes that I couldn't appreciate 15 years ago due to a lack of real-world experience.
Us students would generally love to learn too. The problem I often encountered was engineering professors did research first and foremost with teaching a second priority. It often felt like if the teacher isn’t putting in the work why should we? Conversely, my business teachers cared far more for us students and I believe people put far more effort in.
Exactly this. I've noticed in my classes there's less cheating when people respect the professor. It's honestly not hard to get that level of respect from your students; just clearly put in effort for your classes.
Far too many have just been screwed over time and time again from professors who reuse old (usually outdated) course content and whose lectures don't actually add anything to the textbook or slides.
Anecdote time: I took a class where a module taught Python 2.7 in Fall 2021, and I know it was taught again in Spring '22. My professor literally read the slide content to us in lectures, that was it. I found out that a professor wrote all the course content in 2017 and it's just been passed around by all the professors who got assigned to teach that class. The same assignments have been used, and apparently they've been published to every "student assistance" platform around.
Far too many have just been screwed over time and time again from professors who reuse old (usually outdated) course content and whose lectures don't actually add anything to the textbook or slides.
Anecdote time: I took a class where a module taught Python 2.7 in Fall 2021, and I know it was taught again in Spring '22. My professor literally read the slide content to us in lectures, that was it. I found out that a professor wrote all the course content in 2017 and it's just been passed around by all the professors who got assigned to teach that class. The same assignments have been used, and apparently they've been published to every "student assistance" platform around.
As sad as it is, Python 2.7 is still relevant :P
https://openlearning.mit.edu/courses-programs/mitx-courses
There's good stuff there!
There's good stuff there!
Thanks. I know that all the raw material is available to me, but it's just not the same. It's different when you can completely focus on studying, be part of a community with a bit of peer pressure, and have a social circle that goes through the same experience. You don't get the this from online courses, reading books, or MOOCs.
I think a big part of this is split attention, but I also don't feel comfortable taking 1-2 years off my job in the middle of my career just to study.
I think a big part of this is split attention, but I also don't feel comfortable taking 1-2 years off my job in the middle of my career just to study.
On the other hand, if you study now, you can be surprised by how much the material is immediately applicable to your day-to-day work.
Yeah, I had a blast attending “lockdown university” during the deepest part of covid in 2020. Grades only for fun points and just taking classes and doing assignments that I thought would be beneficial.
> I'm in my 30s now and I would absolutely love to go back to school to learn.
You love the idea of doing something you’re not doing now. I see further down in another comment, you dismissed the idea of learning from free online resources.
If you were in your 30s and in school, you’d love to be able to go off in the and work with your hands — or something else to distract yourself.
You love the idea of doing something you’re not doing now. I see further down in another comment, you dismissed the idea of learning from free online resources.
If you were in your 30s and in school, you’d love to be able to go off in the and work with your hands — or something else to distract yourself.
I didn't dismiss the idea of learning from online resources. I constantly work through online courses/lectures and books. I only noted that the experience is inferior to going to college where you can completely focus on learning with a group of peers, and where you are held accountable.
I'd love to have the "college experience" again now, but this time with a focus on learning instead of a focus on getting good grades. Focusing on good grades (over learning) is the rational choice as a young student and I don't regret doing so, but now my goals are different.
I'd love to have the "college experience" again now, but this time with a focus on learning instead of a focus on getting good grades. Focusing on good grades (over learning) is the rational choice as a young student and I don't regret doing so, but now my goals are different.
It's not a waste of time, only caring about grades and getting a job is the most efficient use of time. I would've loved to learn too, but when passing classes impact the rest of your life, cheating and taking easier classes to maximize GPA are the right choices.
The "right" choices? For who? It seems like engineering culture has suddenly become rife with this exploitative mindset with zero regard for honor.
When you're faced with a public scandal at your hands as CEO after you've cheated your way up the ladder, are you going to admit fault and take a loss for the sake of society or are you going to make "the right choice" for the business and double down on your deception?
When you're faced with a public scandal at your hands as CEO after you've cheated your way up the ladder, are you going to admit fault and take a loss for the sake of society or are you going to make "the right choice" for the business and double down on your deception?
Seems a bit cynical of a take. Cheating prevents you from learning, otherwise you wouldn't need to. Also, college is very limited in how much it can prepare you for a real job. It only offers a subset of knowledge that is needed to be good at any given job. Cheating is basically showing up to class and avoiding the whole point of being there. Why would you show up to a training, to then ignore the training part.
I think it's a combination of culture and every person's upbringing which sets priorities on students to waste time cheating. They have to be there because of expectations either from parents or society, but they don't really want to be there. Students who aren't trying are just going through the motions and will take the path of least resistance which is cheating.
I think it's a combination of culture and every person's upbringing which sets priorities on students to waste time cheating. They have to be there because of expectations either from parents or society, but they don't really want to be there. Students who aren't trying are just going through the motions and will take the path of least resistance which is cheating.
> Why would you show up to a training, to then ignore the training part.
You said it yourself.
> college is very limited in how much it can prepare you for a real job.
The goal isn't to be well prepared for a job. The goal is to get the job. For most students, including myself while I was there, university is a massive signalling exercise. I just cared about the magic combo that would lead to a good paying job.
You said it yourself.
> college is very limited in how much it can prepare you for a real job.
The goal isn't to be well prepared for a job. The goal is to get the job. For most students, including myself while I was there, university is a massive signalling exercise. I just cared about the magic combo that would lead to a good paying job.
I’d also like to add that most generic white collar jobs require a bachelor’s degree. Adding the requirement cuts down on the number of applicants, so hiring managers have few qualms with doing this.
If someone went to college with the belief that only the degree at the end mattered and that they weren't going to learn anything along the way, I can see how they might convince themselves that cheating is a low-risk shortcut toward that end goal. I do not subscribe to that belief and have learned quite a bit by trying to absorb the lessons earnestly, as opposed to taking shortcuts.
I have also had the experience where a professor interviewed me and one other student because our homework appear too similar. That experience reinforced my impression that cheating is a risky venture and I want none of it. (Also, leaving printouts of your code around is extremely high risk if helping someone to cheat is roughly as bad as cheating at your university).
I have also had the experience where a professor interviewed me and one other student because our homework appear too similar. That experience reinforced my impression that cheating is a risky venture and I want none of it. (Also, leaving printouts of your code around is extremely high risk if helping someone to cheat is roughly as bad as cheating at your university).
Students will also have an opinion on what classes they think are important, and what classes they are only taking because they are required.
The exams were open book, open note and they had a week to complete them.
When people were offered a nearly complete fresh slate, they still cheated. And then plagiarized.
He at length describes how much of his class were blowing off almost every aspect of the class; not attending lectures, skipping assignments, almost never attending his office hours.
Many of them openly say in the whatsapp chat that they didn't do reading, classwork, or study.
This is not even remotely close to behavior of people participating in a high-stakes all-or-nothing, if-I-don't-graduate-I-am-fucked-for-life situations.
When people were offered a nearly complete fresh slate, they still cheated. And then plagiarized.
He at length describes how much of his class were blowing off almost every aspect of the class; not attending lectures, skipping assignments, almost never attending his office hours.
Many of them openly say in the whatsapp chat that they didn't do reading, classwork, or study.
This is not even remotely close to behavior of people participating in a high-stakes all-or-nothing, if-I-don't-graduate-I-am-fucked-for-life situations.
> Given all of this, why wouldn't you cheat?
In my state college they had zero tolerance policy. You caught cheating, you're out.
In my state college they had zero tolerance policy. You caught cheating, you're out.
Do they still? I had numerous friends caught cheating in the most blatant of ways (i.e. they forget to change the name of the assignment of the student they copied). Less than half even got a zero on the assignment. Plenty got a perfect grade and then were told to not do it again.
Going to the grocer has for a long time been about the food, not the pleasure of the shopping experience. Given this, why wouldn't you steal?
A better example would be: If your goal is to get food, are you really going to complain when one person offers to do everyone's shopping for them? Keep in mind, you'll lose out on the valuable lessons that grocery shopping has to teach!
risk of getting caught and arrested.
have to have a good GPA on that degree to get a job.
After a couple years, get a job at a small startup where you and 5 other people write the entire product. From there you will be a far stronger candidate just about anywhere with a real engineering culture.
My GPA was fairly reasonable, but I worked through college, so I got a position at a large name brand company. Drove me nuts after having worked at places where I had written more code in a single year than most of the lifer's had written in their entire career. That is when I went the startup route, and basically did small companies for ~20 years until wife/kids/stability drove me into the arms of a mid sized company where I only work ~40h/week. Now I write code on the weekends to keep my mind active.
I graduated with a poor GPA. The only place that gave me an offer did so because they forgot to ask me for my GPA. I got dozens of rejections purely for my GPA. Not all of them were from large employers.
[Edit]
To state something more on topic, I never once even considered cheating in school. I don't think it ever entered my mind, even when I was in danger of flunking out.
[Edit]
To state something more on topic, I never once even considered cheating in school. I don't think it ever entered my mind, even when I was in danger of flunking out.
I haven't read through all the other comments here, but attending class and learning the content aren't mutually exclusive.
I sympathize with the reason why students cheat, but I can't see that those reasons are the same as what you say. You don't need to attend classes to learn the content nor display mastery - I appreciate a good syllabus for that reason where you know what is expected and can learn on your own time. I liked the approach the author of the article took for that reason. But none of this requires cheating.
I can see why this would lead students to cheat, but this looks to me like a strawman in addition to victim blaming (on part of the prof).
I sympathize with the reason why students cheat, but I can't see that those reasons are the same as what you say. You don't need to attend classes to learn the content nor display mastery - I appreciate a good syllabus for that reason where you know what is expected and can learn on your own time. I liked the approach the author of the article took for that reason. But none of this requires cheating.
I can see why this would lead students to cheat, but this looks to me like a strawman in addition to victim blaming (on part of the prof).
You wouldn't cheat because once you are out in the real world supposedly applying the knowledge that you learned in college it is going to be really obvious to your boss and coworkers that you don't know what you are doing.
Everybody expects the fresh college grads to be fairly green, but you can really tell when someone has no clue about even the basic principals of their job, the one they supposedly have a degree in.
So the danger is having a good GPA but then washing out in job interviews with real companies. "Wow, a 4.0 in CS from CMU! So why do you seem to be completely mystified by Fizzbuzz?"
Everybody expects the fresh college grads to be fairly green, but you can really tell when someone has no clue about even the basic principals of their job, the one they supposedly have a degree in.
So the danger is having a good GPA but then washing out in job interviews with real companies. "Wow, a 4.0 in CS from CMU! So why do you seem to be completely mystified by Fizzbuzz?"
I feel most cheaters get by in the industry pretty well, cause school is way harder than he average job. The reason they make it at work is that the deadline for work is everyday while you can procrastinate at school for 3 months straight plus you aren't getting paid at school.
You’d think cheaters would consider the issues they’ll experience down the line, but the fact that FizzBuzz even exists and works at all proves they don’t.
Most cheaters don't, work doesn't allow you to procrastinate plus it motivates you with money. Also there is no arbitrary rules like solve this without help from your friends or the internet in the real world.
Given your cynical take, it’s in the school interest to prevent cheating; if everyone cheats and the word gets around, nobody will take that school seriously anymore.
I'm not sure how it is for other industries, but for computer sciences nobody takes schools seriously anymore.
Your knowledge and skill level is the most important thing they will evaluate you for, for the three SW jobs that I've gotten nobody asked me for my college degree let alone my grades, including a FAANG-type company.
Your knowledge and skill level is the most important thing they will evaluate you for, for the three SW jobs that I've gotten nobody asked me for my college degree let alone my grades, including a FAANG-type company.
Google asked for my full transcript even after I had been working at another FAANG for 2 years.
Looking back, I wish I'd cheated. College was fun for partying and living alone and having time to study, but coursework was a joke. I remember skipping my CS 101 class, coming in for the midterm, and finding it insane that they were still trying to get through pointers.
Glad that I at least dropped out when it stopped being fun. Highly recommend dropping out after ~2-3 years if you can get away with it.
You pay for school, do whatever you want with it.
Glad that I at least dropped out when it stopped being fun. Highly recommend dropping out after ~2-3 years if you can get away with it.
You pay for school, do whatever you want with it.
And this is why tech companies stopped giving a shit about undergraduate degrees back in the 90s at the latest. There’s literally no signal to be had.
None of the above is meant to deny the benefits of getting into the ivy league self-dealing club.
None of the above is meant to deny the benefits of getting into the ivy league self-dealing club.
Stopped giving <a shit> about undergrad degrees? No signal to be had?! Somehow I'm not getting that read from the tech industry... what I am getting is a willingness to hire non-traditional candidates. That does not translate to not giving a shit.
If you have more information on the source of your confidence, please do share.
If you have more information on the source of your confidence, please do share.
Happy to. I’ve done well into the hundreds of interviews at FAANG or whatever the acronym du jour is. We didn’t even look at resumes except to see if they were obviously self-disqualifying. Google SteveY’s rants on the subject if you want more corroboration. Also it’s obvious to anyone that isn’t stupid that “daddy bought me into Stanford” doesn’t indicate an ability to do top tier engineering work.
The Steve Yegge rants were well known... over a decade ago. Does he continue to speak for Google management perspectives today?
Google isn't turning up anything - mind linking SteveY?
Stevey is his handle. He’s notable enough to have a Wikipedia page[1]. I don’t know if that page will directly get you to his posts on interviewing, but with some cleverness that should be enough to go on.
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Yegge
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Yegge
Probably Steve Yegge?
Is it possible there was a resume filtering stage before you saw them?
When I was interviewing at Google virtually all the candidates were sourced or referrals, not selected from submitted CVs. I never even looked at the education section. There are was too many universities or there to know if they're meant to be good or bad and education never told you anything useful anyway.
Back then recruiting did a very basic resume screen and then they’d go to an SDE or SDM’s inbox for final screening. I imagine that’s no longer the case.
I dunno about the 90s, but it definitely feels to me like the industry largely stopped giving a shit about undergrad degrees at some point
Yeah, some bootcamps will hesitate to even admit you without a college degree. And I got offered to skip a technical interview just because I had a fancy degree on my resume that has nothing to do with cs.
Also when I was teaching pre-covid I always assumed my undergraduates would cheat if I gave them anything cheatable. Even if they're cheating though some small percentage gets through and sticks with some small percentage of students.
My mentors always said thats who you should teach to, and to assume good intentions with the rest. It takes a long time to settle into an adult brain.
Also when I was teaching pre-covid I always assumed my undergraduates would cheat if I gave them anything cheatable. Even if they're cheating though some small percentage gets through and sticks with some small percentage of students.
My mentors always said thats who you should teach to, and to assume good intentions with the rest. It takes a long time to settle into an adult brain.
Since we're converting purely anecdotal data into blanket generalizations, I am happy to provide a counter point. Graduated in 2004, and most of the companies that I looked into listed a bachelors degree in computer science for entry level software engineering positions.
In several interviews we even went over some of the actual subject matter from some of the more interesting courses, and I was able to leverage algorithms from my genetic engineering undergrad work during some whiteboarding.
In several interviews we even went over some of the actual subject matter from some of the more interesting courses, and I was able to leverage algorithms from my genetic engineering undergrad work during some whiteboarding.
This is false, 99% of engineers at top software companies have a degree and a lot have masters or Phds (especially those doing more specialized work)
People were cheating because they were expecting everyone else to cheat.
In general, cheating isn’t common in college.
This was simple game theory during the pandemic.
In general, cheating isn’t common in college.
This was simple game theory during the pandemic.
[deleted]
The most disturbing thing of all is that they just let the threats of reprisals slide like that. They can do what they want about the cheaters, but the students making the threats should have faced immediate expulsion.
It's the worst kind of corruption, because all other forms of corruption hinges on everyone staying silent and playing along. Anyone who espouses the "snitches get stitches" attitude needs to be socially ostracized, because they are a menace wherever they go, whether in academia, industry or public office.
It's the worst kind of corruption, because all other forms of corruption hinges on everyone staying silent and playing along. Anyone who espouses the "snitches get stitches" attitude needs to be socially ostracized, because they are a menace wherever they go, whether in academia, industry or public office.
From the article, those threats were Sent to the school’s judicial review:
> If it has a crying face emoji does it mean the threats weren’t serious? I don’t know, wasn’t going to take any chances.
> I won’t repeat the email exchange with the student who had to be contacted by judicial affairs.
> If it has a crying face emoji does it mean the threats weren’t serious? I don’t know, wasn’t going to take any chances.
> I won’t repeat the email exchange with the student who had to be contacted by judicial affairs.
Later, it clarifies that the student who made two clear threats to the supposed “snitch” got “a second chance.”
This was the worst decision in a series of somewhat-too-lenient decisions. I would not want to teach at, study at, or send my kids to school at an institution that lacks a zero-tolerance policy for such threats.
This was the worst decision in a series of somewhat-too-lenient decisions. I would not want to teach at, study at, or send my kids to school at an institution that lacks a zero-tolerance policy for such threats.
I think we’re dealing with a few separate concerns here:
1) do the students who cheated get a chance to resolve their behavior in the course - that is, can they still pass this class?
2) What does the university do to these students as a response? This is an administrative action rather than a course-level action, and why the author had to fill out forms.
3) A separate administrative response is given for threatening behavior. The consequences for this are different than for cheating. There are potential legal ramifications associated with this.
I think in this case the author was saying he gave this student a second chance (the second syllabus) while also submitting to the other two authorities in the matter.
2) What does the university do to these students as a response? This is an administrative action rather than a course-level action, and why the author had to fill out forms.
3) A separate administrative response is given for threatening behavior. The consequences for this are different than for cheating. There are potential legal ramifications associated with this.
I think in this case the author was saying he gave this student a second chance (the second syllabus) while also submitting to the other two authorities in the matter.
In my degree (Comp Eng) we overlapped with the Comp Sci program a fair amount. Comp Sci was part of the college of mathematics and Comp Eng was part of the college of engineering, which were on opposite sides of campus and organizationally were very separate.
The cultures could not have been any more different. The engineering labs were loud, full of collaboration and discussion. The professors would sometimes find out a student copied some code and would simply ask "Well, do you understand it?".
The computer science labs were dead quiet. Strict policies around code plagiarism were posted at every door (instant fail and a 1 year ban from any CS class). People were terrified of helping each other and so everyone just worked in isolation.
I learned more in the engineering labs and made deeper connections with people. The coursework was frankly harder, we built more complex things completely from scratch, but because of the collaborative culture I was able to learn from my peers, tackle hard problems, and retain the information.
The cultures could not have been any more different. The engineering labs were loud, full of collaboration and discussion. The professors would sometimes find out a student copied some code and would simply ask "Well, do you understand it?".
The computer science labs were dead quiet. Strict policies around code plagiarism were posted at every door (instant fail and a 1 year ban from any CS class). People were terrified of helping each other and so everyone just worked in isolation.
I learned more in the engineering labs and made deeper connections with people. The coursework was frankly harder, we built more complex things completely from scratch, but because of the collaborative culture I was able to learn from my peers, tackle hard problems, and retain the information.
I took for-majors Engineering, Physics, and Computer Science classes, 20 years ago. Here's what I saw:
In freshman engineering courses [*], students would gather and do the assignments. They would divide and conquer questions, sharing answers. This was definitely cheating. (I didn't participate. But I didn't seriously consider reporting it either; I wanted to have friends...) The assignments were repetitive and stupid, so this was a rational if dishonest coping strategy. TAs certainly knew this happened. I had a bad habit of skipping dumb assignments. One TA actually emailed me something along the lines of "why don't you just cheat like everyone else".
In physics classes, students would gather and do the assignments. They would each do all the work. When someone got stuck, others would suggest techniques, help them where they were stuck, etc. Collaborative and honest. The assignments had far fewer problems, each unique and involved, done from first principles. Homework was graded on showing (extensive) work as well as the answers. If folks had skipped/copied problems, they would have missed out on great learning opportunities and likely flunked the exams even if they weren't caught.
In computer science classes, I don't recall students gathering to do the assignments. Maybe I just wasn't part of the group. (Many of my friends were in engineering, and most of my academic time was spent in the physics building.) Maybe they just didn't work together, similar to what you observed. What I do know is that a lot of students had very little understanding, and I was surprised they got degrees.
Of course, I prefer the physics approach. It's probably not a discipline-wide thing though as much as that my school had a great physics department and a lousy CS department. More similarities than I expected in your story, though, despite presumably different schools and times.
[*] I dropped my electrical/computer engineering major after freshman year. I graduated with a comp sci major + physics minor. Maybe later engineering courses were different.
In freshman engineering courses [*], students would gather and do the assignments. They would divide and conquer questions, sharing answers. This was definitely cheating. (I didn't participate. But I didn't seriously consider reporting it either; I wanted to have friends...) The assignments were repetitive and stupid, so this was a rational if dishonest coping strategy. TAs certainly knew this happened. I had a bad habit of skipping dumb assignments. One TA actually emailed me something along the lines of "why don't you just cheat like everyone else".
In physics classes, students would gather and do the assignments. They would each do all the work. When someone got stuck, others would suggest techniques, help them where they were stuck, etc. Collaborative and honest. The assignments had far fewer problems, each unique and involved, done from first principles. Homework was graded on showing (extensive) work as well as the answers. If folks had skipped/copied problems, they would have missed out on great learning opportunities and likely flunked the exams even if they weren't caught.
In computer science classes, I don't recall students gathering to do the assignments. Maybe I just wasn't part of the group. (Many of my friends were in engineering, and most of my academic time was spent in the physics building.) Maybe they just didn't work together, similar to what you observed. What I do know is that a lot of students had very little understanding, and I was surprised they got degrees.
Of course, I prefer the physics approach. It's probably not a discipline-wide thing though as much as that my school had a great physics department and a lousy CS department. More similarities than I expected in your story, though, despite presumably different schools and times.
[*] I dropped my electrical/computer engineering major after freshman year. I graduated with a comp sci major + physics minor. Maybe later engineering courses were different.
Odd, I'm also a Comp Eng grad and my experience was exactly the same - including the cross campus bit. I went to University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
There was still definitely a fair amount of real cheating though. Especially during the online classes of COVID.
Most of the cheating I saw was from classes that had clearly had difficulty creep up year after year due to un-caught cheating though, and had truly awful professors. Chegg, I think, has really inflated the difficulty for the hosest people.
I think the most common cheating i actually saw in engineering was group work where only 1 person did anything. Hell, I have an example on my GitHub where my partner made one commit with one line of code which I then had to redo anyway.
There was still definitely a fair amount of real cheating though. Especially during the online classes of COVID.
Most of the cheating I saw was from classes that had clearly had difficulty creep up year after year due to un-caught cheating though, and had truly awful professors. Chegg, I think, has really inflated the difficulty for the hosest people.
I think the most common cheating i actually saw in engineering was group work where only 1 person did anything. Hell, I have an example on my GitHub where my partner made one commit with one line of code which I then had to redo anyway.
Group work is often set up specifically to force this kind of "cheating". My course used it as a way to disguise the fact that students weren't learning programming. They tested everyone at the very start of the course to locate people who already were self taught, then assigned each group one self taught person who ended up doing all the work. The rest ride for free, everyone passes and the scam continues.
I've tasted university education very little ever since. Academia is just flooded with intellectual fraud of all kinds. The students sense the lack of seriousness and accountability and realize that no matter what is said, that'll get away with it because the profs don't really care and in fact depend on cheating to survive.
I've tasted university education very little ever since. Academia is just flooded with intellectual fraud of all kinds. The students sense the lack of seriousness and accountability and realize that no matter what is said, that'll get away with it because the profs don't really care and in fact depend on cheating to survive.
This is a small part of why I majored in engineering (Engineering Science/Physics) instead of comp sci. It seemed like a very oppressive environment to learn in, especially when I already had years of experience with programming.
Sounds like you and I were at the same college! Us CompE's would usually raise a ruckus in the computer science labs too though. Good times.
I think American teacher often don't appreciate faculty vs student dynamics. They think they are there to help each of their students achieve academic success.
Education mostly doesn't work like that for most people in most places.
Teachers are not allies of students. They are the enemy, they are the problem. Students are rarely interested in learning. They are interested for this whole thing to be over and with a decent result.
This adversity pushes students to cooperate against the faculty. That's a strong motivator to connect and support each other in the face of common enemy. And they are learning a lot from each other, both in terms of knowledge and cooperation. There are also freeloaders in that cooperation that come just for the answers. But when the answer is not as easy as picking a letter, for example the answer is a way of solving a class of problems even those cheaters learn from this coopeartion. And they learn more than they could learn from their teachers.
By exploiting adversarial dynamics, having good materials available and technically ensuring it's hard to cheat trachers can basically have half of their teaching work done by the students as they teach each other. This benefits everybody.
Education mostly doesn't work like that for most people in most places.
Teachers are not allies of students. They are the enemy, they are the problem. Students are rarely interested in learning. They are interested for this whole thing to be over and with a decent result.
This adversity pushes students to cooperate against the faculty. That's a strong motivator to connect and support each other in the face of common enemy. And they are learning a lot from each other, both in terms of knowledge and cooperation. There are also freeloaders in that cooperation that come just for the answers. But when the answer is not as easy as picking a letter, for example the answer is a way of solving a class of problems even those cheaters learn from this coopeartion. And they learn more than they could learn from their teachers.
By exploiting adversarial dynamics, having good materials available and technically ensuring it's hard to cheat trachers can basically have half of their teaching work done by the students as they teach each other. This benefits everybody.
That collaboration and cooperation often counts as cheating in our education system is a stupid relic from some hundred years ago.
If you want to mould a Taylorist's dream of obedient, quiet factory workers who spend their lives making the left side of the head of a pin then yeah, go ahead and discourage cooperation.
For anything else? Especially the creative work that will be expected of current students in the future? Cooperation should be a major goal of education.
If you want to mould a Taylorist's dream of obedient, quiet factory workers who spend their lives making the left side of the head of a pin then yeah, go ahead and discourage cooperation.
For anything else? Especially the creative work that will be expected of current students in the future? Cooperation should be a major goal of education.
Was looking for this! I’m a Chemical Engineering grad who’s in a Computer Science masters program currently. Comparing the two, the collaboration in my engineering classes far surpasses anything that’s occurred in my CS classes. Almost everything we did in Engineering would have been considered “cheating” in CS. In retrospect, I definitely learned more than I would have from the collaboration and environment in undergrad.
[deleted]
I honestly don’t get widespread cheating like this…
You’re paying so much money for these courses — probably a ridiculous amount, so much you may never recoup — … so at least get everything out of it you can. Otherwise, why sign up in the first place?
Let me tell you: essentially no one cares what grade you got in your courses. (Sure, there are cases, but over time they quickly attenuate from “sometimes” to “never” as time passes.) You might as well strive, get the most you can out of the course, and let the grade fall where it may.
Here’s an idea: if you’re cool with cheating, after school is over, just lie when anyone asks your gpa. You can get all the A’s, in one single, easy, low-risk cheat. Many won’t check and there’s little consequence for those that do (maybe you wasted some time at a job interview). This “frees” you to just do the best you can when you’re actually taking the courses — to get the most out of them you can — no risk, all gain.
You’re paying so much money for these courses — probably a ridiculous amount, so much you may never recoup — … so at least get everything out of it you can. Otherwise, why sign up in the first place?
Let me tell you: essentially no one cares what grade you got in your courses. (Sure, there are cases, but over time they quickly attenuate from “sometimes” to “never” as time passes.) You might as well strive, get the most you can out of the course, and let the grade fall where it may.
Here’s an idea: if you’re cool with cheating, after school is over, just lie when anyone asks your gpa. You can get all the A’s, in one single, easy, low-risk cheat. Many won’t check and there’s little consequence for those that do (maybe you wasted some time at a job interview). This “frees” you to just do the best you can when you’re actually taking the courses — to get the most out of them you can — no risk, all gain.
The reason I think a lot of people cheat is because they just don't appreciate the value of a good education, they don't even know what they really want to do with their lives, they don't know the value of money, and are just going because their parents just want them to.
I went through an unconventional learning path - I didn't think I was ready for post-secondary straight out of highschool, so I worked first. After I felt I was ready, I went. Everyone told me I was crazy and I needed to go straight to post secondary, but as a result I was able to figure out what I wanted to do, and gain some discipline and perspective while I was at it. I did well in post-secondary school, far better than I ever could have dreamed of in highschool.
At College I couldn't believe the number of people straight out of highschool who slacked off and wasted their parents' money. I was involved in a student drive and I got to see it even more firsthand. Asking students about why they were interested - "my parents want me to go". "I don't know". Those were the most common answers.
People mature at different rates, and expecting everyone to be ready for College right as they enter adulthood is madness. Some people need some life experience, some people will never gain those skills and should take alternate life paths. To be clear, taking an alternate life path can be risky, and the one I took is not the one for everyone. I think we just need to take a critical look at what we're asking of late teenagers and young adults.
I went through an unconventional learning path - I didn't think I was ready for post-secondary straight out of highschool, so I worked first. After I felt I was ready, I went. Everyone told me I was crazy and I needed to go straight to post secondary, but as a result I was able to figure out what I wanted to do, and gain some discipline and perspective while I was at it. I did well in post-secondary school, far better than I ever could have dreamed of in highschool.
At College I couldn't believe the number of people straight out of highschool who slacked off and wasted their parents' money. I was involved in a student drive and I got to see it even more firsthand. Asking students about why they were interested - "my parents want me to go". "I don't know". Those were the most common answers.
People mature at different rates, and expecting everyone to be ready for College right as they enter adulthood is madness. Some people need some life experience, some people will never gain those skills and should take alternate life paths. To be clear, taking an alternate life path can be risky, and the one I took is not the one for everyone. I think we just need to take a critical look at what we're asking of late teenagers and young adults.
See I came out of college learning the exact opposite lesson. I optimized for learning as much as possible, and didn't care at all about grades.
Turns out 90% of the shit I learned in college was a waste and GPA matters quite a bit.
There are still jobs that's ask my GPA 10 years in. And your first job determines your second one, and I imagine I lost out on somewhere between 70-250k in compensation at least from having a bad GPA.
Turns out 90% of the shit I learned in college was a waste and GPA matters quite a bit.
There are still jobs that's ask my GPA 10 years in. And your first job determines your second one, and I imagine I lost out on somewhere between 70-250k in compensation at least from having a bad GPA.
There are lots of different perspectives on education in this thread, yours included, and I respect that. It's a complicated issue, and no two people have the same experience. This is why I always tell people not to just blindly follow my path because it worked for me, that's the same as just taking the path your parents want or worse.
I still want the main takeaway to be that we shouldn't necessarily always be pushing teenagers straight into College, and that something clearly needs to change.
I still want the main takeaway to be that we shouldn't necessarily always be pushing teenagers straight into College, and that something clearly needs to change.
This relates to one of the weird effect of going abroad: nobody cares, except if you’re from an elite world renown school.
For some visa application the criteria was to have graduated from college, and a printed paper saying “this student graduated in 20xx” was enough. No job cared to ask what school it was, how it’s ranked or what grades, as it was out of their social ranking and they wouldn’t be able to pin it in the hierarchy. It was a good school and I enjoyed the curriculum, but really nobody cares.
For some visa application the criteria was to have graduated from college, and a printed paper saying “this student graduated in 20xx” was enough. No job cared to ask what school it was, how it’s ranked or what grades, as it was out of their social ranking and they wouldn’t be able to pin it in the hierarchy. It was a good school and I enjoyed the curriculum, but really nobody cares.
>And your first job determines your second one
what. the. hell.
I hate that mindset with passion.
Folks, just skew the odds.
what. the. hell.
I hate that mindset with passion.
Folks, just skew the odds.
Huh? I legitimately can't tell what mindset you're railing against, or what "skew the odds" means in this context?
>I legitimately can't tell what mindset you're railing against
Basically that there's some "chain" of dependencies, impossible to overcome when it comes to career
like previously quoted statement for me sounds like
good gpa -> good first job -> fast path to high tc jobs
mediocre gpa -> mediocre job -> a lot of other not fancy jobs -> high tc job after a lot of years
What I'm saying is that "And your first job determines your second one" is not true (except edge cases like govt jobs).
You can start your career at the most unknown company in country and still manage to jump to the top companies
>or what "skew the odds" means in this context?
Just because the odds are not favoring you, it's still doable
Basically that there's some "chain" of dependencies, impossible to overcome when it comes to career
like previously quoted statement for me sounds like
good gpa -> good first job -> fast path to high tc jobs
mediocre gpa -> mediocre job -> a lot of other not fancy jobs -> high tc job after a lot of years
What I'm saying is that "And your first job determines your second one" is not true (except edge cases like govt jobs).
You can start your career at the most unknown company in country and still manage to jump to the top companies
>or what "skew the odds" means in this context?
Just because the odds are not favoring you, it's still doable
It's not impossible to overcome, but it does take time. Time your earning less money than you would be.
Time to build up a competitive resume so you get an interview despite a lower GPA, and time to study so that when you do get the interview you leave a better impression to make up for the poor GPA.
Time to build up a competitive resume so you get an interview despite a lower GPA, and time to study so that when you do get the interview you leave a better impression to make up for the poor GPA.
Generally the whole "GPA" importance concept is crazy to me, because in my country I've never heard anyone ever being asked about it
I don't even remember my GPA because I've seen it maybe twice - once when I received diploma and second time when I've been going thru my documents and just wanted to check out of curiosity
It's so flawed metrics that I'd never even consider it as reasonable when interviewing people
I don't even remember my GPA because I've seen it maybe twice - once when I received diploma and second time when I've been going thru my documents and just wanted to check out of curiosity
It's so flawed metrics that I'd never even consider it as reasonable when interviewing people
In my early career I've had several recruiters who were very interested in me based on my resume, had several conversations and then when they found out my GPA said they couldn't place me.
Also had several jobs I wanted that required a certain GPA even 5-10 years into my career.
Also had several jobs I wanted that required a certain GPA even 5-10 years into my career.
To your point, college is a path to education for some and a signal for others (and, probably more accurately, some mixture of both). I think the issue is when both groups (those that cheat and those that do not) both get the same credential. That means the credential has lost its "signal value".
To someone who values college as almost exclusively for its educational value, maybe that doesn't matter. But to many, especially HR, the degree is valuable for its signaling capability and watering that down has real and lasting consequences.
To someone who values college as almost exclusively for its educational value, maybe that doesn't matter. But to many, especially HR, the degree is valuable for its signaling capability and watering that down has real and lasting consequences.
I went to university to get the mandatory piece of paper. Sometimes I had enough time between courses to actually learn how to program, amid the UML and ethics in CS.
I still don't appreciate the value of a good education. You could have replaced mine with pre-recorded Stanford lectures, set coursework, work placements, and Saturday morning coffee with a senior engineer to go over the week with our laptops out. It would have been 10% of the cost or less and it would have taught me more.
I still don't appreciate the value of a good education. You could have replaced mine with pre-recorded Stanford lectures, set coursework, work placements, and Saturday morning coffee with a senior engineer to go over the week with our laptops out. It would have been 10% of the cost or less and it would have taught me more.
My dude, I make a quarter million a year. I found out how useless college was after I accrued $2,944 in student loans (I attended college after 2001). The value to me was, and continues to be zero. College is not for everyone, and this applies even in countries where higher education is free.
The ability to use critical thinking does not come from a college education.
The ability to use critical thinking does not come from a college education.
how many employers req. 'critical thinking' instead of a degree.
Far too few.
Were it possible; employers might screen candidates on the results of a test of critical thinking, as opposed to a degree. However, this has been illegal since Griggs vs. Duke.
Were it possible; employers might screen candidates on the results of a test of critical thinking, as opposed to a degree. However, this has been illegal since Griggs vs. Duke.
I agree completely.
many make that because of massive information asymmetry. they are players in a giant con game that is engulfing the world. to some, there is more to life than bartering.
, they don't know the value of money, and are just going because their parents just want them to.
how does this follow from not cheating. if you care about not wasting money, you would do everything, including even cheating, to pass.
they don't even know what they really want to do with their lives
or maybe they do know and just see 4 years of college as a waste of time to get there.
how does this follow from not cheating. if you care about not wasting money, you would do everything, including even cheating, to pass.
they don't even know what they really want to do with their lives
or maybe they do know and just see 4 years of college as a waste of time to get there.
Because most of the cheating is born out of laziness, not from a desire to pass at all costs.
"all cost" not include cheating as well?
>if you care about not wasting money, you would do everything, including even cheating, to pass.
If you care about not wasting money, why risk everything you've spent and not even gain the education that you've purchased while you're at it?
>or maybe they do know and just see 4 years of college as a waste of time to get there.
If they truly already have the skills they need to skip to their life of choice - why cheat? If they don't have this capability, their feeling that they should just be able to skip over education is wrong.
If you care about not wasting money, why risk everything you've spent and not even gain the education that you've purchased while you're at it?
>or maybe they do know and just see 4 years of college as a waste of time to get there.
If they truly already have the skills they need to skip to their life of choice - why cheat? If they don't have this capability, their feeling that they should just be able to skip over education is wrong.
I feel like people who say that "it's so much money, so try and get something out of it" are people who have never had the experience of being a "bad student" and have an immense passion for learning. I really can't say the same.
I'm currently in undergrad for electrical engineering, and I do not give a single fuck about the classes I'm in. I have no passion for electrical engineering - I don't wake up excited to make schematics or lay out a PCB. I do it because it's a good job and I want money, and I know that I need to get a good GPA to get a good job. I don't really care about how I got that GPA or if I learned anything from college, I just want money.
I pay a fuckton of money of classes that I'm forced to take on subjects that I learned in the freshman year of my highschool that I really do not care about (and aren't related to my major) and yet I'm supposed to feel incredibly enthralled showing up to class everyday and doing the assignments? No, I'm just going to cheat to save time and effort. I don't care about the subject at all, I just care about the GPA that I get at the end of the semester.
And employers check your GPA now. I often hear (usually from older people who have been in the industry before computerized background checks) that you can just lie on your resume and bullshit your way in, but that doesn't fly anymore as an entry level. They just type in your credentials into a database and have your info, and universities are part of that database. It's true that after your first job no one looks at your GPA, but how are you going to get that first job if your GPA isn't actually good to begin with?
I'm currently in undergrad for electrical engineering, and I do not give a single fuck about the classes I'm in. I have no passion for electrical engineering - I don't wake up excited to make schematics or lay out a PCB. I do it because it's a good job and I want money, and I know that I need to get a good GPA to get a good job. I don't really care about how I got that GPA or if I learned anything from college, I just want money.
I pay a fuckton of money of classes that I'm forced to take on subjects that I learned in the freshman year of my highschool that I really do not care about (and aren't related to my major) and yet I'm supposed to feel incredibly enthralled showing up to class everyday and doing the assignments? No, I'm just going to cheat to save time and effort. I don't care about the subject at all, I just care about the GPA that I get at the end of the semester.
And employers check your GPA now. I often hear (usually from older people who have been in the industry before computerized background checks) that you can just lie on your resume and bullshit your way in, but that doesn't fly anymore as an entry level. They just type in your credentials into a database and have your info, and universities are part of that database. It's true that after your first job no one looks at your GPA, but how are you going to get that first job if your GPA isn't actually good to begin with?
My experience was the complete opposite. I loved learning that stuff. It was like somebody turned the lights on. Like I was handed the keys to the universe. In my mind I could see the electrons flowing. With the math I could figure out how and why.
I am sad for you. There's nothing wrong with wanting to make money. But there are endless ways to make money, pick something you actually like.
I've counseled many kids: Draw two circles, one around what you like, the other around what makes money. Do the things in the intersection.
I am sad for you. There's nothing wrong with wanting to make money. But there are endless ways to make money, pick something you actually like.
I've counseled many kids: Draw two circles, one around what you like, the other around what makes money. Do the things in the intersection.
My EE experience was like yours. Especially the day I learned Laplace transforms. I felt like I'd found a magic wand.
Except I never thought about money until I graduated. "Holy hell!" I realized. "They want to pay me a ton of money for this? I'd do it for free!"
Fortunately I was smart enough not to say that last part out loud.
Except I never thought about money until I graduated. "Holy hell!" I realized. "They want to pay me a ton of money for this? I'd do it for free!"
Fortunately I was smart enough not to say that last part out loud.
> They want to pay me a ton of money for this? I'd do it for free!
Happy to see that other's found this too :) This was my experience with CS—I always loved it and I am, to this day, still surprised that they pay me so much because I used to do this exact same stuff at home for fun. I feel like I got exceptionally lucky that my passion just so happens to be something exceptionally profitable because I have no idea what I'd do otherwise.
Happy to see that other's found this too :) This was my experience with CS—I always loved it and I am, to this day, still surprised that they pay me so much because I used to do this exact same stuff at home for fun. I feel like I got exceptionally lucky that my passion just so happens to be something exceptionally profitable because I have no idea what I'd do otherwise.
Reminds me of many accounts by fighter pilots in WW2. "I can't believe they pay me to fly these things!"
Can you imagine flying a P-51? I splurged and bought a 30 minute ride in the back seat. Sigh. Holy Crap! Pure heaven! I was smiling for the next week.
Can you imagine flying a P-51? I splurged and bought a 30 minute ride in the back seat. Sigh. Holy Crap! Pure heaven! I was smiling for the next week.
The German Bundeswehr solved that problem by not letting their pilots fly and instead promote them to some managerial office jobs. That is still cheaper than paying for real flight hours.
Did you actually learn how they work or how to just use them out of a table?
I learned them. They changed nasty* differential equations into simple algebra problems. Oh boy did I learn them.
*Or rather I thought at the time they were nasty. Later I learned about nonlinear differential equations, where Laplace transforms don't help.
*Or rather I thought at the time they were nasty. Later I learned about nonlinear differential equations, where Laplace transforms don't help.
It's so frustrating for me to read things like "I am sad for you". I don't have the option to do what I want; someone has to pay to feed the children and keep the lights on at my village back home. Another commenter said something like "I would do this for free!". Great, you did it for the love of doing it and had the privilege of coming from a background where you can go through college without thinking of money, but I can't, and being talked down to condescendingly about it is infuriating.
> I don't have the option to do what I want
I was replying to a college student. Someone going to college does have the option of which major.
I am also referring to people in America. I understand that Americans have a lot more opportunities than people in other countries.
I was replying to a college student. Someone going to college does have the option of which major.
I am also referring to people in America. I understand that Americans have a lot more opportunities than people in other countries.
You're trapping yourself into a 30-40 year career that you clearly can't make yourself care before you've even started. What exactly do you think is going to happen to you 10-20 years into your career? Growth and advancement are continually expected for an engineer over the course of their career. And the engineering professions aren't large communities; get a reputation as "that mediocre guy that doesn't care about his profession" and it's game over.
And the worst part is that you're doing this to yourself. You won't have anyone else to blame for it.
And the worst part is that you're doing this to yourself. You won't have anyone else to blame for it.
What do you want to do? If I put together a list of things it'd be hundreds of lines long and at least some of them would be profitable.
I think people aren't baffled by you choosing a high-paying career, but by you not having anything that's both high-paying and interesting. Why electrical engineering and not CS or nuclear or something? Is there nothing at all that both interests you and pays well?
I think people aren't baffled by you choosing a high-paying career, but by you not having anything that's both high-paying and interesting. Why electrical engineering and not CS or nuclear or something? Is there nothing at all that both interests you and pays well?
This is the thing that I have the most passion for. I like computers and electronics. But it's dwarfed by other passions that I have that I would much rather be doing. No bills are being paid by me wanting to bike or write in my journal.
And I know it's a sentiment that isn't unique to me, since a lot of my friends from similar backgrounds share this feeling. You choose the major that you can tolerate and also pays well.
And I know it's a sentiment that isn't unique to me, since a lot of my friends from similar backgrounds share this feeling. You choose the major that you can tolerate and also pays well.
So you do like it. That is unlike the poster I was responding to.
The poster you are responding to here and the one you responded to first are the same person.
You're right, I missed that. I assumed they weren't because they were contradictory.
you are absolutely right, and I understand you completely.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
>I don't wake up excited to make schematics or lay out a PCB. I do it because it's a good job and I want money,
I see this a lot in computer science / SWE too. I realize you don't have the life experience to answer these questions well so maybe they're just rhetorical: do you think you will be successful when you get a job laying out PCBs and designing schematics? What will your competence level be given that you cheated your way through the relevant schooling? How long until you burn out?
Part of the reason colleges force you to take a lot of courses irrelevant to your major is so the students like you have a slightly higher chance of finding something they ARE passionate about.
I see this a lot in computer science / SWE too. I realize you don't have the life experience to answer these questions well so maybe they're just rhetorical: do you think you will be successful when you get a job laying out PCBs and designing schematics? What will your competence level be given that you cheated your way through the relevant schooling? How long until you burn out?
Part of the reason colleges force you to take a lot of courses irrelevant to your major is so the students like you have a slightly higher chance of finding something they ARE passionate about.
And employers check your GPA now. I often hear (usually from older people who have been in the industry before computerized background checks) that you can just lie on your resume and bullshit your way in, but that doesn't fly anymore as an entry level. They just type in your credentials into a database and have your info, and universities are part of that database. It's true that after your first job no one looks at your GPA, but how are you going to get that first job if your GPA isn't actually good to begin with?
Yup...this is not the 80s or the 90s. Employers got burned enough times, and now check that shit closely..lot's of screening.
I'm currently in undergrad for electrical engineering, and I do not give a single fuck about the classes I'm in. I have no passion for electrical engineering - I don't wake up excited to make schematics or lay out a PCB. I do it because it's a good job and I want money, and I know that I need to get a good GPA to get a good job. I don't really care about how I got that GPA or if I learned anything from college, I just want money.
Agree..ppl just want that certificate which acts as a ticket to the middle class lifestyle. they don't care about knowledge for its own sake. Those who care more go on to get a masters or doctorate.
Yup...this is not the 80s or the 90s. Employers got burned enough times, and now check that shit closely..lot's of screening.
I'm currently in undergrad for electrical engineering, and I do not give a single fuck about the classes I'm in. I have no passion for electrical engineering - I don't wake up excited to make schematics or lay out a PCB. I do it because it's a good job and I want money, and I know that I need to get a good GPA to get a good job. I don't really care about how I got that GPA or if I learned anything from college, I just want money.
Agree..ppl just want that certificate which acts as a ticket to the middle class lifestyle. they don't care about knowledge for its own sake. Those who care more go on to get a masters or doctorate.
When I was in school, I inadvertently realized that the biggest cheat code was not cheating. Professors will open doors wide open for you if you are honest with them and engage with them, and it's actually usually easier than going to all that effort to cheat and not get caught.
During college, I focused on learning a ton from the few courses that I found interesting (and where I learned new material), and I passed the rest with a B- average. As a result, I got to work with several professors on research and as a TA, and that totally overshadowed my low-3's GPA in the job market. "Research courses" with no requirements other than work I found interesting let me pad my GPA. I graduated in the bottom 30% of the class having done two years of research and taught a course (as the instructor, not a TA). I left for a position with the highest salary of anyone in my class, and I had a company literally begging for me to interview after I turned them down for asking about my GPA.
These are opportunities which you cannot get if you do not engage honestly with the material you are learning. Professors usually know when you are cheating, and professors talk - they may know that you are a cheater the moment you step foot in their classroom. They don't want to report it, though, because it's a lot of work to gather evidence and go through the process.
Some professors of required courses are happy to help you if you are honestly not very engaged with the material in their course. Some have egos that are too big for that, but a lot of them don't. They understand that the course is required, so you're going to get a B or a C if you don't cheat and you want to focus on other things. All they want is for you to learn something from them, and you will still learn a thing or two by doing half their homework honestly.
The back door in the job market is a lot bigger than the front door - a lot of people get jobs from referrals rather than the traditional application process, and most of the really great jobs are found that way. Cheating at school almost completely shuts the back door in the entry level job market, since your professors and fellow students will know you are doing it. Don't underestimate what you're giving up.
During college, I focused on learning a ton from the few courses that I found interesting (and where I learned new material), and I passed the rest with a B- average. As a result, I got to work with several professors on research and as a TA, and that totally overshadowed my low-3's GPA in the job market. "Research courses" with no requirements other than work I found interesting let me pad my GPA. I graduated in the bottom 30% of the class having done two years of research and taught a course (as the instructor, not a TA). I left for a position with the highest salary of anyone in my class, and I had a company literally begging for me to interview after I turned them down for asking about my GPA.
These are opportunities which you cannot get if you do not engage honestly with the material you are learning. Professors usually know when you are cheating, and professors talk - they may know that you are a cheater the moment you step foot in their classroom. They don't want to report it, though, because it's a lot of work to gather evidence and go through the process.
Some professors of required courses are happy to help you if you are honestly not very engaged with the material in their course. Some have egos that are too big for that, but a lot of them don't. They understand that the course is required, so you're going to get a B or a C if you don't cheat and you want to focus on other things. All they want is for you to learn something from them, and you will still learn a thing or two by doing half their homework honestly.
The back door in the job market is a lot bigger than the front door - a lot of people get jobs from referrals rather than the traditional application process, and most of the really great jobs are found that way. Cheating at school almost completely shuts the back door in the entry level job market, since your professors and fellow students will know you are doing it. Don't underestimate what you're giving up.
>I'm just going to cheat to save time and effort.
I totally understand the pressure, and the idea that these choices are a means to an end. And this isn't meant to sound condescending so please don't take it that way, but please PLEASE do not take this attitude into industry. Especially into a safety-critical industry. Believe it or not, it's more prevalent than you may think and humans are always good at rationalizing taking the easy way out.
I know the knee-jerk reaction will be "yeah, I won't do it when it matters" but these types of choices tend to become habits, and as the saying goes, habits become one's character and character becomes one's fate.
I totally understand the pressure, and the idea that these choices are a means to an end. And this isn't meant to sound condescending so please don't take it that way, but please PLEASE do not take this attitude into industry. Especially into a safety-critical industry. Believe it or not, it's more prevalent than you may think and humans are always good at rationalizing taking the easy way out.
I know the knee-jerk reaction will be "yeah, I won't do it when it matters" but these types of choices tend to become habits, and as the saying goes, habits become one's character and character becomes one's fate.
This might be a dumb question, but what does this even look like in industry? I'm honestly not sure how I could "cheat" my way through my job. I have to design features, argue why they're good/worthwhile tradeoffs, and then implement them. Sure, I can steal features from competitors but I can't lie about their impact or fake implementing them because people will surely notice when the feature ships and simply doesn't work. Like, you can't cheat at design verification of a chip. If the chip ships and doesn't work, your ass is getting canned so fast.
There are all kinds of ways to cheat verification and validation. In my personal experience, it usually comes down to "cheating" to avoid missing a schedule milestone. It usually comes down to misrepresenting a system. One example that comes to mind was a programmer who created an artificial flag to avoid static analysis tools reporting some errors; passing static analysis was a requirement for their system to be cleared for use. When confronted, the team's reply said they did so because if the report identified issues, they'd be forced to fix them and they needed to meet schedule. I have lots of other examples, some more egregious, some less. Sometimes they border on being silly, such as when a team said they didn't need to validate their software because, since the system operation required a human to turn it on, it wasn't considered "software" in their definition of the word.
For context, these were a safety-critical systems. A lot of times when something went wrong on a research effort, people can cover their tracks by calling it an "anomaly" and avoid further digging to press forward. But a lot of the "anomalies" can be traced back to avoiding requirements or equivalently lying about test outcomes, most of the time due to schedule pressure or just a simple lack of expertise. And because many safety issues are low probability events, people can get lulled into complacency where this behavior becomes normal since it's still rare for something bad to happen.
Another example further down in the discussion was VW's cheating of emission tests by changing their vehicles operation when it was connected to a test stand.
For context, these were a safety-critical systems. A lot of times when something went wrong on a research effort, people can cover their tracks by calling it an "anomaly" and avoid further digging to press forward. But a lot of the "anomalies" can be traced back to avoiding requirements or equivalently lying about test outcomes, most of the time due to schedule pressure or just a simple lack of expertise. And because many safety issues are low probability events, people can get lulled into complacency where this behavior becomes normal since it's still rare for something bad to happen.
Another example further down in the discussion was VW's cheating of emission tests by changing their vehicles operation when it was connected to a test stand.
I don't know what to tell you, except that I just read some guides on how to code on the internet and make 6 figures now. I'm a high school dropout. This seems like a profound waste of your time and money, and people are lying to you about what you need to get a good, easy job. I doubt some stranger on the internet is going to persuade you of anything, but there are definitely other ways to make money if that's all you care about.
> I do it because it's a good job and I want money
I wonder what you think will happen after you get that job?
(Either go in a different direction now, or else you might as well start learning how to keep your head above water in your EE career now.)
edit: I should add: I posted the comment you’re replying to and in regard to this:
> …are people who have never had the experience of being a "bad student"
Nah… I’ve been a bad student — just based on averages, likely worse than you. My only “special” skill is that after multiple crushing failures I realized, “hey.. maybe I should think more than zero steps ahead” when considering my many pressing life problems. In retrospect, I’ve found it’s like a superpower because it seems like almost no one bothers to do it, so you can get ahead in almost any circumstance.
I wonder what you think will happen after you get that job?
(Either go in a different direction now, or else you might as well start learning how to keep your head above water in your EE career now.)
edit: I should add: I posted the comment you’re replying to and in regard to this:
> …are people who have never had the experience of being a "bad student"
Nah… I’ve been a bad student — just based on averages, likely worse than you. My only “special” skill is that after multiple crushing failures I realized, “hey.. maybe I should think more than zero steps ahead” when considering my many pressing life problems. In retrospect, I’ve found it’s like a superpower because it seems like almost no one bothers to do it, so you can get ahead in almost any circumstance.
From everything I've seen in having spent about as many years out of school as in it, it's way more likely that you make it a few years in and then burn out without fully paying off the debts. Is your plan really to spend the next 30+ years hating your workday, then bringing the bad mood to the dinner table?
I say that having also been the cheater who hated the material and got the grade. Why did I do that? Parents wanted me in a "good career," same as everyone else. They saw a script and they kept pushing in that direction. So I convinced myself into it, at least for a while. It was phony baloney given that in my actual career the majority of my money has been made by crypto speculation and miscellaneous random opportunities, not anything that ever needed a credential. Fortunately I pushed myself onto a path that actually worked for me along the way and graduated right when I was actually starting to appreciate the coursework. Some people make it all the way through medical or law school and then immediately quit the field.
My advice is this, basically - don't try to win at your career, just try to survive; winning is a temporary thing that you can get by pushing harder for a short period, but surviving is a matter of doing everything at a viable level, forever. If you really think this is the best shot you have under the circumstances to achieve a decent life for everyone concerned, then sure, by all means. But aim to exit towards something that actually fits you as soon as possible, even if it's a "simple" move like going from IC into management.
I say that having also been the cheater who hated the material and got the grade. Why did I do that? Parents wanted me in a "good career," same as everyone else. They saw a script and they kept pushing in that direction. So I convinced myself into it, at least for a while. It was phony baloney given that in my actual career the majority of my money has been made by crypto speculation and miscellaneous random opportunities, not anything that ever needed a credential. Fortunately I pushed myself onto a path that actually worked for me along the way and graduated right when I was actually starting to appreciate the coursework. Some people make it all the way through medical or law school and then immediately quit the field.
My advice is this, basically - don't try to win at your career, just try to survive; winning is a temporary thing that you can get by pushing harder for a short period, but surviving is a matter of doing everything at a viable level, forever. If you really think this is the best shot you have under the circumstances to achieve a decent life for everyone concerned, then sure, by all means. But aim to exit towards something that actually fits you as soon as possible, even if it's a "simple" move like going from IC into management.
I designed my own PCB and I must tell you, analog electronics are brain melting. Software development is literally baby shit. You better learn as much as you can because theory actually matters here unlike in computer science which is just a math degree and is supposed to have no relation to any physical world you have experience with.
My boss was gleeful at getting someone with a 3.9 GPA recently. It counts for something, I can say that much.
Yeah, well, in my experience the ones with the high GPAs were better at designing circuits, too. They'd use math to derive the optimal values for the components. The ones with low GPAs would spend a great deal of time randomly trying different component values until the circuit kinda sorta almost worked.
One thing I want to tell you is that, if you don't like what you do every day for decades, the extra money you make by taking that job won't make you happy. I have friend who took EE and CS major in college, got job in SV, making 300k annually, and feels depressed every day because he needs to work on things he has absolutely no interest in. You might think 300k/yr is good, but it's SV so the cost is also high. Many times he regrets that he should have chosen photography and film making when he had the chance. Unfortunately we are not longer young, so there is no easy way back.
I'm not sure how many young people made the choice to study what they study in college by themselves. But if you did, ask yourself if you are willing to make the sacrifice.
I'm not sure how many young people made the choice to study what they study in college by themselves. But if you did, ask yourself if you are willing to make the sacrifice.
He can pursue photography and film-making as a hobby. Lots of people work to get paid and spend their spare time pursuing hobbies which might not be profitable.
> I don't wake up excited to make schematics or lay out a PCB.
How on earth would an electrical engineering degree help you get a good job?
How on earth would an electrical engineering degree help you get a good job?
eh, for digital circuits/RTL it's largely been my experience that they will simply not look at you unless you have an EE/CompE degree It's bizarre but not exactly a novel problem
Employers are setting GPA cutoffs and checking transcripts for some of the competitive jobs for fresh grads and interns. Not unusual to see a hard GPA cutoff of 3.7, and the employer wants a copy of your transcript sent directly from the university.
As always, when an arbitrary metric becomes a goal, it will be gamed. Especially with the path dependency nowadays where your first job sets the course of your early career. Just as your academics/leadership in high school can make or break whether you get into the prestigious universities, which will quite literally pay dividends ten or twenty years down the line.
Sometimes, the most driven students are the ones cheating because the stakes are too high. If an employer has two viable candidates, one from MIT and one from a state school, they’ll go with the MIT grad as a heuristic. Or similarly if FAANG is inundated with resumes for entry-level jobs, they’ll use school/GPA as an easy first-pass filter.
I don’t see cheating changing until the incentives are minimized. Lower GPA cutoffs + casting a wider net for the entry-level roles and setting a fair skills-based bar.
As always, when an arbitrary metric becomes a goal, it will be gamed. Especially with the path dependency nowadays where your first job sets the course of your early career. Just as your academics/leadership in high school can make or break whether you get into the prestigious universities, which will quite literally pay dividends ten or twenty years down the line.
Sometimes, the most driven students are the ones cheating because the stakes are too high. If an employer has two viable candidates, one from MIT and one from a state school, they’ll go with the MIT grad as a heuristic. Or similarly if FAANG is inundated with resumes for entry-level jobs, they’ll use school/GPA as an easy first-pass filter.
I don’t see cheating changing until the incentives are minimized. Lower GPA cutoffs + casting a wider net for the entry-level roles and setting a fair skills-based bar.
First job out of college (July 2013) was w/ an employer (Bay Area company whose name rhymes w/ Crisco) who marketed all of these things (GPA cutoffs, checking transcripts, etc). My college transcript was....less than exemplary but I made a point not to mention my GPA anywhere and bet on the interviewers not asking about it (they didnt). Got the job by speaking w/ a recruiter at a career fair despite not having the degree they were looking for.
Three months after starting the job, I got an email from HR asking all new grad hires to send in their transcripts which I conveniently "forgot" to do. Never heard from them ever again after ignoring that first email.
My feeling here is that these are just vanity metrics that companies like to parade around to signal how "prestigious" their employees & hiring practices are.
Three months after starting the job, I got an email from HR asking all new grad hires to send in their transcripts which I conveniently "forgot" to do. Never heard from them ever again after ignoring that first email.
My feeling here is that these are just vanity metrics that companies like to parade around to signal how "prestigious" their employees & hiring practices are.
If I go to school for computer science, but have to take chemistry, statistics, etc. And get stuck with a bad professor who spends half the class time ranting about irrelevant topics, cheating makes sense so I can spend my time focused on the classes that matter to me.
Lots of students switch majors after taking classes in other subjects. Besides, if you laser focus on one specialty, you lose all the serendipity that comes from knowing multiple fields.
I was trained as a mechanical engineer. Yet I write compilers. And yeah, a lot of things I learned from ME have made it into the seemingly utterly different compilers. I see a lot of mistakes SE's make because they are completely unaware of other fields.
I was trained as a mechanical engineer. Yet I write compilers. And yeah, a lot of things I learned from ME have made it into the seemingly utterly different compilers. I see a lot of mistakes SE's make because they are completely unaware of other fields.
> a lot of things I learned from ME have made it into the seemingly utterly different compilers.
Do you mind elaborating on this or providing a link if you've discussed this before?
Do you mind elaborating on this or providing a link if you've discussed this before?
A couple articles I wrote years ago:
https://www.digitalmars.com/articles/b39.html
https://www.digitalmars.com/articles/b40.html
And one about its influence on compilers:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3386323
https://www.digitalmars.com/articles/b39.html
https://www.digitalmars.com/articles/b40.html
And one about its influence on compilers:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3386323
I agree. I hated bad professors all throughout my college career. They were the bane of my existence. Especially for the same courses you list and even more for the ones my degree focused on.
These bad professors would take forever to grade, if not that then they would do what you describe and give us irrelevant information and odd spiels about whatever thing was bugging them in the politics world, or maybe even something their dog or cat did the week before that totally delayed them getting us our grades or assignments. I remember in my statistics course the guy spilled coffee all over our written mid terms! How careless.
I, not much unlike yourself would try and find any easy way to get ahead of the curve. Now, a common theme among these bad professors is definitely giving irrelevant information, being lazy, or even completely disorganized to no hope. With all these mistakes, they end up making huge mistakes in their own syllabus. You have no idea how many terrible things these people would do in their own work!
A neat little thing I found that nearly all bad professors do is list the exact material they would cover throughout the course, maybe not always week by week but an overview of the material we would touch on. How silly of them.
That's not even the kicker, these bad professors would even list the exact place where they took things from. Hilarious indeed. It was usually under some strange section called 'Required Course Materials' or 'Recommended for Review'. These suckers couldn't be any worse at their job, practically giving us the answers.
When I figured this out, I started going all in with the cheating. After getting the syllabus I would get this thing and read it from the beginning to the end, trying to cover as much material going topic by topic to be covered in the schedule. I could finish the course in practically 2 weeks, didn't even have to wait for these lectures that were pretty much a waste of time after going through it. By the 3rd bi-weekly lecture, I would have learned the entire course. Those fools never knew what hit them either, I would ace their assignments and finish exams before anyone else. I would even stop showing up to class with how adept I was at cheating. No one even suspected that I was cheating.
I would try and get others to follow my path. They would always ask how I did it, how did I, who really wasn't all that special, or smart, get so many A's. Even in spite of the quality of instruction.
The answer was always the same - read the textbook!
These bad professors would take forever to grade, if not that then they would do what you describe and give us irrelevant information and odd spiels about whatever thing was bugging them in the politics world, or maybe even something their dog or cat did the week before that totally delayed them getting us our grades or assignments. I remember in my statistics course the guy spilled coffee all over our written mid terms! How careless.
I, not much unlike yourself would try and find any easy way to get ahead of the curve. Now, a common theme among these bad professors is definitely giving irrelevant information, being lazy, or even completely disorganized to no hope. With all these mistakes, they end up making huge mistakes in their own syllabus. You have no idea how many terrible things these people would do in their own work!
A neat little thing I found that nearly all bad professors do is list the exact material they would cover throughout the course, maybe not always week by week but an overview of the material we would touch on. How silly of them.
That's not even the kicker, these bad professors would even list the exact place where they took things from. Hilarious indeed. It was usually under some strange section called 'Required Course Materials' or 'Recommended for Review'. These suckers couldn't be any worse at their job, practically giving us the answers.
When I figured this out, I started going all in with the cheating. After getting the syllabus I would get this thing and read it from the beginning to the end, trying to cover as much material going topic by topic to be covered in the schedule. I could finish the course in practically 2 weeks, didn't even have to wait for these lectures that were pretty much a waste of time after going through it. By the 3rd bi-weekly lecture, I would have learned the entire course. Those fools never knew what hit them either, I would ace their assignments and finish exams before anyone else. I would even stop showing up to class with how adept I was at cheating. No one even suspected that I was cheating.
I would try and get others to follow my path. They would always ask how I did it, how did I, who really wasn't all that special, or smart, get so many A's. Even in spite of the quality of instruction.
The answer was always the same - read the textbook!
I’m not sure I understand how learning a published syllabus could be qualified as cheating?
It’s a joke.
it's not. reading ahead is never cheating.
Yeah, I agree that if the professors have plagiarized their course materials, then they shouldn’t be disappointed about the students doing the same…
By the way, I don’t think you really cheated (in an academic integrity sense), you thoroughly read the course material to get these grades. You deserve to get these grades since you already know how to study on your own.
By the way, I don’t think you really cheated (in an academic integrity sense), you thoroughly read the course material to get these grades. You deserve to get these grades since you already know how to study on your own.
… pretty sure OP is sarcasm.
Except for professors who didn't list everything out and had lecture specific material. It's hard for me to believe no one had professors like this when I have friends from places like Stanford and MIT (schools some people would think is filled with all great professors) who can attest to some of their own experiences being like this.
None of what you describe is cheating. At all.
You literally just studied and worked ahead. That is not cheating...
You literally just studied and worked ahead. That is not cheating...
…that's the joke.
statistics is pretty useful in computer science...and as someone has has worked in biotech on the software side...chemistry can be as well. Heck even anthropology and philosophy were pretty relevant when I took my courses on NLP years ago.
As someone with 10 years as a software engineer I haven't needed it.
I’m sure there are 10y SWEs (and 1 yr) that use it every day.
Obviously it’s going to be irrelevant to compilers or something, but not to heuristic approaches or anything with some quantifiable (and actively quantified) nondeterminism.
Obviously it’s going to be irrelevant to compilers or something, but not to heuristic approaches or anything with some quantifiable (and actively quantified) nondeterminism.
It will be very relevant in any field that does performance testing. And that includes compilers.
I don't think you need a statistics class to do performance testing.
You change an optimizer pass. Looks good on a microbenchmark. But then you try it out on some samples of real code. Turns out, it probably makes some real code a little bit faster. No difference on other real code, but the data are noisy, so it's hard to tell. And on one piece of code, it seems to actually cause a regression - but again, the data from multiple runs are noisy.
Should you enable the optimizer change by default, or not? Or do you still need to collect more data? How much more data? What data - more runs or more different code samples? How confident do you want to be, and how confident can you be?
These are questions you will face in your real day to day work, and a few statistics courses will be incredibly helpful to you in answering them.
Should you enable the optimizer change by default, or not? Or do you still need to collect more data? How much more data? What data - more runs or more different code samples? How confident do you want to be, and how confident can you be?
These are questions you will face in your real day to day work, and a few statistics courses will be incredibly helpful to you in answering them.
I knew someone would say something like that, but I've never seen that sort of thing done personally and I really doubt lack of statistical knowledge is even close to the biggest obstacle to writing faster software. For micro-optimizations so subtle you need fancy techniques to even tell they work, non-quantitative factors (code impact, will it enable other optimizations, etc.) are more likely to be decisive. Techniques to reduce noise are either non-statistical (warming up caches) or unsophisticated (average many trials, best of three).
The amount of programming jobs (out of all possible programming positions available) that require proper statistics or chemistry for that matter are so low that it doesn't make sense to learn those subjects (in the context of computer science) preemptively. Even if people who take and succeed in subjects like Chemistry who do end up in a job that may use it down the line probably won't remember what they learned anyway.
The jobs don't require it, but the people who are not aware of statistics or chemistry are unable to recognize when it would help them. I.e. it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
(It has nothing to do with "in the context of computer science").
(It has nothing to do with "in the context of computer science").
I imagine they'd either have coworkers who are more involved in those domains (if actually needed for the job) who can guide them on the right path or can just google their problems and end up on a path of self-discovery that leads them to those subjects. Prematurely surveying other subjects not pertinent to the job one is going to university in the first place for seems silly in that regard. I'm sure many would rather focus their time on learning more of the things that are shared in the majority of the job market (or at least more things that actually interest them).
You'd imagine wrong. (In my experience.)
For example, in mechanical engineering, I know how to make reliable systems out of unreliable parts. Software engineering is still focused on a hopeless quest to make software perfect. How to do it assuming unreliability has been slowly seeping into software engineering the hard way, bit by bit, over my entire career.
One example: running the brake software on the same computer that is connected wirelessly to the internet.
For example, in mechanical engineering, I know how to make reliable systems out of unreliable parts. Software engineering is still focused on a hopeless quest to make software perfect. How to do it assuming unreliability has been slowly seeping into software engineering the hard way, bit by bit, over my entire career.
One example: running the brake software on the same computer that is connected wirelessly to the internet.
I have to disagree with that. One obvious example is Google, who made a fabulously reliable and fast machine out of cobbled-together ultra cheap commodity hardware, and conquered the world with it. That was in the 90s, and their way of doing things took over completely. It's why companies like Sun went out of business -- they had the super-reliable (and overpriced) systems, but nobody wanted them anymore.
What you're describing (the brake system) is just simply incompetence.
What you're describing (the brake system) is just simply incompetence.
You're right about how companies managed to scale their internet server farms. But that was late (1990s) and still has not seeped into the rest of the industry.
> What you're describing (the brake system) is just simply incompetence.
I regularly discuss this with people who are convinced they can make such a system secure.
For another example, I frequently advocate on HN for embedded systems to have physical write-enable switches for reprogramming the system memory. This makes it a physical impossibility for malware to infect that memory. Nobody agrees with me. They all think they can write bulletproof code.
I can't buy disk drives with physical write-enable switches, either, not since the 1990s. This is necessary so if you try to restore from a backup drive, you can't make a mistake and overwrite the backup, and the ransomware on your system cannot write to it. This is a regression in the industry.
And yet nobody on HN thinks this is a good idea, because it's inconvenient. Or they'll suggest a software switch, which of course is inherently corruptible.
BTW, the aviation industry gets this right. The stabilizer trim has a physical cutoff switch on all their airplanes, including the 737MAX. Unfortunately, in the 3 incidents of MCAS runaway, only one use the switch properly (and you never hear about that incident). The second never used the switch at all, and the third crew decided to disable the trim system when the airplane was in a non-recoverable dive without using trim. (The electric trim switches also are physical and override the software.)
> What you're describing (the brake system) is just simply incompetence.
I regularly discuss this with people who are convinced they can make such a system secure.
For another example, I frequently advocate on HN for embedded systems to have physical write-enable switches for reprogramming the system memory. This makes it a physical impossibility for malware to infect that memory. Nobody agrees with me. They all think they can write bulletproof code.
I can't buy disk drives with physical write-enable switches, either, not since the 1990s. This is necessary so if you try to restore from a backup drive, you can't make a mistake and overwrite the backup, and the ransomware on your system cannot write to it. This is a regression in the industry.
And yet nobody on HN thinks this is a good idea, because it's inconvenient. Or they'll suggest a software switch, which of course is inherently corruptible.
BTW, the aviation industry gets this right. The stabilizer trim has a physical cutoff switch on all their airplanes, including the 737MAX. Unfortunately, in the 3 incidents of MCAS runaway, only one use the switch properly (and you never hear about that incident). The second never used the switch at all, and the third crew decided to disable the trim system when the airplane was in a non-recoverable dive without using trim. (The electric trim switches also are physical and override the software.)
The number of programming jobs that require statistics is huge though?
The MLE job market is booming.
The MLE job market is booming.
For that matter the number of programming jobs that require computer science is pretty low.
For a programming job that requires knowledge of chemistry, it's easier to find a chemist who can program. Likewise physics, math, statistics, electronics, etc.
For a programming job that requires knowledge of chemistry, it's easier to find a chemist who can program. Likewise physics, math, statistics, electronics, etc.
I’d say psychology is a good a
thing to know as well.
agree. composition and anthropology were such a waste of time. the composition class was harder than the stem classes though because the teacher was pretty meticulous about writing.
Writing is good for your career as a software engineer.
Writing is how you promote yourself through articles, presentations, etc.
Writing is how you promote yourself through articles, presentations, etc.
Not at all. Writing entails some creative freedom. It was more like "read this essay and make sure your opinion does not depart too far from the professor's"
I don't bother reading articles by people who can't form a complete sentence. In my experience, there's a strong correlation between bad writing and having nothing perceptive to say.
There are exceptions, but in general, an ability to communicate clearly correlates to an ability to think clearly.
I expected saying that would be unpopular. But I'm hardly alone in this attitude, and so it pays to learn how to write.
Composition can be incredible. It's a blank canvas type course that can be about anything the professor wants as long as they're teaching you to write. My composition class was a passionate introduction to western philosophy. Incredible class. Pedagogical laziness, overly prescriptive syllabi, or lack of creativity make classes like composition bad— not the subject itself.
"... so at least get everything out of it you can. Otherwise, why sign up in the first place?"
I've been a TA, and I've talked to some students who cheated or considered cheating.
The answer is simple: there is no premeditated reasoning behind cheating. Students don't actively make a decision that "I'm just gonna apply to a university and cheat". That's not what happens in their minds.
They do think they can get through uni on their own when they first started. Then, they make bad decisions, usually small ones, like skipping a class, or something, but it grows into a habit, even an addiction. Before they know it, half of the course is over, and they learned nothing. When the exam comes, it is too late. There is no time to decide to "get everything out of it anymore". So, they cheat, instead of swallowing the bad grade (which they should).
I've been a TA, and I've talked to some students who cheated or considered cheating.
The answer is simple: there is no premeditated reasoning behind cheating. Students don't actively make a decision that "I'm just gonna apply to a university and cheat". That's not what happens in their minds.
They do think they can get through uni on their own when they first started. Then, they make bad decisions, usually small ones, like skipping a class, or something, but it grows into a habit, even an addiction. Before they know it, half of the course is over, and they learned nothing. When the exam comes, it is too late. There is no time to decide to "get everything out of it anymore". So, they cheat, instead of swallowing the bad grade (which they should).
It's a course worth multiple thousands of dollars that is filled with info that might or might not be of interest to the person taking it. It's necessary to pass or the investment in the degree is null and void. And you're a young person in some of the first best years of your life on a campus with more access to unsupervised socialization than you've probably ever had in your life. It seems pretty straightforward to me lmao. The real miracle is that anything else ever happens.
> You’re paying so much money for these courses
I think that’s the central point.
- It’s not _their_ money, it’s their parents’ either “hard earned” money, but they’re too inexperienced to understand its meaning, or “not so hard earned” money and they’re just going through it like their parents do.
- the goal is also money on the other end of the pipe. The statistics that get repeated is how much more you earn with a college degree vs without one. There’s no catchy clickbait title about how _learning more_ makes your life better. It only makes sense for them to go for the fastest route to having a degree, if possession is the only thing that has been pitched to them.
I think that’s the central point.
- It’s not _their_ money, it’s their parents’ either “hard earned” money, but they’re too inexperienced to understand its meaning, or “not so hard earned” money and they’re just going through it like their parents do.
- the goal is also money on the other end of the pipe. The statistics that get repeated is how much more you earn with a college degree vs without one. There’s no catchy clickbait title about how _learning more_ makes your life better. It only makes sense for them to go for the fastest route to having a degree, if possession is the only thing that has been pitched to them.
I.e. any car can perform like a Ferrari just by painting it red and putting on some badges.
To follow your analogy, media will only report on the car colors on the podium, and job interviews will require the badges to get a foot in the door.
For an observer POV, the decades of engineering that led to that Ferrari never really take the spotlight. Also I'd argue people will pursue the Ferrari whatever it costs when they could really work that road race with a red painted Subaru. Here again the branding is taking the front row.
For an observer POV, the decades of engineering that led to that Ferrari never really take the spotlight. Also I'd argue people will pursue the Ferrari whatever it costs when they could really work that road race with a red painted Subaru. Here again the branding is taking the front row.
Ferrari backed it up by winning Grand Prix races year after year. I don't know much about the ones since Enzo died, but the older ones were frequently race cars that were softened up a bit so they could be driven on the street.
It also showed in that Enzo didn't give much of a crap about interior quality or amenities. He had to be forced into adding A/C. All he cared about was the performance of the cars. He also was (in)famous for refusing to sell Ferraris to people he thought were not appropriate. Ferrari will never sell one to Justin Bieber again :-)
It also showed in that Enzo didn't give much of a crap about interior quality or amenities. He had to be forced into adding A/C. All he cared about was the performance of the cars. He also was (in)famous for refusing to sell Ferraris to people he thought were not appropriate. Ferrari will never sell one to Justin Bieber again :-)
I agree with you in many cases, but note that different institutions, in different countries, teach differently, and grade differently. While cheating in a core class that builds important knowledge in your major seems like a horrible idea, that's not all there is. For instance, anyone studying computer science in my state school in Spain, a few decades ago, had to take a deadly physics class in their first year. It contained, easily, the material of three physics classes in a sensible American university. There's no such thing as TAs, and time with the instructor outside of class is just not a thing. The pass rate was under 20%, and that's on purpose: failing people was part of the objective, as it served as a way to keep people enrolled, but unable to access later classes, which don't really need any advanced physics. This kind of cribbing was (and it might still be?) popular in that state university. The goal for the students is not to get the best grades: It's just to pass at all, so that they can get on to the classes that might teach something they are interested on.
In an American university, I've seen people being quite motivated to cheat because their financial aid was depending on a GPA. Nobody might have cared about the GPA later, but when you have thousands of dollars a year on the line, and your first midterm didn't look good...
So sure, most people in an American university, in most circumstances, shouldn't even be considering cheating as an option. But systems and circumstances can be different for others. The fact that this students were using Whatsapp already tells you that maybe their circumstances were different, and they really might be in circumstances where the incentives to cheat are strong.
In an American university, I've seen people being quite motivated to cheat because their financial aid was depending on a GPA. Nobody might have cared about the GPA later, but when you have thousands of dollars a year on the line, and your first midterm didn't look good...
So sure, most people in an American university, in most circumstances, shouldn't even be considering cheating as an option. But systems and circumstances can be different for others. The fact that this students were using Whatsapp already tells you that maybe their circumstances were different, and they really might be in circumstances where the incentives to cheat are strong.
A lot of the students (and people in general) have a low-level cleverness obsession which handily blocks out high-level perception like that.
Then the blocked out part becomes neglected so it turns kind of on/off in nature. It now gives you either super great or awful information.
So as a result, it's not that you don't see the big picture. It's that your inadvertent feedback loop converted high level thinking into a huge scary monster of high-level disasters that will seemingly result if you aren't as clever as can be.
This also explains the cleverness in the face of everything else. Caught? Email back and be clever. Etc. Don't ever stop being clever, caught or no. It is your only (seeming) chance.
But did you also catch the high level thinking student who was feeling stuck and potentially screwed, in their honesty? They realize the system might just as easily punish them. They are also lucky the professor had a considerate perspective rather than a blanket-projection attitude that many have. They are also lucky they weren't randomly selected by the cleverness cabal...
(Also notice that really good professors make for reliable bridges between high and low level perspectives, with expectations of the former but also multi-dimensional empathy for those living the low-level system. This professor is indeed a very clever person on their own. So for them this is situation is probably less likely to result in massive disillusionment as it would for pure high-level folks.)
Then the blocked out part becomes neglected so it turns kind of on/off in nature. It now gives you either super great or awful information.
So as a result, it's not that you don't see the big picture. It's that your inadvertent feedback loop converted high level thinking into a huge scary monster of high-level disasters that will seemingly result if you aren't as clever as can be.
This also explains the cleverness in the face of everything else. Caught? Email back and be clever. Etc. Don't ever stop being clever, caught or no. It is your only (seeming) chance.
But did you also catch the high level thinking student who was feeling stuck and potentially screwed, in their honesty? They realize the system might just as easily punish them. They are also lucky the professor had a considerate perspective rather than a blanket-projection attitude that many have. They are also lucky they weren't randomly selected by the cleverness cabal...
(Also notice that really good professors make for reliable bridges between high and low level perspectives, with expectations of the former but also multi-dimensional empathy for those living the low-level system. This professor is indeed a very clever person on their own. So for them this is situation is probably less likely to result in massive disillusionment as it would for pure high-level folks.)
I totally agree with you. It is a cliche, but truly, they are only cheating themselves.
Careers eventually filter out (most of) the cheaters. From my observations, only the students who were committed to understanding the material went on to have superb careers, with maybe a few exceptions. The rest ended up in dead-end mostly-mindless work, or dropped out of STEM-related fields all together.
I have a concern for the future of our society when the majority of an entire generation seems committed to cheating, though.
Careers eventually filter out (most of) the cheaters. From my observations, only the students who were committed to understanding the material went on to have superb careers, with maybe a few exceptions. The rest ended up in dead-end mostly-mindless work, or dropped out of STEM-related fields all together.
I have a concern for the future of our society when the majority of an entire generation seems committed to cheating, though.
> It is a cliche, but truly, they are only cheating themselves.
> Careers eventually filter out (most of) the cheaters.
Some yes. Some no. I cheated in my computer architecture class. I was already an accomplished programmer in Perl and Java, but cpu design was kicking my ass. It required a lot of time and effort, and I had little left over to give. I got the gist of most of the class, but I cheated a lot in order to pass. By doing so, I eked out a passing grade, satisfied that requirement, and got my diploma. And I have had a good career since then, needing absolutely nothing that I learned in that course. I also cheated a little in american history and poli sci.
I needed a diploma, and if I hadn't cheated, I wouldn't have gotten the diploma. And the fact that I understood less of those courses than my grade would suggest, has hurt me not one whit, so far in my fairly lengthy career.
Cheating in some courses is a self-defeating mistake. But your assumption that the only purpose of college is learning course material is a little naive. I got a LOT out of college, in terms of social experience, credentials, professional connections, etc. I did not cheat myself at all.
> Careers eventually filter out (most of) the cheaters.
Some yes. Some no. I cheated in my computer architecture class. I was already an accomplished programmer in Perl and Java, but cpu design was kicking my ass. It required a lot of time and effort, and I had little left over to give. I got the gist of most of the class, but I cheated a lot in order to pass. By doing so, I eked out a passing grade, satisfied that requirement, and got my diploma. And I have had a good career since then, needing absolutely nothing that I learned in that course. I also cheated a little in american history and poli sci.
I needed a diploma, and if I hadn't cheated, I wouldn't have gotten the diploma. And the fact that I understood less of those courses than my grade would suggest, has hurt me not one whit, so far in my fairly lengthy career.
Cheating in some courses is a self-defeating mistake. But your assumption that the only purpose of college is learning course material is a little naive. I got a LOT out of college, in terms of social experience, credentials, professional connections, etc. I did not cheat myself at all.
> they are only cheating themselves.
I disagree. They are undermining the value of the qualification other have earned.
I disagree. They are undermining the value of the qualification other have earned.
> only the students who were committed to understanding the material went on to have superb careers
For STEM, sure. This guy is a psych professor though. I suspect that most of their jobs will have absolutely nothing to do with this class. Obviously being truly successful instead of cheating will help in their careers, but I doubt anything they learn in this class would.
For STEM, sure. This guy is a psych professor though. I suspect that most of their jobs will have absolutely nothing to do with this class. Obviously being truly successful instead of cheating will help in their careers, but I doubt anything they learn in this class would.
> I have a concern for the future of our society when the majority of an entire generation seems committed to cheating, though.
The COVID pandemic makes me worried about this even more. It's gotten really bad, I can't imagine how bad it's going to get when the generations it affected reach college. Maybe I'm overestimating it (if you cheated through HS, you might not go to college), but there were already clear trends that are definitely going to be exacerbated.
The COVID pandemic makes me worried about this even more. It's gotten really bad, I can't imagine how bad it's going to get when the generations it affected reach college. Maybe I'm overestimating it (if you cheated through HS, you might not go to college), but there were already clear trends that are definitely going to be exacerbated.
if a good job pays 100-300k/year, does it matter if you eventually get filtered out if you already made good $ and keep expenses low.
I've always wondered about that lol. Surely there are people who do this? If you dedicate your life to becoming very good at interviewing and bullshitting, you can almost certainly get high paying jobs that you are entirely unqualified for and cannot perform even the basic duties of. Despite this, you should be able to anyways since getting fired from a large company for "gross incompetence" is a long process, especially when you're a new hire and they're liable to assume you're just adjusting to new tools. Pocket those 3-6 months of pay, keep interviewing, and just keep hopping jobs and finding new places to scam without ever actually doing anything useful at all.
I feel a strong need to debunk some falsehoods here.
First, to be clear. DO NOT CHEAT.
Ok. Grades DO matter. When I graduated, there were several companies that wouldn't interview me because I didn't have the grades. I had a 3.2 ish. That meant I had to get a job slightly outside of my degree - which impacted my entire career (12 years amd counting).
Also, you can't lie about your grades - they will ask for your transcripts. The job I got out of college asked for mine after 6 months
First, to be clear. DO NOT CHEAT.
Ok. Grades DO matter. When I graduated, there were several companies that wouldn't interview me because I didn't have the grades. I had a 3.2 ish. That meant I had to get a job slightly outside of my degree - which impacted my entire career (12 years amd counting).
Also, you can't lie about your grades - they will ask for your transcripts. The job I got out of college asked for mine after 6 months
What field are you in?
This seems so strange to me. I have a BA in Philosophy, but professionally I work in software development.
I got my first job 15 years ago by just showing them the code I wrote for my side project, since I didn't have a degree in the field of any professional experience. Every job since then has been because I was recruited by previous co-workers.
My college degree was never an issue, and certainly not my grades. Many of my coworkers are surprised when I tell them I have no degree, but it is always just a "huh" and then move on.
I am now a director and have hired a lot of people, and unless they have zero professional experience, I pretty much never look at their degree when I am evaluating candidates. I have worked at very large companies, and have never had an issue trying to hire people without a degree.
I am sure there are places where it would matter, but I just can't imagine asking for proof of a degree, let alone grades.
This seems so strange to me. I have a BA in Philosophy, but professionally I work in software development.
I got my first job 15 years ago by just showing them the code I wrote for my side project, since I didn't have a degree in the field of any professional experience. Every job since then has been because I was recruited by previous co-workers.
My college degree was never an issue, and certainly not my grades. Many of my coworkers are surprised when I tell them I have no degree, but it is always just a "huh" and then move on.
I am now a director and have hired a lot of people, and unless they have zero professional experience, I pretty much never look at their degree when I am evaluating candidates. I have worked at very large companies, and have never had an issue trying to hire people without a degree.
I am sure there are places where it would matter, but I just can't imagine asking for proof of a degree, let alone grades.
I have a BS Electrical Engineering. I wanted to design antennas and work with radio transmission SO BAD. I ended up getting a job as an analyst with a bunch of other people that "were good at math and thinking about numbers", then I moved I to data, now Cloud stuff.
It took me a long time to give up on my dream of being an EE - but I like what I do now. Also, to your point, I ignore college credentials and I don't look at GPA.
It took me a long time to give up on my dream of being an EE - but I like what I do now. Also, to your point, I ignore college credentials and I don't look at GPA.
Ah, that makes more sense. The connection between EE degrees and jobs seems tighter than in computing.
> I got my first job 15 years ago
Starting 15 years ago was different than starting now.
Starting 15 years ago was different than starting now.
agree. I never cheated college although I did in high school a bit . The profs are pretty good at picking up on cheating, and I saw some of my classmates get busted. But I can def. understand why some would cheat.
> You’re paying so much money for these courses — probably a ridiculous amount, so much you may never recoup — … so at least get everything out of it you can. Otherwise, why sign up in the first place?
In some cases you're paying for second rate material, so this holds little sway. Why worry about squandering the learning opportunity when the best learning resource is free on the internet. I'll try to save time in the class and reapply that time to better learning resources (my morals won't let me do this by cheating, but I understand why some do).
My current classes are light on technical merit and heavy on APA style citation requirements. This during a time where many very powerful people can't reliably compose a coherent Tweet (2 sentences max). The bottom half of educational institutions aren't providing real learning opportunity. I will get my piece of paper though.
In some cases you're paying for second rate material, so this holds little sway. Why worry about squandering the learning opportunity when the best learning resource is free on the internet. I'll try to save time in the class and reapply that time to better learning resources (my morals won't let me do this by cheating, but I understand why some do).
My current classes are light on technical merit and heavy on APA style citation requirements. This during a time where many very powerful people can't reliably compose a coherent Tweet (2 sentences max). The bottom half of educational institutions aren't providing real learning opportunity. I will get my piece of paper though.
Maybe they aren't paying for those courses. They're almost always spending someone else's money (loans feel like free money to kids). So they do not value it.
I bet if someone compared cheaters to students who were working and their wages went into tuition, there'd not be a strong correlation.
Nobody ever asked my GPA after I graduated. My diploma is somewhere in the basement, I've never displayed it and nobody ever asked about it. I attended graduation only to please my parents, who came out for the occasion. I didn't want to buy the class ring, so my dad gave it to me as a gift.
I didn't care about the diploma. I only cared about the education. If I only wanted a diploma, I'd have gone to a much easier university.
I bet if someone compared cheaters to students who were working and their wages went into tuition, there'd not be a strong correlation.
Nobody ever asked my GPA after I graduated. My diploma is somewhere in the basement, I've never displayed it and nobody ever asked about it. I attended graduation only to please my parents, who came out for the occasion. I didn't want to buy the class ring, so my dad gave it to me as a gift.
I didn't care about the diploma. I only cared about the education. If I only wanted a diploma, I'd have gone to a much easier university.
I can say from the other side of this that I was employed in the industry while I was still in school, and so by the time I was a junior I was becoming an Informed Consumer, and let me tell you, the realm in which professors are expert is quite a bit narrower than they would have you believe. That knowledge got worse over time, my distrust grew, and it made it quite challenging to finish my degree.
If we want to students to behave this way, we're going to have to change how professors behave too. Mentorship and teaching are two different things, and what you're describing sounds more like the relation one seeks in a mentor, not a teacher.
If we want to students to behave this way, we're going to have to change how professors behave too. Mentorship and teaching are two different things, and what you're describing sounds more like the relation one seeks in a mentor, not a teacher.
My school had an endless stream of Saudi students only there for government cash and they'd cheat nonstop.
Grades get you internships and internships look extremely good on a resume. It's that simple.
Most people who go to University for the first time aren't doing it because they /want/ to. It's just an extension of the regular primary/middle/highschool education they were doing previously, none of which was optional.
They're also probably not paying for it out of pocket - either they've taken out loans that they haven't really considered the long term impact of, or their parents are covering some/all of it.
They're also probably not paying for it out of pocket - either they've taken out loans that they haven't really considered the long term impact of, or their parents are covering some/all of it.
I completely agree with this view. However, I think it's worth trying hard to give the students the benefit of the doubt and ask how cheating might be rational. In other words, flip the assumptions and ask why we would require them to study something that they are just going to cheat at.
Now for sure it could potentially be that the students just don't have enough foresight, being younger and having less experience with life on this planet with other human beings. But again, what if we're not so quick to blame them?
The best thing I can come up with using this line of thinking is that a lot of the stuff that students are forced to study just isn't essential...i.e. it's not actually mandatory for life. Now life is very diverse and there's very little that is actually mandatory. But there are still a lot of things that are pretty important. What if the structure of our education system was more customizable, so students would have a clearer ability to choose their own adventure? Or as another commenter here alluded to, what if our system was more customizable about when you choose to get particular bits of education?
Now for sure it could potentially be that the students just don't have enough foresight, being younger and having less experience with life on this planet with other human beings. But again, what if we're not so quick to blame them?
The best thing I can come up with using this line of thinking is that a lot of the stuff that students are forced to study just isn't essential...i.e. it's not actually mandatory for life. Now life is very diverse and there's very little that is actually mandatory. But there are still a lot of things that are pretty important. What if the structure of our education system was more customizable, so students would have a clearer ability to choose their own adventure? Or as another commenter here alluded to, what if our system was more customizable about when you choose to get particular bits of education?
Many don't pay money for the courses themselves, they're paying for a degree. Why do people want a degree? To pursue high paying careers because it's difficult for many (at least here in America) to find any decent paying job (that allows for the "American Dream") without one. Now it would be nice if every student was passionate about all the subjects required for their degree of choice and/or if every professor had both passion and clarity in their lecturing but that's not the world we live in.
Students aren't always passionate about the required subjects for their degree , potentially because these subjects won't always have a direct correlation in meeting job requirements or improving job performance, and even the students who are passionate may never get the education they desire (picture a lousy lecturer on tenure who's forced to give lectures as part of the job).
Now put yourself in the shoes of a student who comes from a long history of generational poverty who was able to scrape by enough money to save up for a degree so that they can get a 6 figure job at Morgan Stanley (or the like) as a business analyst. The job will probably only require them to put some numbers into spreadsheets and make graphs. The qualifications to do that will require them to get a degree made more expensive through gen-ed requirements and a whole lot of classes they don't need.
Now in that situation would you forfeit your goal for the threat of passing a difficult, irrelevant science class requirement when a better alternative exists that will also free up time to spend more on the classes that will actually be relevant to the job? Even if you wouldn't, it shouldn't be hard to imagine why someone would.
Students aren't always passionate about the required subjects for their degree , potentially because these subjects won't always have a direct correlation in meeting job requirements or improving job performance, and even the students who are passionate may never get the education they desire (picture a lousy lecturer on tenure who's forced to give lectures as part of the job).
Now put yourself in the shoes of a student who comes from a long history of generational poverty who was able to scrape by enough money to save up for a degree so that they can get a 6 figure job at Morgan Stanley (or the like) as a business analyst. The job will probably only require them to put some numbers into spreadsheets and make graphs. The qualifications to do that will require them to get a degree made more expensive through gen-ed requirements and a whole lot of classes they don't need.
Now in that situation would you forfeit your goal for the threat of passing a difficult, irrelevant science class requirement when a better alternative exists that will also free up time to spend more on the classes that will actually be relevant to the job? Even if you wouldn't, it shouldn't be hard to imagine why someone would.
[deleted]
>>I honestly don’t get widespread cheating like this…
Well its about pretending to be something you are not, people are all about this.
Cheating is really a habit and to a certain extent a lifestyle and not an event. Cheating continues all life, couldn't get promoted? people hop jobs, land a promotion/hike and then pretend they made progress. People wear expensive clothing to hide fat bellies, spend on vacations to take photographs to send out a message to their friends and family they are rich. People pretend to be a lot of things they are not- pretend to be healthy, wealthy, prosperous. If they actually cant be something they'd rather pretend to be.
Cheating exists as a natural consequence of people pretending to be something they are not, its one of the most primal sort of lies a person says to themselves. This is so easy to do, and so easy to convince yourself to be like this- you do this for a while, it will come to you naturally.
>>You’re paying so much money for these courses — probably a ridiculous amount, so much you may never recoup — … so at least get everything out of it you can. Otherwise, why sign up in the first place?
Same thing with buying expensive gym memberships just to go post selfies, or buying books and not reading them.
>>Let me tell you: essentially no one cares what grade you got in your courses.
Precisely, pretty one no one cares about anything at all so you might as well make genuine progress by putting in the work. In these days when no one remembers their parent's date of birth, who bothers themselves remembering anything about the other person at all.
In short stop lying, more importantly stop lying to yourself. Make genuine progress.
Do not get high on the very dope you are selling.
Well its about pretending to be something you are not, people are all about this.
Cheating is really a habit and to a certain extent a lifestyle and not an event. Cheating continues all life, couldn't get promoted? people hop jobs, land a promotion/hike and then pretend they made progress. People wear expensive clothing to hide fat bellies, spend on vacations to take photographs to send out a message to their friends and family they are rich. People pretend to be a lot of things they are not- pretend to be healthy, wealthy, prosperous. If they actually cant be something they'd rather pretend to be.
Cheating exists as a natural consequence of people pretending to be something they are not, its one of the most primal sort of lies a person says to themselves. This is so easy to do, and so easy to convince yourself to be like this- you do this for a while, it will come to you naturally.
>>You’re paying so much money for these courses — probably a ridiculous amount, so much you may never recoup — … so at least get everything out of it you can. Otherwise, why sign up in the first place?
Same thing with buying expensive gym memberships just to go post selfies, or buying books and not reading them.
>>Let me tell you: essentially no one cares what grade you got in your courses.
Precisely, pretty one no one cares about anything at all so you might as well make genuine progress by putting in the work. In these days when no one remembers their parent's date of birth, who bothers themselves remembering anything about the other person at all.
In short stop lying, more importantly stop lying to yourself. Make genuine progress.
Do not get high on the very dope you are selling.
In addition to what everyone else said – consider that cheating does not stop being a viable short term[1] solution after you graduate. You can cheat your way through work just like you can cheat your way through school. Not always and not everywhere, but certainly a doable lifestyle for many people. Unfortunately.
[1] If a short term solution keeps working, is it really short term?
[1] If a short term solution keeps working, is it really short term?
Sounds like a path to escalating amounts of social anxiety and loneliness.
If you cheat your way through life, what do you do when you’re 40 and no longer cute & full of potential? You don’t trust anybody and nobody trusts you.
If you cheat your way through life, what do you do when you’re 40 and no longer cute & full of potential? You don’t trust anybody and nobody trusts you.
I highly doubt there is a strong positive correlation between social anxiety and cheating. If anything people with social anxiety are less likely to cheat simply because they don't have any social connections to cheat off of.
I honestly don’t get widespread cheating like this…
Bryan Caplan's book concerns precisely this subject: https://jakeseliger.com/2018/03/12/the-case-against-educatio...
Bryan Caplan's book concerns precisely this subject: https://jakeseliger.com/2018/03/12/the-case-against-educatio...
The students aren't paying for the courses though, they're paying for the degree. Most students are at university to get a job and expand their network, education is a sidebar, a nice to have.
> if you’re cool with cheating, after school is over, just lie when anyone asks your gpa
Tons of employers require transcripts, especially for new grads.
> if you’re cool with cheating, after school is over, just lie when anyone asks your gpa
Tons of employers require transcripts, especially for new grads.
One theory of education is that you are there to learn and learn how to learn.
The other theory is that school is an arbitrary experience designed to separate out high skilled from low skilled workers into a separating equilibrium (or, replace skilled with wealthy and you're probably closer to the truth).
The other theory is that school is an arbitrary experience designed to separate out high skilled from low skilled workers into a separating equilibrium (or, replace skilled with wealthy and you're probably closer to the truth).
The college system serves three purposes: (1) Education, (2) Credentialing, (3) Networking.
The weight between these fluctuates over time, and increasingly there are better & cheaper resources for (1) outside the traditional classroom setting.
The weight between these fluctuates over time, and increasingly there are better & cheaper resources for (1) outside the traditional classroom setting.
Actually, it's main purpose is to provide a socially-acceptable way for young people to not devote their time to productive work. Some of these people use the time this makes available to them to learn wonderful things.
[deleted]
Not everyone is paying a lot for courses.
My undergrad college tuition was 100% free via a state scholarship program.
Scholarship funding was dependent on maintaining a certain GPA, so I could see why some might be tempted to cheat. Most of my friends lost their scholarships due to GPA.
(For the record, I never cheated in college. I withdrew twice, for a variety of reasons, and never went back.)
My undergrad college tuition was 100% free via a state scholarship program.
Scholarship funding was dependent on maintaining a certain GPA, so I could see why some might be tempted to cheat. Most of my friends lost their scholarships due to GPA.
(For the record, I never cheated in college. I withdrew twice, for a variety of reasons, and never went back.)
In my grad algo class I have a strong hunch there was a massive amount of cheating. It was an incredibly difficult course and i think people were scared of not failing. A lot of them were foreign students as well so there was a significant amount on the line for them
This write up explains a lot, and is pertinent to this particular issue.
http://paulgraham.com/lesson.html
There's also an article around here somewhere on signaling theory that I don't have on hand.
http://paulgraham.com/lesson.html
There's also an article around here somewhere on signaling theory that I don't have on hand.
Grades are meaningful during school for all sorts of reason, of course not failing is the most meaningful, but so is not losing financial aid/scholarships, or your parents are paying for it and care, or you want to get into certain programs. If they aren't meaningful after school then they are revealed as a farce. So why not cheat. And they're made even more farcical if other students are cheating.
And then, culturally, we don't tell you that you need actual skills to get an actual job out of school. We do tell you that you need a degree. And even if you believe a degree is necessary but not sufficient, it may not be at all clear to you that the skills you need are the same as what you're learning in school.
I never cheated, probably because my strongest skill is learning raw material on my. But I get the perspective. You're paying for a degree and would like to actually receive what you're paying for.
And then, culturally, we don't tell you that you need actual skills to get an actual job out of school. We do tell you that you need a degree. And even if you believe a degree is necessary but not sufficient, it may not be at all clear to you that the skills you need are the same as what you're learning in school.
I never cheated, probably because my strongest skill is learning raw material on my. But I get the perspective. You're paying for a degree and would like to actually receive what you're paying for.
How old are you? I doubt the average 19-year-old is thinking about it in terms of getting everything they can for their money. In 10 years, they'll probably be horrified of how little they got for the $2000 the class cost.
Offering a different view from another vantage point. My GPA was tied to my scholarship which was tied to my visa. Slipping below 3.75/4 can get me deported. Looks pretty incentivized to me.
if you are going to dispense with all morals and ethics, dont even bother with college or a job. Just do crypto livestreams impersonating musk and saylor. ppl making so much $ with those.
The cynic would say the money they paid for school are just easy student loans that will be forgiven. What's their skin in the game?
People go to university for the credential, not to learn. Surprisingly little learning happens at university.
The Case Against Education makes a convincing case about how worthless most of higher ed really is.
Diplomas have tremendous value. The education however…
The Case Against Education makes a convincing case about how worthless most of higher ed really is.
Diplomas have tremendous value. The education however…
And let me tell you, the difference between Cs and As as an undergrad is the difference between getting a job in the industry and getting a job making $200k or more at FAANG straight out of college, that will put you in touch with the smart and/or moneyed people who are going to make you a multimillionaire. And you want to be a multimillionaire because this is the USA and that is the only path to being able to afford the medical care you may very well need especially in later life.
Graduate programs are also GPA-gated. So best get those grades up if you want your license to science (i.e., a Ph.D.).
Graduate programs are also GPA-gated. So best get those grades up if you want your license to science (i.e., a Ph.D.).
The best class I ever took in uni had 3 examinations taken by all students simultaneously, with variations between each exam making cheating nearly impossible. There was no attendance taken, all course materials were posted online, and the only grading for the entire class was the exams. I showed up to 2 classes the entire semester yet still learned all of the material and obtained an A.
At least for certain STEM classes, I think this should be the norm.
At least for certain STEM classes, I think this should be the norm.
Our CS major's main weeder class had two unusual examinations. The first one was to recreate a small project that you'd done recently as an assignment within a few hours, on-site in a computer lab. It could be one of three possibilities, which makes raw memorization a bit harder (though not impossible).
The second was after the first big project, a project that's usually a few thousand lines of code; relatively large by the standards of a student. This exam was a bug fixing exam: the TA's randomly insert three bugs into your project's source, and you have to find and fix them within a few hours. Not terribly challenging if you really did the project by yourself, but if you cheated I imagine you'd have a hell of a time.
The second was after the first big project, a project that's usually a few thousand lines of code; relatively large by the standards of a student. This exam was a bug fixing exam: the TA's randomly insert three bugs into your project's source, and you have to find and fix them within a few hours. Not terribly challenging if you really did the project by yourself, but if you cheated I imagine you'd have a hell of a time.
This reminds me of the time that I had to drop a class because my ADA code returned a generic "program error" upon compilation and even though none of the professors in the department could figure out why, and even though the algorithm looked perfect to them, the professor for my class refused to hear any of it.
I had a few classes like that, decades ago; and I agree that they were the best in terms of curbing cheating. Stressful as all hell for those with anxiety issues, but the format also made some honors students become exposed for the frauds they were.
In retrospect, I think the format is still the best but I would remove the narrow time limit. Give the students a whole day to try; and so not artificially filter out those with anxiety.
In retrospect, I think the format is still the best but I would remove the narrow time limit. Give the students a whole day to try; and so not artificially filter out those with anxiety.
At my college there was a class where one of the teacher assistants got ahold of the answer key and handed it out to class mates. The memorized the key, not the answers, but the actual “A,B,A,C,C…” of the key. We told the professor, so he just rearranged the answers. So every student that cheated got a perfect 0. This had the effect of them failing the assignment on their own, and also telling you who the cheaters were.
A perfect zero seems unlikely, unless the answers were changed to 'anything other than the original letter'?
I bet that was done by design to achieve this effect.
As an undergrad I was heavily involved in the student-led academic integrity organization. This story reads so true to my experiences (from the last millenium, mind you - there was no whatsapp, etc.). My largest cases came from the computer sciences departments. Students thought nothing of copying programs and submitting them as their own.
It turned out, of course, that structural similarities are so obvious. My worst case had 23 students accused of submitting the same program for a lower-level course. I held an event where all (or most) of them attended. Somehow they tried to explain how their use of not-just-similar-but-exactly-the-same variable names, structure and comments in a C or C++ (it's been a while) program. I mean, exactly the same. One spent an hour berating me on the phone (well before I figured out that I could just politely end the conversation and hang up) explaining that it was his work. It was not.
I was disappointed over and over seeing how blatantly and cavalierly my fellow students would break the rules. It was unpleasant for everyone involved, despite a reasonably lenient punishment process - students, faculty and us alike. I didn't like lording over my fellow students, but felt it was important to hold a line of sorts. I wish very much that there was no need for this function but time and again students turned in work that was not theirs. I strongly suspected at the time that most professors only turned in the most blatant open-and-shut cases. It was particularly sad considering how very much money each class cost.
It turned out, of course, that structural similarities are so obvious. My worst case had 23 students accused of submitting the same program for a lower-level course. I held an event where all (or most) of them attended. Somehow they tried to explain how their use of not-just-similar-but-exactly-the-same variable names, structure and comments in a C or C++ (it's been a while) program. I mean, exactly the same. One spent an hour berating me on the phone (well before I figured out that I could just politely end the conversation and hang up) explaining that it was his work. It was not.
I was disappointed over and over seeing how blatantly and cavalierly my fellow students would break the rules. It was unpleasant for everyone involved, despite a reasonably lenient punishment process - students, faculty and us alike. I didn't like lording over my fellow students, but felt it was important to hold a line of sorts. I wish very much that there was no need for this function but time and again students turned in work that was not theirs. I strongly suspected at the time that most professors only turned in the most blatant open-and-shut cases. It was particularly sad considering how very much money each class cost.
Many years ago I was a visiting part-time lecturer (a.k.a. lowest of the low). I was given the syllabus summary from the prospectus, and then had to write a syllabus; prepare teaching material; write tests/exams; and mark submissions.
The institution was far from elite; they used to send staff on recruitment drivs in faraway places, because (a) overseas students get to come th this country when otherwise they wouldn't get a visa; and (b) they pay more. The result was that many of the students were rich, and assumed they didn't have to work. Many didn't have basic qualifications for doing the work. So they cheated extensively (there was no web and no WhatsApp; they just copied one-another's coursework submissions).
I asked my experienced colleagues what to do. They said that I could report the cheating to the school; but I would then be tied up in exam boards all summer, for which I wouldn't be paid. Also I could expect to have to fight charges of racism. Alternatively I could explain to them the difference between helping one-another out (good) and plagiarism (bad). Guess which choice I took!
Basically, the institution didn't care about plagiarism; they didn't care about the unfairness to honest students; and I don't think they cared whether the students learned anything. By the next year, I didn't care either. I just delivered the material, and went home.
The institution was far from elite; they used to send staff on recruitment drivs in faraway places, because (a) overseas students get to come th this country when otherwise they wouldn't get a visa; and (b) they pay more. The result was that many of the students were rich, and assumed they didn't have to work. Many didn't have basic qualifications for doing the work. So they cheated extensively (there was no web and no WhatsApp; they just copied one-another's coursework submissions).
I asked my experienced colleagues what to do. They said that I could report the cheating to the school; but I would then be tied up in exam boards all summer, for which I wouldn't be paid. Also I could expect to have to fight charges of racism. Alternatively I could explain to them the difference between helping one-another out (good) and plagiarism (bad). Guess which choice I took!
Basically, the institution didn't care about plagiarism; they didn't care about the unfairness to honest students; and I don't think they cared whether the students learned anything. By the next year, I didn't care either. I just delivered the material, and went home.
Meanwhile graduates from these institutions lament how employers only want A-list schools
Which is amusing since students from those A-list schools are also cheating.
But the A-list schools have a brand to protect, and at least try to curb the cheating.
The bottom-of-the-barrel diploma mills don’t give a damn, as long as they don’t face the threat of losing official status.
The bottom-of-the-barrel diploma mills don’t give a damn, as long as they don’t face the threat of losing official status.
It is an interesting question:
When we look at the "best" schools really the best since they teach so well? Or maybe they are the best, since they got a brand early and simply collect the best candidates? Those best candidates would be the best students/more successful in later life even if they went to a mediocre university?
Obviously the better universities probably are better at teaching, but I still wonder how much depends on the quality of students that they accept. Also in the absolute top universities, lots of students come from "old" wealth - and are destined to inherit money and positions from their parents.
Obviously it doesnt make sense to send a kid to a bad university, because it is probably bad (bad teachers, bad students), but I wonder if those "good" universities are really that good due to own actions.
When we look at the "best" schools really the best since they teach so well? Or maybe they are the best, since they got a brand early and simply collect the best candidates? Those best candidates would be the best students/more successful in later life even if they went to a mediocre university?
Obviously the better universities probably are better at teaching, but I still wonder how much depends on the quality of students that they accept. Also in the absolute top universities, lots of students come from "old" wealth - and are destined to inherit money and positions from their parents.
Obviously it doesnt make sense to send a kid to a bad university, because it is probably bad (bad teachers, bad students), but I wonder if those "good" universities are really that good due to own actions.
> Obviously the better universities probably are better at teaching
I wasn't taught very much at university. There were a few lectures a week, and a weekly tutorial.
I think there's a difference between the UK and US undergraduate experience: I suspect that US students expect something like school, but better. So you get showbiz professors with charisma. In the UK, at least in research universities, teaching undergraduates is a boring side-job, unless they are showing potential as postgrad students (who can be put to work helping the professor's research). The purpose of a batchelor's degree, then, is to train you to study on your own, which is a prerequisite for postgrad study.
I happen to think that's a good thing; I don't think universities should be providing vocational training. That should be done by another kind of institution. A good batchelor's degree - any good batchelor's degree - is then evidence that you can work and learn under your own steam.
I've never been to university in the USA; I'm guessing, based on how US and UK students describe their experiences, and on the differing styles of US and UK professors on Youtube, TV etc.
I wasn't taught very much at university. There were a few lectures a week, and a weekly tutorial.
I think there's a difference between the UK and US undergraduate experience: I suspect that US students expect something like school, but better. So you get showbiz professors with charisma. In the UK, at least in research universities, teaching undergraduates is a boring side-job, unless they are showing potential as postgrad students (who can be put to work helping the professor's research). The purpose of a batchelor's degree, then, is to train you to study on your own, which is a prerequisite for postgrad study.
I happen to think that's a good thing; I don't think universities should be providing vocational training. That should be done by another kind of institution. A good batchelor's degree - any good batchelor's degree - is then evidence that you can work and learn under your own steam.
I've never been to university in the USA; I'm guessing, based on how US and UK students describe their experiences, and on the differing styles of US and UK professors on Youtube, TV etc.
Agreed they have a brand to protect and that we shouldn't expect much from any university that could be described as a diploma mill.
Though I'm not confident that A-list schools are any better at curbing the cheating than an average university.
Just looking at some of the replies in this thread from people who were students and TAs at A-list schools, and from other conversations I've seen about this, they describe that cheating is rampant at prestigious schools too.
Though I'm not confident that A-list schools are any better at curbing the cheating than an average university.
Just looking at some of the replies in this thread from people who were students and TAs at A-list schools, and from other conversations I've seen about this, they describe that cheating is rampant at prestigious schools too.
In my day at Caltech, it operated on the honor system, meaning it was trivial to cheat and get away with it.
An interesting consequence of the honor system is since the students liked it, they hated cheaters. Any student who was cheating was well advised to not tell anyone about it. Wanna be ostracized? Brag about cheating.
I remember one Physics midterm which most of the class failed. Not what you'd expect if there was significant cheating.
An interesting consequence of the honor system is since the students liked it, they hated cheaters. Any student who was cheating was well advised to not tell anyone about it. Wanna be ostracized? Brag about cheating.
I remember one Physics midterm which most of the class failed. Not what you'd expect if there was significant cheating.
I'm a new computer science professor coming from "industry" (as the academics call it) and can confirm that cheating is rampant. I've also noticed that it is an arms race you'll never win; cheaters will always find a way to cheat, and you can try to subvert them as best you can but will eventually end up harming legitimate students, which is unacceptable.
What I wish existed was an independent board exam that students had to take for employment. Many professions have this, from medical professionals, accountants, engineers, and the trades. My thought is this would disincentivize cheating and encourage deep learning at the university level, while offloading the cost of cheat detection and enforcement to a board, whose job is to solely evaluate if someone is capable of entering the workforce. A separation of concerns.
Another reason for board exams: when I was working, I was asked to do a bunch of flimsy engineering to satisfy management. It would be nice if I could respond "If I do this, I could lose my license, so no." Just like if someone asked a carpenter to build a house not up to code, or a dentist told the hygienist to do shoddy work to improve throughput.
If anyone knows anything about this, I'd love to chat, because its something I've been thinking about for a long time and I hope there's a good reason why it doesn't exist.
What I wish existed was an independent board exam that students had to take for employment. Many professions have this, from medical professionals, accountants, engineers, and the trades. My thought is this would disincentivize cheating and encourage deep learning at the university level, while offloading the cost of cheat detection and enforcement to a board, whose job is to solely evaluate if someone is capable of entering the workforce. A separation of concerns.
Another reason for board exams: when I was working, I was asked to do a bunch of flimsy engineering to satisfy management. It would be nice if I could respond "If I do this, I could lose my license, so no." Just like if someone asked a carpenter to build a house not up to code, or a dentist told the hygienist to do shoddy work to improve throughput.
If anyone knows anything about this, I'd love to chat, because its something I've been thinking about for a long time and I hope there's a good reason why it doesn't exist.
This solution just moves the problem from colleges/universities to a “board”, but doesn’t solve it.
People would still cheat on the hypothetical licensing exam.
Licensing also would add friction in changing jobs, immigration policies, thereby hampering general mobility of workers. More paperwork and bureaucracy would develop.
A company’s interview process is currently where someone’s declared skills are put to the test, which although imperfect, provides the filtering mechanism you’re looking for.
People would still cheat on the hypothetical licensing exam.
Licensing also would add friction in changing jobs, immigration policies, thereby hampering general mobility of workers. More paperwork and bureaucracy would develop.
A company’s interview process is currently where someone’s declared skills are put to the test, which although imperfect, provides the filtering mechanism you’re looking for.
I think that software is a form of literacy.
So my axiom takes me to "we can test if you can read or write, but beyond that, there are an infinite ways to write about star crossed lovers, so just greping for Romeo and Juliet is it going to work"
Then again there must be incentive to cheat at bar exams.
So my axiom takes me to "we can test if you can read or write, but beyond that, there are an infinite ways to write about star crossed lovers, so just greping for Romeo and Juliet is it going to work"
Then again there must be incentive to cheat at bar exams.
That sounds really cool. I’d say the only reason that something like that doesn’t exist is that nobody has created it yet.
As someone who also teaches programming to college students, this is one of the most glorious things I’ve ever read.
Though, anyone know what “hes so Canadian” means? I assume it means he is Canadian, hence why he seems to be taking this so calmly and not flipping out, but I’m not sure.
Edit: I’m now reading the comments. The amount of people trying to justify lying and cheating is truly disheartening.
Though, anyone know what “hes so Canadian” means? I assume it means he is Canadian, hence why he seems to be taking this so calmly and not flipping out, but I’m not sure.
Edit: I’m now reading the comments. The amount of people trying to justify lying and cheating is truly disheartening.
I think "Canadian" here stands for the stereotype of Canadians as overly nice, apologetic, etc. (and that the author is in fact Canadian though he teaches in America)
“He’s so Canadian” likely refers to the stereotype that Canadian people tend to be very nice and apologize a lot
Edit: didn’t see the other reply, but it’s pretty much the same idea
Edit: didn’t see the other reply, but it’s pretty much the same idea
From my own experience as a TA
Prestigious University A: More classes pr. semester, quizzes/homework every weekend. Cheating was rampant - and well known. It was aptly called "cooking", as in "cooking the books".
The classes usually had established lecturers, who'd done the same classes for YEARS, and often re-using the problem sets over and over again. Students would compile a compendium of these problem sets + answers, and hand them down to the next class.
I think the cheating was simply a result of the heavy workload. Students would have 4 problem sets to solve every weekend, and then lab work, project work, and what not. These were smart kids to begin with, as getting admitted to the Uni. was a feat in itself - but there's just so much time.
Regular University B: This Uni. followed a much more "traditional" sciences program. You'd get the syllabus on first or second lecture, the due dates to 1-3 assignments, and date for final exam. Sometimes it was only a home-exam + final exam. Also fewer, but more in-depth classes.
The assignments were much more involved, and each would probably take 2-4 weeks to finish. But cheating was much less common.
Prestigious University A: More classes pr. semester, quizzes/homework every weekend. Cheating was rampant - and well known. It was aptly called "cooking", as in "cooking the books".
The classes usually had established lecturers, who'd done the same classes for YEARS, and often re-using the problem sets over and over again. Students would compile a compendium of these problem sets + answers, and hand them down to the next class.
I think the cheating was simply a result of the heavy workload. Students would have 4 problem sets to solve every weekend, and then lab work, project work, and what not. These were smart kids to begin with, as getting admitted to the Uni. was a feat in itself - but there's just so much time.
Regular University B: This Uni. followed a much more "traditional" sciences program. You'd get the syllabus on first or second lecture, the due dates to 1-3 assignments, and date for final exam. Sometimes it was only a home-exam + final exam. Also fewer, but more in-depth classes.
The assignments were much more involved, and each would probably take 2-4 weeks to finish. But cheating was much less common.
What would you tell your child to do if he/she were in this class, and were aware of the massive cheating happening in the chat?
Should the student report the cheating to the professor? Assuming there was a curve in the class, how do you deal with the "but everyone else is doing it" argument with regard to benefiting from the cheating (even passively, by seeing the questions/answers posted)?
I have wondered about similar issues involving ADHD meds, which seem widespread as well.
Should the student report the cheating to the professor? Assuming there was a curve in the class, how do you deal with the "but everyone else is doing it" argument with regard to benefiting from the cheating (even passively, by seeing the questions/answers posted)?
I have wondered about similar issues involving ADHD meds, which seem widespread as well.
I would tell my children not to leave a digital record of cheating and that they should choose a more useful major than psychology.
Lots (probably most) of people are in college for the credentials. Most of the rest are there because they feel they are supposed to be there. They do the work required for the credentials. Most of what is taught in college has little value or applicability and is quickly forgotten. Cheating is often rational.
Bryan Caplan once gave an example I found memorable and persuasive. For most university courses, even at elite colleges, you could just show up and attend the course without enrolling. Not like "auditing" the course as a student, but just as someone who lives nearby, you could walk into the class and sit and listen. Nobody is checking IDs, nobody would notice, and, if they did, the professor would, more than likely, be willing to let you sit in on the course provided you asked nicely and didn't cause problems.
Why aren't college courses overloaded with freeloaders? Cause what they actually teach isn't that valuable.
If you were to sit somewhere and hand out free bottles of Gatorade you would quickly run out of Gatorade. Many people would take you up on that. Conversely, colleges effectively hand out free lectures (since they don't control who attends) and approximately nobody takes them up on that. This makes me think that the average value of a college lecture is less than a bottle of Gatorade.
With this perspective on the value of college the issue of cheating is reframed as a question "Why would people skip the boring useless work and more easily obtain the valuable credential they are seeking?"
Lots (probably most) of people are in college for the credentials. Most of the rest are there because they feel they are supposed to be there. They do the work required for the credentials. Most of what is taught in college has little value or applicability and is quickly forgotten. Cheating is often rational.
Bryan Caplan once gave an example I found memorable and persuasive. For most university courses, even at elite colleges, you could just show up and attend the course without enrolling. Not like "auditing" the course as a student, but just as someone who lives nearby, you could walk into the class and sit and listen. Nobody is checking IDs, nobody would notice, and, if they did, the professor would, more than likely, be willing to let you sit in on the course provided you asked nicely and didn't cause problems.
Why aren't college courses overloaded with freeloaders? Cause what they actually teach isn't that valuable.
If you were to sit somewhere and hand out free bottles of Gatorade you would quickly run out of Gatorade. Many people would take you up on that. Conversely, colleges effectively hand out free lectures (since they don't control who attends) and approximately nobody takes them up on that. This makes me think that the average value of a college lecture is less than a bottle of Gatorade.
With this perspective on the value of college the issue of cheating is reframed as a question "Why would people skip the boring useless work and more easily obtain the valuable credential they are seeking?"
> Why aren't college courses overloaded with freeloaders? Cause what they actually teach isn't that valuable.
Ha, as a prof, this is a fun thought experiment. But notice your same argument would apply to textbooks at the library.
Why aren't all the library textbooks checked out all the time with huge waiting lists? Because their content isn't valuable?
Only a small part of university learning involves reading a textbook (or watching a lecture), there is also the scaffolding of assignments, assessment, feedback, guidance, and externally enforced deadlines and requirements. Instead of free gatorade, a lecture is more like free tomato seeds. They're valuable but people won't take them because they aren't willing to plant and water them over the course of months.
> Most of what is taught in college has little value or applicability and is quickly forgotten.
I think this is generally wrong, and obviously both of us are entitled to our own opinion, but I'll point out that putting your brain through exercises and experiences that stretch it will permanently alter your brain, even if you forget many of the details that make up those experiences. For example if you put together 50 puzzles, you can forget the details of all of them but still be much better at puzzle-solving.
Ha, as a prof, this is a fun thought experiment. But notice your same argument would apply to textbooks at the library.
Why aren't all the library textbooks checked out all the time with huge waiting lists? Because their content isn't valuable?
Only a small part of university learning involves reading a textbook (or watching a lecture), there is also the scaffolding of assignments, assessment, feedback, guidance, and externally enforced deadlines and requirements. Instead of free gatorade, a lecture is more like free tomato seeds. They're valuable but people won't take them because they aren't willing to plant and water them over the course of months.
> Most of what is taught in college has little value or applicability and is quickly forgotten.
I think this is generally wrong, and obviously both of us are entitled to our own opinion, but I'll point out that putting your brain through exercises and experiences that stretch it will permanently alter your brain, even if you forget many of the details that make up those experiences. For example if you put together 50 puzzles, you can forget the details of all of them but still be much better at puzzle-solving.
I think it's pretty obvious that a textbook that gets checked out a lot has a better claim to value than a textbook which is checked out seldom or never. Maybe there is some topic that is really useful to know. I bet a good book on this topic, that teaches it well, is checked out more often than a book on some useless subject or one that teaches poorly. Similarly, there are lectures on YouTube on valuable topics with tons of views and lecturers with lots of subscribers. If your content was available and accessible to large numbers of people would lots of people access it? If so, then your content is valuable, and if not...
Bryan Caplan's book, The Case Against Education, discusses defenses of education along the lines you present here. For example, he goes over surveys of college students to see what information they retained after graduating, and finds they retained almost nothing.
Maybe learning and studying is good for your brain and will enhance your ability to learn and study. But, this is an argument to learn and study, not to attend or try hard in college where learning and studying are very much optional.
This post is a great example. 70% of the OP's students were in this one particular cheating group. How many were cheating in other ways? Why are the majority of the students cheating? After all, aren't they only cheating themselves? Are they are irrational? Or, maybe, they are there for the credential which is the vast majority of what you get from college.
Bryan Caplan's book, The Case Against Education, discusses defenses of education along the lines you present here. For example, he goes over surveys of college students to see what information they retained after graduating, and finds they retained almost nothing.
Maybe learning and studying is good for your brain and will enhance your ability to learn and study. But, this is an argument to learn and study, not to attend or try hard in college where learning and studying are very much optional.
This post is a great example. 70% of the OP's students were in this one particular cheating group. How many were cheating in other ways? Why are the majority of the students cheating? After all, aren't they only cheating themselves? Are they are irrational? Or, maybe, they are there for the credential which is the vast majority of what you get from college.
[deleted]
Ha, I actually know an old guy who went to a prestigious university to sit in on classes as we was phasing into retirement. He was the kind of person who didn't care that he was 3x the age of everyone else in the class, but I imagine one of the reasons adults don't attend uni classes in person is that it could be seen as weird/creepy.
> Why aren't college courses overloaded with freeloaders?
Because freeloaders want quick wins. A lecture is a lot of time consumed, without an immediate financial gain, where they could be collecting multiple Gatorades instead.
Ie Physical, immediate gains are greatly preferred by freeloaders. They don’t see the long game.
Because freeloaders want quick wins. A lecture is a lot of time consumed, without an immediate financial gain, where they could be collecting multiple Gatorades instead.
Ie Physical, immediate gains are greatly preferred by freeloaders. They don’t see the long game.
This is a poor analogy. It doesn’t take any effort to drink a bottle of Gatorade, and it tastes good too.
On the other hand, attending a semester’s worth of lectures and engaging with assignments takes a lot of time and effort.
On the other hand, attending a semester’s worth of lectures and engaging with assignments takes a lot of time and effort.
First, I compared the Gatorade to a single lecture, not a single semester. Second, regardless of effort, there is a net value, and the net value of your average college course (what you learn less the effort and time required to learn it) is less than the net value of a Gatorade.
Finally, you can just change the thought experiment a bit. If you offered to pay someone twenty dollars to attend a random college lecture, would they? Probably some people would. And that fixes the upper bound of the value of the average lecture at less than twenty dollars, since, if it was that high, many people would be freeloading.
Finally, you can just change the thought experiment a bit. If you offered to pay someone twenty dollars to attend a random college lecture, would they? Probably some people would. And that fixes the upper bound of the value of the average lecture at less than twenty dollars, since, if it was that high, many people would be freeloading.
> For most university courses, even at elite colleges, you could just show up and attend the course without enrolling.
This has never been true at any college I have attended. You absolutely got booted if you were not on the class roster after the enrollment period was done.
At California community colleges, it seemed it's also a matter of insurance liability. They were remarkably aggressive about enforcement.
This has never been true at any college I have attended. You absolutely got booted if you were not on the class roster after the enrollment period was done.
At California community colleges, it seemed it's also a matter of insurance liability. They were remarkably aggressive about enforcement.
How was this enforced? A professor would notice in a class under 30 or so, but beyond that I'm not sure it would be apparent (assuming the attendee looked more or less like a student).
> A professor would notice in a class under 30 or so
That describes practically every college class I have ever taken--even at community colleges.
That describes practically every college class I have ever taken--even at community colleges.
Wow! I went to a very small liberal arts college, and even there we had classes over 30. I remember a friend at a larger Ivy told me there were 900 students in her intro Econ class...which would have amounted to the entire freshman and sophomore classes at my school, and then some!
Assuming there was a curve in the class, we could begin by asking the teacher why they want to punish people who engage in non-cheating group studying that actually causes their peers to learn the material.
>I messaged the student that they had plagiarized the assignment from a website. I sent the link. They immediately wrote back and said I had the wrong link and that they copied it from a different website.
Plagerizing an ethics violation apology letter...to a lecturer who is clearly on a mission. At that stage just fail them.
Clearly they have neither ethics nor intelligence going for them so that spot in higher education is best taken up by a more deserving member of society.
Plagerizing an ethics violation apology letter...to a lecturer who is clearly on a mission. At that stage just fail them.
Clearly they have neither ethics nor intelligence going for them so that spot in higher education is best taken up by a more deserving member of society.
I kinda agree; I feel like they probably walked away thinking "I got away with it" and not "I need to seriously reassess my priorities".
I dunno, I never cheated, but I would never report other people for doing it either. It’s not my job to detect and report other people cheating, and getting dinged for not reporting people that cheated would make me hate you very quickly.
That said, I just don’t see the point in cheating. University isn’t that hard if you have some basic level of skill. You go to the classes, you read the stuff the assign you, do the assignments, and you should mostly be able to pass the course.
Cheating always seemed like a complete waste to me. I’d be paying a lot of money to learn nothing (aside from how to cheat better). If I’m going to be there anyway to get my degree, I might as well put in the work.
And then later you have these instances where it turns out that because you actually paid attention in school, you know more than people from top universities that (apparently) cheated their way to a degree.
Of course, they’re also 2 levels above you earning twice what you make. Because that’s the way these things work :/
That said, I just don’t see the point in cheating. University isn’t that hard if you have some basic level of skill. You go to the classes, you read the stuff the assign you, do the assignments, and you should mostly be able to pass the course.
Cheating always seemed like a complete waste to me. I’d be paying a lot of money to learn nothing (aside from how to cheat better). If I’m going to be there anyway to get my degree, I might as well put in the work.
And then later you have these instances where it turns out that because you actually paid attention in school, you know more than people from top universities that (apparently) cheated their way to a degree.
Of course, they’re also 2 levels above you earning twice what you make. Because that’s the way these things work :/
The classes being online is a major factor. Those classes are engagement hell. Also research has shown video conferencing is much more fatiguing than a real meeting. Even if you start engaging one bad week can put you off the course for the semester.
>research has shown video conferencing is much more fatiguing than a real meeting
do you have a link to this research? it sounds right but I'd love to see the source
do you have a link to this research? it sounds right but I'd love to see the source
I'm really torn on whether this was handled right. A real thing in the pandemic is that everyone was cheating all the time, at every level. Students looking at there phone when they weren't suppose to, printing things out, being in various chats, whatever. It seemed sort of the norm at the time I would say realistically.
Reporting someone for academic dishonesty is a deathblow to any kind of application to higher ed. This was an undergrad psych class I think? Anyone there trying to get into the PhD programs is in for a world of trouble now, that's a competitive place.
It's not that I think cheating is good, I just wonder if these students peers in this class/other schools who had better outcomes did things the right way, or maybe they just didn't have a professor who enjoys this so much that he will spend weeks writing R code to fully catch everything. That seems like an arbitrary way to have a dream end, I dunno.
Reporting someone for academic dishonesty is a deathblow to any kind of application to higher ed. This was an undergrad psych class I think? Anyone there trying to get into the PhD programs is in for a world of trouble now, that's a competitive place.
It's not that I think cheating is good, I just wonder if these students peers in this class/other schools who had better outcomes did things the right way, or maybe they just didn't have a professor who enjoys this so much that he will spend weeks writing R code to fully catch everything. That seems like an arbitrary way to have a dream end, I dunno.
This professor seems very pleased with himself but I think he handled this in the worst way possible.
He should have said on the WhatsApp group, right at the beginning, "I am your professor,and I monitor this gc. You can use the gc to discuss the class and ethically help each other, but if you engage in exam and quiz cheating on here I will see it, and I will fail you. If you open or join a new secret gc to circumvent this, I will find it and I will fail you. Do the work.".
If they cheated after that, immediate ban. Cut them from the course. Stop wasting everyone's time.
Instead he got off on spying on them for months, buffing his ego with how good he was at using tools to measure the cheating, had to actually change the course and the final because he was letting the level of cheating get out of hand.
He's like a boss who gives you zero verbal feedback all year, maybe only positive feedback, then sticks you with a bad annual review, listing behavior that would have been easily corrected had it been mentioned.
Yes everybody knows they are not supposed to cheat, but he let cheating become the way things worked "in practice" for his class, and then punished them after wasting a lot of their time and money.
He should have said on the WhatsApp group, right at the beginning, "I am your professor,and I monitor this gc. You can use the gc to discuss the class and ethically help each other, but if you engage in exam and quiz cheating on here I will see it, and I will fail you. If you open or join a new secret gc to circumvent this, I will find it and I will fail you. Do the work.".
If they cheated after that, immediate ban. Cut them from the course. Stop wasting everyone's time.
Instead he got off on spying on them for months, buffing his ego with how good he was at using tools to measure the cheating, had to actually change the course and the final because he was letting the level of cheating get out of hand.
He's like a boss who gives you zero verbal feedback all year, maybe only positive feedback, then sticks you with a bad annual review, listing behavior that would have been easily corrected had it been mentioned.
Yes everybody knows they are not supposed to cheat, but he let cheating become the way things worked "in practice" for his class, and then punished them after wasting a lot of their time and money.
I agree he seems to almost get off on it, like he is getting revenge on all the classmates who cheated when he was in school. Only redeeming thing about him is the lengths he eventually went to to force them to learn and give them a second chance despite his weird plagiarism fetish.
They would continue to cheat but more discretely. It's a cat and mouse game. For example, they can easily start a new gc and invite everyone but the instructor via DMs. Or invite everyone but add a verification phase. They love a challenge when it comes to outsmarting the system.
"In at least 150 words, demonstrate your understanding of what it means to behave according to a high standard of personal and academic integrity" -- should have made that 2000 words, minimum.
Great write-up, more than fair teacher who wants only what's best for their students.
Great write-up, more than fair teacher who wants only what's best for their students.
Honestly if they couldn’t do 150 without plagiarizing it, what’s the chance they could do 2000?
> Honestly if they couldn’t do 150 without plagiarizing it, what’s the chance they could do 2000?
You've lumped too many people together in your use of "they".
In the author's own words:
> The semester from hell ended. Some students still failed. Some did some more plagiarism and failed. But, most of them got decent grades and engaged substantially with the course material. A small win for me and them.
You've lumped too many people together in your use of "they".
In the author's own words:
> The semester from hell ended. Some students still failed. Some did some more plagiarism and failed. But, most of them got decent grades and engaged substantially with the course material. A small win for me and them.
I think a poster above suggested 2000 words because it would require more thought and reflection than only 150.
Whatever the word count, the instructor seems motivated to discover plagiarism.
Whatever the word count, the instructor seems motivated to discover plagiarism.
Here's how another professor, Richard Quinn, dealt with widespread cheating in his class at UCF. He had noticed a bimodal distribution in the scores, uhoh! Never cheat in a class where the professor knows more about stats than you do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzJTTDO9f4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzJTTDO9f4
My anecdote:
1. Tell students that the remote exam is open book. Everything is allowed EXCEPT for any communication between students. Moreover, there is a Zoom breakout room for discussing specific questions with ME.
2. Exam starts.
3. Students move to that breakout room to exchange solutions.
1. Tell students that the remote exam is open book. Everything is allowed EXCEPT for any communication between students. Moreover, there is a Zoom breakout room for discussing specific questions with ME.
2. Exam starts.
3. Students move to that breakout room to exchange solutions.
> 3. Students move to that breakout room to exchange solutions.
While you were in that room? Did you put a stop to that?
While you were in that room? Did you put a stop to that?
A saw that they moved in that room. I was a little baffled due to their brazenness but think I made my point clear. And: They didn't pass anyway.
Despite this teacher's miraculous extraction of some character growth from a handful of the cheaters, I still think he should have just failed all of them as soon as he had an airtight case against them. There is no moral or practical justification for tolerating cheaters. They make a mockery of honest students and the higher education as a whole. They're a menace to the society into which they're released with a stamp of approval they have stolen rather than earned. They deserve only failure and humiliation, and if they consistently received it there would be far fewer of them.
We must assume they don't care about learning, so if we want to cram some knowledge into them anyway, hit them the only place they apparently care about: their transcript. Either they'll shape up or be rightfully denied the (ever more scant) honor of a degree. The heroics of the author here cannot be scaled, and we shouldn't be asking anyone to go to that extent. Just fail the bastards. You're only recording what's already true.
We must assume they don't care about learning, so if we want to cram some knowledge into them anyway, hit them the only place they apparently care about: their transcript. Either they'll shape up or be rightfully denied the (ever more scant) honor of a degree. The heroics of the author here cannot be scaled, and we shouldn't be asking anyone to go to that extent. Just fail the bastards. You're only recording what's already true.
I get where you're coming from, but I tend to lean more towards the teacher's approach. The big problem in this class was that there was a culture of cheating -- it was the norm, and anyone who joined the WhatsApp group was automatically pulled into it. I imagine many of the students who did cheat would not have done so if it didn't fall into their lap like that.
That's not to say that it's justified or right. Of course they shouldn't even cheated, even though it was popular and easy. But it's a much more understandable mistake to make, when doing the wrong thing is so popular and easy. When 5% of a class cheats, that indicates a serious moral failing on those students' parts. But when 70% of a class cheats, it's harder to believe that they're all so morally bankrupt.
Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but I'm a strong believer in giving people second chances and encouraging them to learn from their mistakes instead of immediately jumping to punishment.
That's not to say that it's justified or right. Of course they shouldn't even cheated, even though it was popular and easy. But it's a much more understandable mistake to make, when doing the wrong thing is so popular and easy. When 5% of a class cheats, that indicates a serious moral failing on those students' parts. But when 70% of a class cheats, it's harder to believe that they're all so morally bankrupt.
Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but I'm a strong believer in giving people second chances and encouraging them to learn from their mistakes instead of immediately jumping to punishment.
How long do you think a "culture of cheating" will survive if it's punished severely? Not very long. That's part of the point.
Ed: not that "it was easy" is anywhere near an excuse. Not letting yourself be pulled into something you 100% know is wrong is one of the most basic forms of moral self-restraint. If you can't handle that in its most black-and-white form, to say nothing of the gray areas you'll encounter anywhere less sheltered than a college classroom, you can still take the consequences right in the face and no one should feel the slightest pity, much less make excuses.
Ed: not that "it was easy" is anywhere near an excuse. Not letting yourself be pulled into something you 100% know is wrong is one of the most basic forms of moral self-restraint. If you can't handle that in its most black-and-white form, to say nothing of the gray areas you'll encounter anywhere less sheltered than a college classroom, you can still take the consequences right in the face and no one should feel the slightest pity, much less make excuses.
There are many studies that show that harsher punishments don't reduce crime, infact they make people act in very extreme ways once they realize they have already been caught. What you want is revenge since you seem to be a student who never copied , unfortunately revenge is no way to run a society(Pro-tip rehabilitation is the way to run society). Personally I think degree hold too much weight on one's future and I have little to no respect for them so cheating in a quiz is no big deal.
Many of the students in this article showed very clearly what they thought about their "rehabilitation": just another system to be gamed with lip-service and as little effort or change as possible. They won't treat it as anything else unless it hurts. I'm sorry, but you can't seriously propose to remove all punishment and be taken seriously. And I also don't think you can even seriously argue that failing a student for a class is too severe, either. It's not even necessarily denying them the degree, as long as they stop fucking cheating. That's your goal too, right?
Fine I agree with everything you have just said, its just that there was so much venom in your message before it seemed all you wanted was revenge and not interested in what the most optimal solution was. Second chances are important , had they cheated in an exam fail them but a multiple choice quiz done online with multiple retries possible at best deserves a zero. The reality though is too many of them were cheating to all be failed (speaking practically), what are you going to do, have the class with double the students next year ? If anything they should be failed for adding their teacher to the group chat and trying to cheat as a collective lol.
Yeah, well, part of the venom is because the "optimal solution" is both easy and obvious but institutions are still too cowardly to implement it. (Again, the point is to make this a consistent thing, not wait until you reach the point where 75% of the class is blatantly cheating.)
Your moralizing and virtue signalling is missing the point.
Cheating, or academic integrity, or "over collaboration" is not a binary action that evil students take, and good student don't.
Instead, cheating is a culture, and institution. And looking at it, in this way, provides a much more helpful framework for solving it, than overmoralizing it, and simply calling cheaters bad.
The reality is, that how much students work together, or are allowed to work together, is a culture that is vastly different on a class by class basis. There are some classes, where the professors explicitly encourage collaboration among students, to the point where the profesor straight up expects that everyone is copying everyone else's homework, and that is OK and encouraged, officially.
And then there are other classes, where talking to anyone else, or asking a single question about homework, is automatically cheating.
And then there are further complications, where there is no official policy on collaboration, and everyone just guesses about what is allowed.
This vast difference between classes and collaboration culture, means that regular people, who would otherwise not cheat at all, will often do so, due to problems with the culture and expectation of the class.
And the way to solve this, is not to engage in extreme moralization, instead it is to set clear guidelines, and address problems as they come up, so things don't get out of control.
Or, in other words, if everyone is doing something, then other people will start to think that it isn't even against the rules and also do it themselves, and the blame is more on the culture and system, than it is on the individuals.
Cheating, or academic integrity, or "over collaboration" is not a binary action that evil students take, and good student don't.
Instead, cheating is a culture, and institution. And looking at it, in this way, provides a much more helpful framework for solving it, than overmoralizing it, and simply calling cheaters bad.
The reality is, that how much students work together, or are allowed to work together, is a culture that is vastly different on a class by class basis. There are some classes, where the professors explicitly encourage collaboration among students, to the point where the profesor straight up expects that everyone is copying everyone else's homework, and that is OK and encouraged, officially.
And then there are other classes, where talking to anyone else, or asking a single question about homework, is automatically cheating.
And then there are further complications, where there is no official policy on collaboration, and everyone just guesses about what is allowed.
This vast difference between classes and collaboration culture, means that regular people, who would otherwise not cheat at all, will often do so, due to problems with the culture and expectation of the class.
And the way to solve this, is not to engage in extreme moralization, instead it is to set clear guidelines, and address problems as they come up, so things don't get out of control.
Or, in other words, if everyone is doing something, then other people will start to think that it isn't even against the rules and also do it themselves, and the blame is more on the culture and system, than it is on the individuals.
"Clear guidelines" or standards were not the issue here. They were directly copying answers from each other. There is no chance anyone honestly thought this was ok. That goes triple for the ones plagiarizing their apology letters.
And as I said in my other reply, letting "culture" grow up is part of the problem that lack of punishment creates, and was never a true excuse at all. They knew.
And as I said in my other reply, letting "culture" grow up is part of the problem that lack of punishment creates, and was never a true excuse at all. They knew.
> "Clear guidelines" or standards were not the issue here. They were directly copying answers from each other.
And I am telling you that students directly copying answers from others can and is sometimes directly encouraged by the professors in a class.
As in yes, literally copying other's work, is something that the professors explicitly allow and encourage in some classes.
And I am telling you that students directly copying answers from others can and is sometimes directly encouraged by the professors in a class.
As in yes, literally copying other's work, is something that the professors explicitly allow and encourage in some classes.
I heard you the first time. I've been in those classes. It's still irrelevant to this case.
Even if you're claiming the students were genuinely unsure whether they were doing something wrong, that can only possibly hold before the first quiz when the prof told them outright he didn't approve (in fact, even during that lecture their messages showed they knew he wouldn't, but let's ignore that for the sake of argument). After that, when they still tried to cheat in the second quiz, and continuing even after that failure, they have not the faintest excuse.
Even if you're claiming the students were genuinely unsure whether they were doing something wrong, that can only possibly hold before the first quiz when the prof told them outright he didn't approve (in fact, even during that lecture their messages showed they knew he wouldn't, but let's ignore that for the sake of argument). After that, when they still tried to cheat in the second quiz, and continuing even after that failure, they have not the faintest excuse.
I think the situation is more complex than just "we must assume they don't care about learning ... just fail the bastards." I think it's more important to first understand what were the social, environmental, cultural (and otherwise) causes of this behavior.
Specifically, different systems of incentives and permissiveness will produce different behavior. I taught high school computer science for 4 years, and I can attest that cheating occurred in the classes I taught. I've also been enrolled part-time in Stanford's MS in CS, and have taken a number of the core undergraduate curriculum for CS majors.
I also went to a hypercompetitive US public high school with a number of brilliant classmates, many of whom also cheated.
My experiences have showed me that there is a wide spectrum of "cheating", ranging from students sharing things like, "I was at office hours and heard from the TA heard from the professor that topic X is going to be really emphasized on the exam, so you better study for it!" to outright blatant copying of other's code or answers.
What I've noticed as qualities of a learning environment that seems to increase the likelihood of cheating are:
1. The technological ease of which it is to cheat: it's easier to cheat on an asynchronous online exam than when you're taking it synchronously in a large classroom.
2. How "high stakes" the course is for students: for students at institutions like Stanford, where they be used to a certain level of academic success, failing a course isn't just a blow to their transcript -- it's a psychological blow to their identity as a "smart student." They may find it easier to cheat and maintain their self-image (and projected image to their family/friends) as a great student than to take the honest hit to their GPA, and have to give up their identity.
3. How "legitimate" the course feels: classes where the instructor is widely perceived as "unfair" or "incompetent" seem to have more cheating. Students feel disrespected ("How could she put X on the exam? We barely covered it!") or unvalued ("He doesn't even bother giving clear instructions on the homework assignments. Why should we respect his test?") may try to 'retaliate' by cheating.
4. How permissive the academic culture is around cheating: if there is widely perceived to be little-to-no consequences to cheating, or if cheating is seen as, "well everyone does it", then you will have a lot more cheating.
I'm sure the above is not an exhaustive list. My broader point is that in order to address the issues around cheating, we need to be more encompassing than simply punishing the cheaters. If the stakes are high enough, and the incentives strong enough, cheaters will still exist even if they are aware of the severity of the punishment.
Specifically, different systems of incentives and permissiveness will produce different behavior. I taught high school computer science for 4 years, and I can attest that cheating occurred in the classes I taught. I've also been enrolled part-time in Stanford's MS in CS, and have taken a number of the core undergraduate curriculum for CS majors.
I also went to a hypercompetitive US public high school with a number of brilliant classmates, many of whom also cheated.
My experiences have showed me that there is a wide spectrum of "cheating", ranging from students sharing things like, "I was at office hours and heard from the TA heard from the professor that topic X is going to be really emphasized on the exam, so you better study for it!" to outright blatant copying of other's code or answers.
What I've noticed as qualities of a learning environment that seems to increase the likelihood of cheating are:
1. The technological ease of which it is to cheat: it's easier to cheat on an asynchronous online exam than when you're taking it synchronously in a large classroom.
2. How "high stakes" the course is for students: for students at institutions like Stanford, where they be used to a certain level of academic success, failing a course isn't just a blow to their transcript -- it's a psychological blow to their identity as a "smart student." They may find it easier to cheat and maintain their self-image (and projected image to their family/friends) as a great student than to take the honest hit to their GPA, and have to give up their identity.
3. How "legitimate" the course feels: classes where the instructor is widely perceived as "unfair" or "incompetent" seem to have more cheating. Students feel disrespected ("How could she put X on the exam? We barely covered it!") or unvalued ("He doesn't even bother giving clear instructions on the homework assignments. Why should we respect his test?") may try to 'retaliate' by cheating.
4. How permissive the academic culture is around cheating: if there is widely perceived to be little-to-no consequences to cheating, or if cheating is seen as, "well everyone does it", then you will have a lot more cheating.
I'm sure the above is not an exhaustive list. My broader point is that in order to address the issues around cheating, we need to be more encompassing than simply punishing the cheaters. If the stakes are high enough, and the incentives strong enough, cheaters will still exist even if they are aware of the severity of the punishment.
> 1. The technological ease of which it is to cheat: it's easier to cheat on an asynchronous online exam than when you're taking it synchronously in a large classroom.
I went to school pre-2000, so the Internet existed, but was not as prevalent as it is today. What struck me most in the article is how easy it is today to cheat today. Real-time group chats, easy sharing of screenshots and quizzes, the volume of easily-copied content off the Internet, and tools available 100% of the time simply put fraternity list of historical quizzes and copied texts in the library to shame. The ease of cheating today is one less barrier that people have to cross to compromise their morals.
I think if a goal of post-secondary education is to prepare their populations for professional success, then you're right, simply punishing cheaters does not achieve that goal. But our world today is full of examples where it's easy to take the less moral or ethical road and suffer little to no consequences. Hopefully, schools will not succumb to that too much.
I went to school pre-2000, so the Internet existed, but was not as prevalent as it is today. What struck me most in the article is how easy it is today to cheat today. Real-time group chats, easy sharing of screenshots and quizzes, the volume of easily-copied content off the Internet, and tools available 100% of the time simply put fraternity list of historical quizzes and copied texts in the library to shame. The ease of cheating today is one less barrier that people have to cross to compromise their morals.
I think if a goal of post-secondary education is to prepare their populations for professional success, then you're right, simply punishing cheaters does not achieve that goal. But our world today is full of examples where it's easy to take the less moral or ethical road and suffer little to no consequences. Hopefully, schools will not succumb to that too much.
There's an easy solution to this kind of cheating: stop grading. Switch to evaluations and self evaluations. Evergreen State College and a few others already do this. If there's no GPA, there's nothing to game.
It means you can't run giant survey classes and asynchronous, online courses.
It's sad to see cheating this rampant. When I was doing my physics undergraduate degree, we had little to no cheating. We worked together on homework (as expected by the professors) and tests I think everyone was scrupulously honest on. The one time someone asked for help, multiple people yelled at him. This was at University of Virginia, which has an honor code. There was a lot of cheating in the big survey classes, but students in the upper level classes in their majors took it fairly seriously.
It means you can't run giant survey classes and asynchronous, online courses.
It's sad to see cheating this rampant. When I was doing my physics undergraduate degree, we had little to no cheating. We worked together on homework (as expected by the professors) and tests I think everyone was scrupulously honest on. The one time someone asked for help, multiple people yelled at him. This was at University of Virginia, which has an honor code. There was a lot of cheating in the big survey classes, but students in the upper level classes in their majors took it fairly seriously.
If anyone still wonders why companies give leetcode interviews, this is why.
Cheating is routine in remote interviews.
https://www.teamblind.com/post/My-friends-who-cheated-in-int...
https://www.teamblind.com/post/My-friends-who-cheated-in-int...
Just come up with my own questions that aren't answered on google.
I wonder what the equivalent of a Leetcode interview for someone with a Bachelors in Psychology is.
"How does your mother feel about this interview?"
Leetcode interviews are also easy to cheat on.
Not if you have to do it in front of the interviewer.
It's still just as easy to cheat, because it just becomes a matter of increasing your question surface area. Hop on LeetCode, memorize the more popular questions (because inevitably companies can and do reuse questions), pretend you've never seen it before and you're golden. It's the exact same way students would cheat on a closed book exam.
Leetcode just incentivizes people to play the Leetcode game. It does not signify skill or ability or anything of the sort. It at most filters for candidates that cheat or candidates that end up particularly lucky that day.
Leetcode just incentivizes people to play the Leetcode game. It does not signify skill or ability or anything of the sort. It at most filters for candidates that cheat or candidates that end up particularly lucky that day.
Memorizing how to solve hundreds of leetcode questions isn't cheating, it's learning. One can't help learning how to code doing that.
[deleted]
My university had a strict anti-cheating policy in the CS program. It was written very broadly. As a disadvantaged student, first in my family to attend college, I needed to graduate more than anything else in the world. The policy forbade discussing assignments or solutions with other students. The end result is I was terrified of socializing with any other CS students. I wonder how much I missed out on due to sheer terror and high stakes.
Exams and cheating are just parts of the same problem. It's unfortunate that academia can't wrap its mind around this and design better learning experiences for students and teachers.
This smells like a cop out for the cheaters.
Is the system perfect? Obviously not. Are the rules of the game laid out in advance? Yes. Do you agree to them as a student? Yes. Is there a clear path to success on your own merits, through your own effort. Yes.
Is the system perfect? Obviously not. Are the rules of the game laid out in advance? Yes. Do you agree to them as a student? Yes. Is there a clear path to success on your own merits, through your own effort. Yes.
How is this kind of "cheating" any different than study groups? When I was in school we would have small study groups where we would collaborate on figuring out homework answers. Maybe this was also cheating, but I don't think so; it was among the most enriching experiences in school and certainly a hell of a lot more like the working world than it would be to toil in solitary silence.
There's a big difference between a discussion between a few people to figure out an answer that they all understand, and posting the answer to a multiple choice question directly to the whole class.
To use the author's measuring stick, study groups typically engage with the course material. Learning that the answer to question 5 is "B" is not engagement.
Also, anecdotally, the study groups I was a part of were almost all based around figuring out answers to publicly available past exam papers, _not_ marked assignments. I think the sharing of answers (vs understanding) would have felt quite wrong to those of us involved.
To use the author's measuring stick, study groups typically engage with the course material. Learning that the answer to question 5 is "B" is not engagement.
Also, anecdotally, the study groups I was a part of were almost all based around figuring out answers to publicly available past exam papers, _not_ marked assignments. I think the sharing of answers (vs understanding) would have felt quite wrong to those of us involved.
Yeah just different experiences I suppose. Although I guess I can't really think of any classes I took that had simple multiple choice assignments. But yeah, my math and science classes had graded take home assignments with quantitative exercises and it was normal (encouraged, even) to work on them in groups. And yeah, there tended to be some free loaders, who I guess I wouldn't debate were "cheating", but I didn't and honestly still don't think it was such a big deal. Even those sometime free loaders learned a lot of stuff and went on to be successful members of society. It would have been pretty stupid to kick them out of school for it. Maybe these are unpopular opinions, I dunno, but I just kind of see this whole concern as misplaced.
I do agree that cheating on exams would be bad. Maybe my perspective comes from not really thinking graded homework is that great of an idea to begin with.
I do agree that cheating on exams would be bad. Maybe my perspective comes from not really thinking graded homework is that great of an idea to begin with.
Helping each other understand the material means you are learning. You'd do well on a test. They were sharing answers and then all failed the tests when they weren't able to. Anything that gets you a good grade without learning the material is cheating.
I know this is an old thread but I just saw it and maybe you'll see my response: if they all failed the tests, then did they actually get a good grade without learning the material?
Look, I was a pretty crappy student in a lot of ways. But this thread has a few instances of folks implying that, especially at more "elite" schools, blatant cheating is practically routine and everyone does it. Again, I was not a model student, but it's pretty maddening to hear that. I didn't cheat to get my degree. I'd ask that you all not rationalize your cheating to the point of making your successors feel comfortable doing so, or worse, feel like outcasts for not doing so.
I don't think anyone has denied the existence of students who don't cheat. If 80% of a class cheats, that means 20% don't. You may have been among those.
> There were 100+ students in the class
> I was suffering technical difficulties while giving online lectures.
> It was extremely demoralizing to teach to a class that was blatantly cheating the entire time.
How demoralizing do you think it is to be paying a fair bit of money (or more likely taking on a fair bit of debt) to be just 1 of 100+ students in a poorly functioning online class?
To be clear, I'm not blaming the teacher here but the system has continually failed students. It's become a stupid game that you pay a lot to play because you have to. When I was younger I used to very anti-cheating, but I realized with time that was a foolish principle to hold on to. The game is rigged and there is no shame it taking short cuts. The university is trying to exploit you the student so why would you not return the favor and seek to exploit the system whenever you can?
Consider the counter position: what would an incredibly passionate, engaged and hardworking student get from this situation? This experience for that type of student is scarcely better than just teaching yourself from a text book and free online lectures (in fact, all of the material for this class is free online)... only you don't get a degree doing that.
My only critique of the teacher here is not having a enough empathy for these students and spending far more energy trying to catch cheaters than address the fact that these students have gotten a raw deal. Ignore the cheaters and spend those extra hours chatting one-on-one with the students that actually give a shit (if there are any left).
> I was suffering technical difficulties while giving online lectures.
> It was extremely demoralizing to teach to a class that was blatantly cheating the entire time.
How demoralizing do you think it is to be paying a fair bit of money (or more likely taking on a fair bit of debt) to be just 1 of 100+ students in a poorly functioning online class?
To be clear, I'm not blaming the teacher here but the system has continually failed students. It's become a stupid game that you pay a lot to play because you have to. When I was younger I used to very anti-cheating, but I realized with time that was a foolish principle to hold on to. The game is rigged and there is no shame it taking short cuts. The university is trying to exploit you the student so why would you not return the favor and seek to exploit the system whenever you can?
Consider the counter position: what would an incredibly passionate, engaged and hardworking student get from this situation? This experience for that type of student is scarcely better than just teaching yourself from a text book and free online lectures (in fact, all of the material for this class is free online)... only you don't get a degree doing that.
My only critique of the teacher here is not having a enough empathy for these students and spending far more energy trying to catch cheaters than address the fact that these students have gotten a raw deal. Ignore the cheaters and spend those extra hours chatting one-on-one with the students that actually give a shit (if there are any left).
I went to a top ten ranked cs school for what it's worth. I graduated pre-covid. Every single cs class has minimum 100 students. The department recorded classes so that they could increase attendance without getting bigger rooms. By the time I was an upperclassmen less than half the students showed up to lectures. Having 25/200 students present was common. It really was demoralizing to realize that the department didn't see a problem with many if not most students graduating without having actually spoken to a professor once, since you had to show up a couple hours early for office hours if you wanted to be seen. It's clear that the undergrads were nothing more than moneybags to my institution, so naturally students saw their education as the transaction it was. Most students were there because they figured graduating from a top school is what is required to get a FAANG job as a 21 year old.
> When I was younger I used to very anti-cheating, but I realized with time that was a foolish principle to hold on to. The game is rigged and there is no shame it taking short cuts. The university is trying to exploit you the student so why would you not return the favor and seek to exploit the system whenever you can?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes the university system has its issues, especially through the COVID pandemic. But that does not justify this behavior.
> Ignore the cheaters and spend those extra hours chatting one-on-one with the students that actually give a shit
Actions have consequences. You can't just ignore them.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes the university system has its issues, especially through the COVID pandemic. But that does not justify this behavior.
> Ignore the cheaters and spend those extra hours chatting one-on-one with the students that actually give a shit
Actions have consequences. You can't just ignore them.
You can definitely ignore them if you think that ignoring them and putting work elsewhere is a net benefit to everyone. Not every action merits a response.
People who cheat in university deserve consequences.
I agree, I'm not against cheating but high risk high reward. If you're dumb enough to include the lecturer in the very group chat you cheat in then you deserve to fail. The class was stupid to even think they could cheat as a whole class, its like robbing a liquor store with 80 accomplices. What you do is you find a small group of individuals you trust and you cheat together secretly and given how small that group is likely to be you're all forced to learn something.
For the amount of money most universities cost, it would be stupid and irresponsible not to cheat and risk failing a class. Struggling and failing legitimately has no upsides and only downsides, big financial downsides, along with possibly a delayed or no graduation if it cuts their funding.
I would agree with your position if college was either extremely cheap or free. But as a money making endeavor it serves more as a roadblock to prosperity or in numerous other cases a potential pit of debt.
I would agree with your position if college was either extremely cheap or free. But as a money making endeavor it serves more as a roadblock to prosperity or in numerous other cases a potential pit of debt.
Would you support an alternative scheme where cheaters just receive the degree directly after the offer? It would save four years.
Ah but there's still a huge inefficiency here! Why bother with the offer? Just let them include their four years of tuition to $65 application fee and make the rest of the application optional. You wouldn't want them to waste all that time writing bullshit essays about their passion for their major if they're not going to study it anyways :)
Supporting a "benign neglect" model of cheating is how you get a very expensive degree mill. The perception of others that your institution is a degree mill both degrades the value of those who already graduated with a degree from there and it devalues the research put out by the staff ("oh, look at this paper that came out of that sham university down the road").
Supporting a "benign neglect" model of cheating is how you get a very expensive degree mill. The perception of others that your institution is a degree mill both degrades the value of those who already graduated with a degree from there and it devalues the research put out by the staff ("oh, look at this paper that came out of that sham university down the road").
It’s a sad reflection of our societies failures to provide higher education as a right. Either way, that doesn’t justify cheating.
You do realize that universities are just businesses?
And that justifies cheating how?
It's clear to me from the writing that empathy was abundant.
Even if you find it demoralizing, the cheating behavior was to basically half-ass the entire course and not try at all. We already have an intellectually lay and pervasive culture of "just tell me the answer."
Even if you find it demoralizing, the cheating behavior was to basically half-ass the entire course and not try at all. We already have an intellectually lay and pervasive culture of "just tell me the answer."
> not having a enough empathy for these students
Are you fucking kidding me? After the absurd lengths he went to to give them chance after chance after they kept cheating, lied to his face about it, possibly threatened each other with violence, and repeatedly plagiarized their apologies for plagiarizing? After all this, you have the gall to claim he doesn't have enough empathy? What does it take, in your view?
Are you fucking kidding me? After the absurd lengths he went to to give them chance after chance after they kept cheating, lied to his face about it, possibly threatened each other with violence, and repeatedly plagiarized their apologies for plagiarizing? After all this, you have the gall to claim he doesn't have enough empathy? What does it take, in your view?
"threats of violence"...........seriously ?? haha
What a terrible piece of advice. If you ignore a problem like this it only gets worse for everyone. The cheaters included, who go through life with that mindset.
The best teachers I had in university were very tough and very strict. They taught me to study harder. They taught me how to learn difficult material. They taught me to understand things at a deep level. They would give 10 minute pop quizzes designed to fail you if you did not know the material (no time to even look up an answer or pass to a friend) ahead of time.
Fail the cheaters. It's for everyone's own good. No one grows up if you never make them.
The best teachers I had in university were very tough and very strict. They taught me to study harder. They taught me how to learn difficult material. They taught me to understand things at a deep level. They would give 10 minute pop quizzes designed to fail you if you did not know the material (no time to even look up an answer or pass to a friend) ahead of time.
Fail the cheaters. It's for everyone's own good. No one grows up if you never make them.
My only critique of the teacher here is not having a enough empathy for these students and spending far more energy trying to catch cheaters than address the fact that these students have gotten a raw deal.
I agree, except that this teacher did have tons of empathy for the students. That's pretty clear from the lengths they went to individualize the repercussions, offer second chances, and so on.
I suspect this teacher has perhaps a bit of fun catching cheaters? I'm not sure. They've written code to detect plagiarism in the past. They use a quiz/exam structure that's ripe for cheating: multiple chances for quiz retakes, long windows for exams, and question re-use between quizzes and exams. They wrote code to archive the chat log daily, identify students, and determine instances of cheating. They gave second chances, creating a new syllabus, after which cheating still occurred. Then they wrote this article.
So I agree - the teacher spent a disproportionate amount of time on the cheaters, which is unfair to the honest students.
Why not use cheat-resistant course material? They were able to restructure the second midterm exam this way - one question at a time, no backtracking, randomized order, and no question re-use. I suppose this is also time sink to combat cheating, but it seems more efficient than spending additional time filing reports and writing chat analysis code and so on.
I agree, except that this teacher did have tons of empathy for the students. That's pretty clear from the lengths they went to individualize the repercussions, offer second chances, and so on.
I suspect this teacher has perhaps a bit of fun catching cheaters? I'm not sure. They've written code to detect plagiarism in the past. They use a quiz/exam structure that's ripe for cheating: multiple chances for quiz retakes, long windows for exams, and question re-use between quizzes and exams. They wrote code to archive the chat log daily, identify students, and determine instances of cheating. They gave second chances, creating a new syllabus, after which cheating still occurred. Then they wrote this article.
So I agree - the teacher spent a disproportionate amount of time on the cheaters, which is unfair to the honest students.
Why not use cheat-resistant course material? They were able to restructure the second midterm exam this way - one question at a time, no backtracking, randomized order, and no question re-use. I suppose this is also time sink to combat cheating, but it seems more efficient than spending additional time filing reports and writing chat analysis code and so on.
you're radicalized against the system
the system is not rigged, going to college at all is a privilege that many don't get
i can't imagine trying to justify cheating with this logic while simultaneously there are more honorable people scavenging their lunch from the trash
i get it though, online school that resulted from covid is some of the worst instruction. fortunately that's coming to an end
the system is not rigged, going to college at all is a privilege that many don't get
i can't imagine trying to justify cheating with this logic while simultaneously there are more honorable people scavenging their lunch from the trash
i get it though, online school that resulted from covid is some of the worst instruction. fortunately that's coming to an end
I’m went to school at a time where everything was curved.
In that environment, you had to fight for every GPA point and were at a disadvantage of you were a stickler for academic integrity. In a 500 person lecture, ~25 were getting a 4. It’s easy to be on a high horse at an Ivy school, where people who don’t show get gentleman’s Cs and the average GPA is like a 3.6.
Obviously this situation in the article wasn’t that. But I think the professor did a good job of empathizing with the students and accepting that there are varying types of motivations.
In that environment, you had to fight for every GPA point and were at a disadvantage of you were a stickler for academic integrity. In a 500 person lecture, ~25 were getting a 4. It’s easy to be on a high horse at an Ivy school, where people who don’t show get gentleman’s Cs and the average GPA is like a 3.6.
Obviously this situation in the article wasn’t that. But I think the professor did a good job of empathizing with the students and accepting that there are varying types of motivations.
The price of tuition, the necessity of loans, large student/teacher ratios …
Increase the price, decrease the cost, and also the balance of power is against the student.
That looks rigged to me.
Increase the price, decrease the cost, and also the balance of power is against the student.
That looks rigged to me.
it's not rigged for a simple reason: you don't have to go
Indeed. But that’s not how it’s presented to high schoolers. Parents, secondary school administrators, and post-secondary school employees are all complicit.
[deleted]
You don't have to pay rent either.
The teacher in this case gave them plenty of opportunities for learning engagement and redemption.
There is absolutely shame in cheating, you just don’t feel any. Not the same thing.
There's shame in not cheating. Makes you a loser tbh. Why would you not use every resource available?
when businesses do it, it's called delegation, efficiency, or collaboration, but when students do it, it's called cheating. it's unfair in that sense.
I'm curious what you call it when, say a car company programs their vehicles to notice when they are on an emission test stand and will operate differently to get the best test result possible. Because regulators call it cheating and society as a whole suffers from it.
maybe the regulation or test is not necessary?
Except society as a whole has deemed it necessary for lots of reasons. Even strict libertarians tend to think one of the better roles of government is to regulate negative externalities.
has society also deemed it necessary that all undergrads must take anthropology? I was not aware that this was put to a vote.
Depends. If the hiring group has said, for example, you need an ABET degree to be qualified and ABET has said an anthropology course was part of the required curriculum, then yes.
In other words, groups (society and otherwise) have created standardized curriculums for a reason. You may not agree with their decision, but the reasonable response is to remove yourself from consideration, not to lie in order to get the outcome you want.
In other words, groups (society and otherwise) have created standardized curriculums for a reason. You may not agree with their decision, but the reasonable response is to remove yourself from consideration, not to lie in order to get the outcome you want.
This has nothing to do with fairness. It has everything to do with integrity. You justifying these actions is part of the problem. This is the attitude that these businesses you are accusing take themselves. "Others are doing it so why shouldn't I?" It is a direct lead to societal decay.
The justification here, is that focusing on individuals does not solve the problem, and instead only helps you feel better about yourself by how evil you think other people are.
Instead of focusing on why you think other people are more evil than you are, instead people should focus on ways to actually solve the problem, instead of satisfying their internal need for moralization.
Instead of focusing on why you think other people are more evil than you are, instead people should focus on ways to actually solve the problem, instead of satisfying their internal need for moralization.
This is a preposterous comparison of apples to oranges.
Hello! What do you think you're doing? Only me and Garth get to talk to the camera.
How's the saying go? If you find 10 cheaters, that's their problem. If you find 100 cheaters, that's your problem.
Or the California driver thinking of "if we're all speeding, they can't ticket all of us."
Also some interesting practical game theory lessons in here.
Or the California driver thinking of "if we're all speeding, they can't ticket all of us."
Also some interesting practical game theory lessons in here.
Not speaking to how to address cheating, but I found this interesting:
> The content can be things like my old exams that someone uploaded without my permission
But later...
> And, sometimes as a professor who has access to online plagiarism tools like turnitin or safe-assign, you just want better tools.
So students submitting "your" content (it was produced as part of employment, so it's almost certainly not actually his, and it was arguably licensed to students by the university) is bad, but submitting their content to a service that retains a copy and profits off it isn't?
> The content can be things like my old exams that someone uploaded without my permission
But later...
> And, sometimes as a professor who has access to online plagiarism tools like turnitin or safe-assign, you just want better tools.
So students submitting "your" content (it was produced as part of employment, so it's almost certainly not actually his, and it was arguably licensed to students by the university) is bad, but submitting their content to a service that retains a copy and profits off it isn't?
These are tools for teachers to catch plagiarism. He is saying he wants better tools to detect plagiarism because these don’t handle similarity matches well.
My point was that he griped about students posting old exams, but had no problem with schools sharing students' work with plagiarism detection services. He didn't even recognize how it could be a problem.
Well, it was long enough without that tangent. But what he did say was he writes his own plagiarism detection tools. He certainly wasn’t praising those services.
This was one of the reasons why the use of such tools was strictly prohibited at my former university.
Another argument given was: even if you only have to *think* about using such a tool you are already in a situation where good scientific practices is no longer guaranteed. In other words: if you/the students would have followed all rules of good scientific practise right from the beginning, you would never need to use such a tool. But I guess if you are the developer of such a tool or work in that area of research, you probably see things differently...
Also; how many different ways are there to explain rules on scientific practices within 150 word? How much similarities would you expect from O(100) different students - even if they write independently? - I'm not sure if that is taken into account in such tools. On a different scale: when piping e.g. a typical PhD thesis though such a tool, the first introductory paragraphs will always have red flags (simply because that topic was already introduced 10000 times and everyone read more or less the same introductory textbooks). The important part - the main part of the thesis - of course should be unique (but if the supervisor/examist/committee is not able to "detect" this in their own, well...). Of course literally copy&paste an introduction is still not okay. But -as the blogger also said- this can easily detected by issuing a simple yawhoogle search in case the text already reads suspicious (e.g. if the style of writing varies a lot between paragraphs etc).
So yes, I'd agree that the use of such tools is relatively limited when it comes to "real" scientific works but in this particular case it was quite neat to see how easily you can use it to atomatise the collection of evidences if you have a large class of students...
Another argument given was: even if you only have to *think* about using such a tool you are already in a situation where good scientific practices is no longer guaranteed. In other words: if you/the students would have followed all rules of good scientific practise right from the beginning, you would never need to use such a tool. But I guess if you are the developer of such a tool or work in that area of research, you probably see things differently...
Also; how many different ways are there to explain rules on scientific practices within 150 word? How much similarities would you expect from O(100) different students - even if they write independently? - I'm not sure if that is taken into account in such tools. On a different scale: when piping e.g. a typical PhD thesis though such a tool, the first introductory paragraphs will always have red flags (simply because that topic was already introduced 10000 times and everyone read more or less the same introductory textbooks). The important part - the main part of the thesis - of course should be unique (but if the supervisor/examist/committee is not able to "detect" this in their own, well...). Of course literally copy&paste an introduction is still not okay. But -as the blogger also said- this can easily detected by issuing a simple yawhoogle search in case the text already reads suspicious (e.g. if the style of writing varies a lot between paragraphs etc).
So yes, I'd agree that the use of such tools is relatively limited when it comes to "real" scientific works but in this particular case it was quite neat to see how easily you can use it to atomatise the collection of evidences if you have a large class of students...
Faculty likely still owns copyright (or the school does) for teaching materials.
Fair use covers the school's use of students work. Submission to such services might also be construed as fair use. It seems to have been litigated as such already:
https://www.eschoolnews.com/2008/04/17/judge-turnitin-com-do...
Fair use covers the school's use of students work. Submission to such services might also be construed as fair use. It seems to have been litigated as such already:
https://www.eschoolnews.com/2008/04/17/judge-turnitin-com-do...
> or the school does
The school almost certainly does.
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf
Tests are explicitly mentioned in the list of works make for hire, but it's also within the scope of employment, so it's double counted.
> If a work is made for hire, the employer...is the initial owner of the copyright unless both parties involved have signed a written agreement to the contrary.
The school almost certainly does.
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf
Tests are explicitly mentioned in the list of works make for hire, but it's also within the scope of employment, so it's double counted.
> If a work is made for hire, the employer...is the initial owner of the copyright unless both parties involved have signed a written agreement to the contrary.
I'm a undergraduate student in California and I've had the opportunity to be a grader for a quarter. While I did not enjoy the work, it really changed the way I looked at classes. I was not in charge of finding or reporting cheating, but I still did see a decent amount of it. The most interesting instance I saw, while not technically considered academic dishonesty under our policy, was a group of students who cited each other's work in the class. Sometimes it would be the same assignment where students would cite specific line numbers in other students work. Our policy for this was supposed to be to give students zero on the assignment for turning in work that was not theirs but not to report them because it was not a violation under the universities policy. I notified a TA in a better position to deal with it, but I think it might have been to late in the quarter to do anything and they never got back to me about it.
It strikes me as odd that the very qualities that we value in engineers (efficiency, outside the box thinking, finding solutions that make the most of the constraints of existing systems) are the ones we detest in engineering students. This is even more true for jobs that are meant to exploit inefficiencies in existing systems, such as entrepreneurs.
If you're using that as an argument for why cheating should be allowed, you're missing the key part of what what education is supposed to be about: understanding the fundamentals well enough that you can think of of the box and find solutions without relying on someone to always be there.
Would you really want to work with a software developer who doesn't understand how functions, loops, etc work?
Would you really want to work with a software developer who doesn't understand how functions, loops, etc work?
I have, it was pretty awful. At one stage I did a 3-4 week mad panic crunch to fix a system where he managed to hide the problems until it was almost too late. He was the "reverse talent" sort of person, prone to coming up with insane solutions that took more effort to unwind than it would have taken to write it in the first place. But only 20% of the time, so we'd often be left with 80% usable-but-bad code, and 20% WTF code. The crunch was me re-writing everything except the user interface.
Apart from that one incident when I copped it, mostly I felt bad for my team leader who had to babysit the guy all day every day. After the incident above it was changed from "supervise experienced guy" to "babysit".
That company really struggled because they were using a niche language to solve a very niche problem. It was the right language for the problem, but it was very hard to find developers who had used it, let alone who were good at it to the point of being useful in their first year with us. So throwing out Captain Useless took a couple of years.
Apart from that one incident when I copped it, mostly I felt bad for my team leader who had to babysit the guy all day every day. After the incident above it was changed from "supervise experienced guy" to "babysit".
That company really struggled because they were using a niche language to solve a very niche problem. It was the right language for the problem, but it was very hard to find developers who had used it, let alone who were good at it to the point of being useful in their first year with us. So throwing out Captain Useless took a couple of years.
It's not the only quality we value. We also want people to be able to learn new things, and be hardworking when needed. I'd personally prefer bridges in the future not being built out of paper-mache just because it was easier than using concrete.
When you cheat in school...
...you cheat yourself out of an education - the opportunity to learn from and join a community of true experts.
...you cheat the society in which you live that created and supported you then provided you an educational opportunity.
...it's a pretty big middle finger to every student who didn't get the spot you did.
Probably the solution is to avoid the gatekeeping role degrees have played. Perhaps even to recognize and harness the positive aspects of the collaborative and knowledge sharing behaviors that can also serve you and the society you live in.
...you cheat yourself out of an education - the opportunity to learn from and join a community of true experts.
...you cheat the society in which you live that created and supported you then provided you an educational opportunity.
...it's a pretty big middle finger to every student who didn't get the spot you did.
Probably the solution is to avoid the gatekeeping role degrees have played. Perhaps even to recognize and harness the positive aspects of the collaborative and knowledge sharing behaviors that can also serve you and the society you live in.
I've read the entire article. The cheating was rampant. This part, however, jumped out at me:
> At my most mystified, I proceeded to release a class announcement warning students not to plagiarize the academic integrity assignment.
To cheat on the very assignment that is giving you a second chance is ... stupid and/or brazen and/or pitiful.
So, why warn the students again? This was their second chance, right?
I'm open to many reasonable definitions of justice, ethics, and fairness. However, at that point, given the context, reporting the offending students seems the most just thing to do.
> At my most mystified, I proceeded to release a class announcement warning students not to plagiarize the academic integrity assignment.
To cheat on the very assignment that is giving you a second chance is ... stupid and/or brazen and/or pitiful.
So, why warn the students again? This was their second chance, right?
I'm open to many reasonable definitions of justice, ethics, and fairness. However, at that point, given the context, reporting the offending students seems the most just thing to do.
You're right.
I am curious though what the frame of reference is for someone who cheats on the assignment where they promise not to cheat.
Perhaps there are people who make it through life with a sense of learned helplessness or even possibly a cultural mandate - basically, something that represents a higher authority to that person than the Western standard of justice, ethics and fairness.
I'm fully in favor of true justice, shared ethics and fair and compassionate treatment - that's a conversation for another time.
If that's not reality for that person, then to have a teacher attempt to engage with them seems more likely to have an impact on their success in a Western society. I'd guess that failing them and possibly expelling them would not.
I'm curious what you think?
I am curious though what the frame of reference is for someone who cheats on the assignment where they promise not to cheat.
Perhaps there are people who make it through life with a sense of learned helplessness or even possibly a cultural mandate - basically, something that represents a higher authority to that person than the Western standard of justice, ethics and fairness.
I'm fully in favor of true justice, shared ethics and fair and compassionate treatment - that's a conversation for another time.
If that's not reality for that person, then to have a teacher attempt to engage with them seems more likely to have an impact on their success in a Western society. I'd guess that failing them and possibly expelling them would not.
I'm curious what you think?
> I am curious though what the frame of reference is for someone who cheats on the assignment where they promise not to cheat.
It seems likely their notion of a promise is non-binding.
P.S. W.R.T. promises and ethics, Kant has an interesting point of view. For example: https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/the...
It seems likely their notion of a promise is non-binding.
P.S. W.R.T. promises and ethics, Kant has an interesting point of view. For example: https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/the...
>It seems likely their notion of a promise is non-binding.
They pledged it
They pledged it
Sure, and people make performative pledges all the time. See EULAs, and any other document which says "sign here to get the thing you actually want".
> If that's not reality for that person, then to have a teacher attempt to engage with them seems more likely to have an impact on their success in a Western society. I'd guess that failing them and possibly expelling them would not.
An excellent point.
An excellent point.
And that assignment was only 150 words!
As i was reading this, i kinda thought, the teacher could have jumped in sooner? As they waited longer and longer, more students would see the cheaters getting away with it, it would be harder not to join in.
They’re chastising the students for not reporting it, but then, it seemed to take a while for the teacher to do it as well
They’re chastising the students for not reporting it, but then, it seemed to take a while for the teacher to do it as well
You have to be certain beyond any reasonable doubt for each case of cheating. It takes a ridiculous amount of time to document that.
My experience seems to resonate with a good amount of ppl here. I graduated from a very average university and my grades were a roller-coaster, I tend to prefer learning in depth topics that I'm interested into rather than study for exam and that led me to difficult times. I went to a more prestigious university for exchange and to my surprise students were not better in in-depth understanding but even more exam-smart...
One thing I've ended thinking is that University is just not good for learning in-depth (at least my field of computer engineering) I'm way better at that on my own, what it was good at tho is helping me building a map of knowledge of concepts I was not aware of, I'm thankful I discovered ML in a class which then became my passion and career.
One thing I've ended thinking is that University is just not good for learning in-depth (at least my field of computer engineering) I'm way better at that on my own, what it was good at tho is helping me building a map of knowledge of concepts I was not aware of, I'm thankful I discovered ML in a class which then became my passion and career.
As someone who went to a mid-tier state university for computer engineering in undergrad, I kinda disagree. The classes were not going to push into great depth on the topics. But there was plenty of opportunity to push myself beyond the classes, like doing independent study or research with professors.
During my undergrad comp physics days we had to print out our code when handing in assignments. It was possible to grab a printout and photocopy it. I was fairly well known for my crass wit and I got an email from the head of comp labs informing me that two identical pieces of code had been handed in… but due to the numerous occurrences of the word “boned” in the error messages, he assumed the original was mine.
shrug perverse incentives. For a lot of college students, the actual learning or lack thereof, while still important, does not affect them directly. But getting a bad grade does. Drop in average grade might affect their scholarships, various arrangements with their families and possibly future employment prospects. So while not learning the material properly is bad in a somewhat abstract and theoretical way, getting a bad grade might have a very practical adverse effect. And I am not even going to mention the social stigma of getting bad grades.
So yeah, getting a good grade is more important than actually learning and let's be honest, cheating is a more energy efficient way of getting good grades.
So yeah, getting a good grade is more important than actually learning and let's be honest, cheating is a more energy efficient way of getting good grades.
> cheating is a more energy efficient way of getting good grades.
Well, except for the fact that to cheat is to engage in an arms race with an agent who is incentivized to ruin your career if you are discovered cheating.
For someone with my personality type and abilities, the above adds a significant cognitive load that makes just plain studying a lot more energy efficient than cheating. I'm sure it's different for people with different personalities and abilities.
Well, except for the fact that to cheat is to engage in an arms race with an agent who is incentivized to ruin your career if you are discovered cheating.
For someone with my personality type and abilities, the above adds a significant cognitive load that makes just plain studying a lot more energy efficient than cheating. I'm sure it's different for people with different personalities and abilities.
In my country these are the two main challenges students face:
- Storing and retrieving information (memorization). A process that is exhausting for the human brain but a database does effortlessly.
- Heavy computation, such as solving a difficult equation for a variable. Again something that is taxing for the human brain. A machine cannot always do it effortlessly but it will help in most cases.
Whenever I've observed cheating it's been because students had to solve problems in a human-unfriendly way, and education (lessons, problem sets) was subpar.
Honestly the industry is so different to school that it sometimes makes me think if higher education -as we understand it today- makes sense for people who don't want to become researchers.
- Storing and retrieving information (memorization). A process that is exhausting for the human brain but a database does effortlessly.
- Heavy computation, such as solving a difficult equation for a variable. Again something that is taxing for the human brain. A machine cannot always do it effortlessly but it will help in most cases.
Whenever I've observed cheating it's been because students had to solve problems in a human-unfriendly way, and education (lessons, problem sets) was subpar.
Honestly the industry is so different to school that it sometimes makes me think if higher education -as we understand it today- makes sense for people who don't want to become researchers.
I could also talk a lot like this how my students tried to cheat, and how I detected it. 20 years ago.
I had to write special programs to detect written cheats. The online cheating during the written exam was easy to detect, the offline not so. But having written this program helped a lot, and I told nobody the details.
In the end the cheaters were the minority. But if you allow it to spread, 90% will start cheating. The broken windows theory.
PS: And I still talk a lot to my professor colleagues, who are still teaching at university. They told me that COVID was a total cheating desaster. Everyone cheated, everyone. It was impossible to do proper exams at the end of the course. They are all extremely frustated.
I had to write special programs to detect written cheats. The online cheating during the written exam was easy to detect, the offline not so. But having written this program helped a lot, and I told nobody the details.
In the end the cheaters were the minority. But if you allow it to spread, 90% will start cheating. The broken windows theory.
PS: And I still talk a lot to my professor colleagues, who are still teaching at university. They told me that COVID was a total cheating desaster. Everyone cheated, everyone. It was impossible to do proper exams at the end of the course. They are all extremely frustated.
Yes COVID online exams were a total disaster. Our institution wanted to keep them this year, but our department pushed back hard for reasons of academic integrity that we needed to move back to in person.
I am a professor too. It has taken me about 15 years to realise that my job is not plagiarism hunting.
My institution has almost no ability to enforce plagiarism rules. Many of my colleagues plagiarise. When I do catch students cheating I have to be sure. I just submit a grade, usually 0, and then it is someone else's job to follow up.
The new generation is particularly sensitive and expects...exceptions. They roll up with parents and lawyers and parents who are lawyers and swing their...suitcases around. We end up giving a second chance or a third.
Luckily, I have only had one major case of plagiarism, the rest have been bad but easily dealt with.
My institution has almost no ability to enforce plagiarism rules. Many of my colleagues plagiarise. When I do catch students cheating I have to be sure. I just submit a grade, usually 0, and then it is someone else's job to follow up.
The new generation is particularly sensitive and expects...exceptions. They roll up with parents and lawyers and parents who are lawyers and swing their...suitcases around. We end up giving a second chance or a third.
Luckily, I have only had one major case of plagiarism, the rest have been bad but easily dealt with.
Lol, you cheat, you fail. Why is this complicated? Prof is far, far too nice.
However, I think students having an obligation to report cheating to the university is ridiculous. Find the cheaters yourself, or give me a bonus to do it for you.
However, I think students having an obligation to report cheating to the university is ridiculous. Find the cheaters yourself, or give me a bonus to do it for you.
As a non-cheater I thought this was hilarious. It could be on tv. I thought the prof handled it very well.
Recently I was invited to a discord for a calculus class. I didn't join. I wonder if cheating was going on.
It makes me sad that so many engineers seem to think cheating is a just and or good solution. Cheating is objectively bad system design (for society, we're designing our society with daily actions every day), as it rewards people without integrity who want the easy way out. Sure, you can blame the system for encouraging incentives that reward cheating, and there are benefits to thinking like a cheater to identify gaps and problems in design, but we only have one life, and one go at growing the society we want to live in.
By cheating, you're voting for a society of scammers, and you think you deserve more than the honest student because you're willing to eat honor instead of preserving it and growing it for future generations.
By cheating, you're voting for a society of scammers, and you think you deserve more than the honest student because you're willing to eat honor instead of preserving it and growing it for future generations.
I'm very jaded. I see students who are experts in cramming a set of material, vomiting out the answers, and doing this repeatedly for every exam. I see other students who are experts in cheating without getting caught. It's hard for me to see a distinction between these two groups in practice since they're both committed to passing the exam rather than learning anything, but one is apparently imbued with honour since they're gamifying the exam within the written rules instead of breaking the rules.
It's not that I like or respect cheaters, it's that I'm just entirely unbothered by them. They're just students taking a high risk strategy and they'll sink or swim and I'm not angry about them or shedding any tears for them. Students who actually focus on trying to learn instead of trying to pass tests are screwed even if there wasn't a single cheater in the classroom. They won't go to the best schools or get the best jobs because they aren't cramming flash cards of likely test answers.
It's not that I like or respect cheaters, it's that I'm just entirely unbothered by them. They're just students taking a high risk strategy and they'll sink or swim and I'm not angry about them or shedding any tears for them. Students who actually focus on trying to learn instead of trying to pass tests are screwed even if there wasn't a single cheater in the classroom. They won't go to the best schools or get the best jobs because they aren't cramming flash cards of likely test answers.
I think we need to stop looking at the students and start looking at the system.
The students are responding to incentives set out by their faculty. If you really want change, you must evaluate alternative incentives.
Personally, I was an honors student until college, and I was often the one in my group of friends to figure out how to solve an exercise, yet I would often get average (or lower) results compared to some of my friends, because some of them were just great at drilling themselves until they could repeat every single style of solution quickly. I admit - that made me a little frustrated at the time, but 10 years later some of those folks that did really well in the exams are not doing as well in their careers because real life requires innovation and deep understanding, not just rapid application of past solutions.
Personally, I was an honors student until college, and I was often the one in my group of friends to figure out how to solve an exercise, yet I would often get average (or lower) results compared to some of my friends, because some of them were just great at drilling themselves until they could repeat every single style of solution quickly. I admit - that made me a little frustrated at the time, but 10 years later some of those folks that did really well in the exams are not doing as well in their careers because real life requires innovation and deep understanding, not just rapid application of past solutions.
> 10 years later some of those folks that did really well in the exams are not doing as well in their careers because real life requires innovation and deep understanding, not just rapid application of past solutions.
I know many highly successful people didn’t go to university and this why is doesn’t matter.
I know many highly successful people didn’t go to university and this why is doesn’t matter.
There are two ways to look at this. One is that those that cram for tests are doing "what the employer requires" and do will make good employees, so the system is working. Those that go this approach probably learn stuff along the way as well.
The group that focuses on pure learning, and engaging with the material, may not end up with the best marks, but they have a deep understanding, and delight in the subject that will serve them very well over their working career.
Equally though, not all courses are equally useful (to one person). I enjoyed oceanography, I went to class, did the work (mostly) and learned something. But I don't like boats (get seasick) so I've never "used" any of that knowledge. Ditto astronomy.
Comp Sci on the other hand consumed all my spare time. We gave ourselves extra tasks, read far beyond the textbook, and pushed the envelope. This would be our career and we were all in. Sometimes test scores suffered (I didn't actually study for tests) but I got a job (one I still have and love) and 30 years later I'm still applying those fundamentals I learned.
Maybe I don't have the highest paying job, but I'm where I was made to fit, and money can't tempt me away.
Those that cheat, well, you can fool some people some of the time, but it's a lot of work. And a career spans a long time.
The group that focuses on pure learning, and engaging with the material, may not end up with the best marks, but they have a deep understanding, and delight in the subject that will serve them very well over their working career.
Equally though, not all courses are equally useful (to one person). I enjoyed oceanography, I went to class, did the work (mostly) and learned something. But I don't like boats (get seasick) so I've never "used" any of that knowledge. Ditto astronomy.
Comp Sci on the other hand consumed all my spare time. We gave ourselves extra tasks, read far beyond the textbook, and pushed the envelope. This would be our career and we were all in. Sometimes test scores suffered (I didn't actually study for tests) but I got a job (one I still have and love) and 30 years later I'm still applying those fundamentals I learned.
Maybe I don't have the highest paying job, but I'm where I was made to fit, and money can't tempt me away.
Those that cheat, well, you can fool some people some of the time, but it's a lot of work. And a career spans a long time.
I remember it being common at my university for fraternities to maintain banks of old tests/quizzes so next year's pledges could cram and vomit more than the permitted amount.
This is like your ML model loading your test set into training without your consent.
This is like your ML model loading your test set into training without your consent.
In my university, we do that all of the time. Of course, professor knows about it and subtly changes the question for the examination.
So as a student, your best option is to actually prepare as many of the questions in the bank of old test so that you're ready for the exam.
So although you somehow cheat, you indeed review the course thoroughly by preparing the questions...
So as a student, your best option is to actually prepare as many of the questions in the bank of old test so that you're ready for the exam.
So although you somehow cheat, you indeed review the course thoroughly by preparing the questions...
Yeah if you're an ML model trying to get the high score on the test set why would you explore the deeper features of the data when you can just overfit and get 100%?
At least in my experience, my professors didn't make the old material available to other students, and neither did the fraternities/sororities.
At least in my experience, my professors didn't make the old material available to other students, and neither did the fraternities/sororities.
Some stuff you just have to drill until it makes sense. Ordinary differential equations was a bit notorious when I studied. Most people took 50-100 hours of drill before they could solve them reasonably competently (enough to get an A). For me it was that and some of the control theory stuff that to this day still seems like a dark art.
Other stuff once you understand it the exams are straightforward, if tedious. Antenna design was like that for me, I'd solve it geometrically in my head then work out which transforms and equations matched my solution. Other people just ground that stuff out along with all the rest. I hope no-one was twisted enough that ODE's made sense...
Other stuff once you understand it the exams are straightforward, if tedious. Antenna design was like that for me, I'd solve it geometrically in my head then work out which transforms and equations matched my solution. Other people just ground that stuff out along with all the rest. I hope no-one was twisted enough that ODE's made sense...
> They won't go to the best schools or get the best jobs because they aren't cramming flash cards of likely test answers.
Can you clarify what you meant by this? As it stands it sort of reads like you claiming actually smart people don't get into the best schools - which is absurd.
Can you clarify what you meant by this? As it stands it sort of reads like you claiming actually smart people don't get into the best schools - which is absurd.
I always tried to understand things. Craming was a last resort, when that didn't work. I find learning things I don't understand or have a mental representation for extremely boring and an utter waste of time and energy.
Are you labouring under the illusion that the learning was singsong to do with enhancing rather than retarding the individual? Did you believe the purported reasons for the education systems being as they are?
No, educating people is about the governance structure de-individualising people making them all think its a similar way that both fosters uncritical love on the system as well as dependence.
No, educating people is about the governance structure de-individualising people making them all think its a similar way that both fosters uncritical love on the system as well as dependence.
I don't think people are defending cheating. People are saying that what in the normal world goes under "desirable cooperation" is called "cheating" in school, and for as long as that is the case, students who exhibit normally desirable cooperative behaviour will be called "cheaters" and that's not a reasonable thing to do to them.
Sure, but at some point you have to actually learn skills yourself and stop relying on others. And that point is high school.
These are people who will eventually go into the workforce, into jobs that have certain expectations of individual knowlege and ability. You can't just coast forever on the people around you.
These are people who will eventually go into the workforce, into jobs that have certain expectations of individual knowlege and ability. You can't just coast forever on the people around you.
And there are ways to engage students in learning. In fact, my experience humans basically come out of the womb with a burning desire to learn.
It's just that when you throw at them the 57th of the same exercise with some words swapped out, that desire is extinguished a little.
Humans do something amazing in response: they cooperate to reduce the damage done by the 58th such exercise.
Give them more interesting things to do and they will cooperate in more productive ways too!
----
I also disagree that you have to learn everything for yourself and stop relying on others. Granted, I only have a decade or so of full-time work behind me so far, but in all of it, I have been as productive as I have been thanks to the ability to rely on others.
I don't know how to pave roads, yet I rely on roads paved by others to even get into work. Well there, I don't know how to build refrigerators, but I trust it to keep my lunch safe. Even in performing my actual job, I'm not the sharpest at economics, so I often cross-check my reasoning with other people before going on to spend time on things.
I would be stuck in a cave looking for berries if I didn't rely on other people for skills I don't have, every second of the day.
Humans are built to survive by offloading work on each other.
It's just that when you throw at them the 57th of the same exercise with some words swapped out, that desire is extinguished a little.
Humans do something amazing in response: they cooperate to reduce the damage done by the 58th such exercise.
Give them more interesting things to do and they will cooperate in more productive ways too!
----
I also disagree that you have to learn everything for yourself and stop relying on others. Granted, I only have a decade or so of full-time work behind me so far, but in all of it, I have been as productive as I have been thanks to the ability to rely on others.
I don't know how to pave roads, yet I rely on roads paved by others to even get into work. Well there, I don't know how to build refrigerators, but I trust it to keep my lunch safe. Even in performing my actual job, I'm not the sharpest at economics, so I often cross-check my reasoning with other people before going on to spend time on things.
I would be stuck in a cave looking for berries if I didn't rely on other people for skills I don't have, every second of the day.
Humans are built to survive by offloading work on each other.
> cooperate to reduce the damage done by the 58th such exercise.
This is laughably naive. Most of the cheaters I dealt with in my courses were masters students who had zero interest in learning. They were paying for the M.S. on their resume for job prospects or for visa reasons.
You’re right that some students will cheat on rote stuff because they just get bored. Where you’re wrong is thinking that’s the majority of the issue. Huge chunks of students are in college for entirely the wrong reasons.
This is laughably naive. Most of the cheaters I dealt with in my courses were masters students who had zero interest in learning. They were paying for the M.S. on their resume for job prospects or for visa reasons.
You’re right that some students will cheat on rote stuff because they just get bored. Where you’re wrong is thinking that’s the majority of the issue. Huge chunks of students are in college for entirely the wrong reasons.
Curious would you go to a surgeon who said he has his friend do all his brain surgeries? His friend might be out of town when yours is scheduled.
Of course we rely on others for stuff. But you don’t take a math class to simply say “I’ll just skip the classes and have my neighbor take my tests. My goal is to learn as little as possible.” Why even take the class then?
Of course we rely on others for stuff. But you don’t take a math class to simply say “I’ll just skip the classes and have my neighbor take my tests. My goal is to learn as little as possible.” Why even take the class then?
I'd much, much rather have the surgeon who asks a colleague for a second opinion when they are unsure, rather than just going ahead on the wrong assumption because "otherwise I would be cheating".
In fact, the medical profession has practically adopted cheating as a formal practise: they call it grand rounds and it consists of sharing "answers to exam questions" (outcome of patient care) with their colleagues, so they don't have to go through the effort of discovering them on their own.
In fact, the medical profession has practically adopted cheating as a formal practise: they call it grand rounds and it consists of sharing "answers to exam questions" (outcome of patient care) with their colleagues, so they don't have to go through the effort of discovering them on their own.
In this case, the surgeon isn’t conferring with a colleague; the surgeon is wholly unable to perform the operation. Collaboration is not cheating. A WhatsApp group used to collaborate on simple assignments or complicated projects is one thing, wholesale copying multiple choice answers or plagiarizing whole essays or projects is something completely different.
Even so, if my surgeon for whatever reason signed up to do an operation they are unable to perform, I would rather they ask their colleague to step in than charge ahead to avoid accusations of cheating.
I suspect you aren't trying to argue about this situation, though.
I think you're asking about comparing the performance of the student who does know the material well, and the student who needs assistance with it. The answer is not to forbid assistance, it's to design tests where assistance becomes obvious.
I suspect you aren't trying to argue about this situation, though.
I think you're asking about comparing the performance of the student who does know the material well, and the student who needs assistance with it. The answer is not to forbid assistance, it's to design tests where assistance becomes obvious.
edit: looking back at the thread here, I see now that we're arguing over semantics I think. To me, "relying on someone" means that they are incapable of doing it themselves. It seems your definition of "relying on someone" means to get help from someone. If so, I agree, if someone needs to get help from others that's fine. If they are completely dependent on the other person being there (my definition of "rely on"), then the surgeon is incapable of doing the surgery if their friend isn't there.
This thread is about engineers not surgeons. And it happens all the time when an engineer does not feel competent for certain problem, they ask friends for help. Would you ban such practice or what?
I sure as fuck wouldn’t want an engineer responsible for anything important if they cheated. The problem with engineering is that if you cheated through the fundamentals, you won’t even recognize when to ask for help. You’ll just build build something shitty or (depending on the field) sign off on something that puts people’s lives at risk because you missed fundamental flaws.
> Sure, but at some point you have to actually learn skills yourself and stop relying on others. And that point is high school.
Pretty sure stack overflow would be out of a use case if that was true.
The real answer is that in the real world people pay you to provide value. If what you are doing can be replaced by a google search, the value you are providing is nill, and you are probably making min wage. Real jobs are not contrived, and thus can't be cheated on in the same way. Sure you might have to look things up, but that's not the part they are paying you for (unlike in many exam settings)
Pretty sure stack overflow would be out of a use case if that was true.
The real answer is that in the real world people pay you to provide value. If what you are doing can be replaced by a google search, the value you are providing is nill, and you are probably making min wage. Real jobs are not contrived, and thus can't be cheated on in the same way. Sure you might have to look things up, but that's not the part they are paying you for (unlike in many exam settings)
I'm not saying you can be a moron, or have no understanding at all, but Google and stack overflow are tools that more people (engineers) should learn how to use.
I learnt to program using books (pascal, c, c++ etc) and that was slow. When I learned JavaScript every question was seconds from a clear answer. That's a MUCH faster way of doing things, and I for one am a fan.
Mind you that's all just syntax. Analytical thinking, data structures, program logic (ie, how to actually program) we're laid down in a CS degree 30 years ago. So it helps if the foundation is there.
I learnt to program using books (pascal, c, c++ etc) and that was slow. When I learned JavaScript every question was seconds from a clear answer. That's a MUCH faster way of doing things, and I for one am a fan.
Mind you that's all just syntax. Analytical thinking, data structures, program logic (ie, how to actually program) we're laid down in a CS degree 30 years ago. So it helps if the foundation is there.
"you have to actually learn skills yourself and stop relying on others"
This isn't either-or, unless you have a very specific job where you only do the same thing again and again until retirement. There are people who do specialize like that (e.g. developers of compilers or kernels), but most of us aren't them.
My experience says that the best programmers with the best skills are precisely the ones that the boss will take aside one day and say "Hey, Bob, we are about to tackle a really complicated problem and you are the best fit."
At which point, you are back to "relying on others", because your skills need updating and it will be the others you are going to learn from. It is a cycle, not a straightforward journey upwards on some kind of skill ladder.
This isn't either-or, unless you have a very specific job where you only do the same thing again and again until retirement. There are people who do specialize like that (e.g. developers of compilers or kernels), but most of us aren't them.
My experience says that the best programmers with the best skills are precisely the ones that the boss will take aside one day and say "Hey, Bob, we are about to tackle a really complicated problem and you are the best fit."
At which point, you are back to "relying on others", because your skills need updating and it will be the others you are going to learn from. It is a cycle, not a straightforward journey upwards on some kind of skill ladder.
Sure, but at some point you have to actually learn skills yourself and stop relying on others. And that point is high school.
Companies would fail if everyone worked in isolation.
Companies would fail if everyone worked in isolation.
>You can't just coast forever on the people around you. //
I mean to need some skills, and the right birthright in general, but this is exactly what Capitalism is and the wealthy ruling classes seem to be doing excessively well at it. In the UK, some of the over-class have collectively banked £billions from government reserves -- under the guise of providing PPE -- for doing nothing more than knowing the right people and being prepared to cheat (ie be criminally corrupt).
Those involved, if they manage things well, could have a dynasty of extraordinarily wealthy offspring that going forward are likely to have the power to spread immeasurably more corruption.
I mean to need some skills, and the right birthright in general, but this is exactly what Capitalism is and the wealthy ruling classes seem to be doing excessively well at it. In the UK, some of the over-class have collectively banked £billions from government reserves -- under the guise of providing PPE -- for doing nothing more than knowing the right people and being prepared to cheat (ie be criminally corrupt).
Those involved, if they manage things well, could have a dynasty of extraordinarily wealthy offspring that going forward are likely to have the power to spread immeasurably more corruption.
I disagree, much of the cheating is not "desirable cooperation", but blatant copy pasting.
I guess it's no wonder that there are so many bits of open source code or stack overflow answers copied into proprietary (and sometimes open source) codebases. A significant fraction of engineers seems to think that ethical standards don't apply to them and in my experience the percentage is higher than in other technical areas (lawyers are much worse still in my experience, but that's a different story).
In chinese, copying and learning are the same word.
Also, "cheating" may be viewed as "not re-inventing the wheel" (someone already made the proof for this theorem, just copy paste it from your smartphone), "not doing the same work twice" (your neigboor just solved the equation, why re-solve it ? ), and "using the fastest, most reliable solution" (your neigboor is better than you in Maths, just take his answers). This is similar to taking a library (ex : deep-equal) or framework (nextjs) or service (carrds, netlify) instead of doing it yourselves.
I agree that, the issue is mostly not the student but the school (and society):
1. Does the student really need to remember historical dates, or Maths equations, when nowadays he can just google them in 10sec ? (Aka : unnecessary use of memory)
2. Does the student really need to understand the notion by himselves ? For example, I don't know how to use quaternion myself, buy I know how to work with, in Unity. I also don't care about Pythagore theorem proof, I know it works, that's all I need (all Maths lover will condemn me).
The thing is that we believe that school focus on teaching. They don't. They are called schools, but behave a lot more like evaluation (grading) centers. And mostly evaluate (grade) memorization and servitude btw, not actual understanding.
To be clear, evaluation (grading) is what you in job interview and for pilot, to make sure he knows how to fly the plane.
Is evaluation a part of learning ? It is. But not the same type of evaluation.
"I am able to make a small game like ping pong from scratch ?" - evaluate yourselves, test your skills. If you have success, it means learning phase is completed.
When evaluation is part of learning: - You do it for yourselves, not for someone or something else (employer, school, teacher, parents, certification organism). That is called intresic motivation (vs extrinsic). - There may be or not be grading, but only you care about grading.
The employer doesn't care about how you grade to the tests he send to you, what he care about is that you've got the skills he need. And grading is just a means for that.
Everything the school does should be a means for making someone a good person for the society, a happy person, a person that can contribute to the society (a phrasing more large than employable).
What I have seen in my scolarity, is students and teacher focused on "passing exams", "getting good grades". But completly forgetting exams and grading "means to".
In a pure teaching environnement, grades and exams only purpose is to give a learning status indication to the student.
In school (in France national education), they also serve to give you right/priority on school entrances. And serve as social status indicator (the dumbs and the smarts).
Cheating in a pure learning environnement make no sense. If students cheat, it means your environnment contains more than just learning.
When you create extrinsic motivation (carrot and stick), it override intrinsic motivation. And you end up with student doing the homework ONLY if it is graded (carrot) or if not doing it is punishable (stick). And not because it give them a learning opportunity.
Schools (I am still referring to France national education) believe that humans dislike learning. This is false. Babies loves learning. School is teaching us that learning should be hard and painful.
If you do teaching, you don't need a carrot or a stick, because authentic learning is fun by itselves !
(I don't want to make this text longer, but this make me question if schools are just doing big mistakes, or if they have been designed in a way that favour something else than learning (eq : have there been malicious intention ?)).
Also, "cheating" may be viewed as "not re-inventing the wheel" (someone already made the proof for this theorem, just copy paste it from your smartphone), "not doing the same work twice" (your neigboor just solved the equation, why re-solve it ? ), and "using the fastest, most reliable solution" (your neigboor is better than you in Maths, just take his answers). This is similar to taking a library (ex : deep-equal) or framework (nextjs) or service (carrds, netlify) instead of doing it yourselves.
I agree that, the issue is mostly not the student but the school (and society):
1. Does the student really need to remember historical dates, or Maths equations, when nowadays he can just google them in 10sec ? (Aka : unnecessary use of memory)
2. Does the student really need to understand the notion by himselves ? For example, I don't know how to use quaternion myself, buy I know how to work with, in Unity. I also don't care about Pythagore theorem proof, I know it works, that's all I need (all Maths lover will condemn me).
The thing is that we believe that school focus on teaching. They don't. They are called schools, but behave a lot more like evaluation (grading) centers. And mostly evaluate (grade) memorization and servitude btw, not actual understanding.
To be clear, evaluation (grading) is what you in job interview and for pilot, to make sure he knows how to fly the plane.
Is evaluation a part of learning ? It is. But not the same type of evaluation.
"I am able to make a small game like ping pong from scratch ?" - evaluate yourselves, test your skills. If you have success, it means learning phase is completed.
When evaluation is part of learning: - You do it for yourselves, not for someone or something else (employer, school, teacher, parents, certification organism). That is called intresic motivation (vs extrinsic). - There may be or not be grading, but only you care about grading.
The employer doesn't care about how you grade to the tests he send to you, what he care about is that you've got the skills he need. And grading is just a means for that.
Everything the school does should be a means for making someone a good person for the society, a happy person, a person that can contribute to the society (a phrasing more large than employable).
What I have seen in my scolarity, is students and teacher focused on "passing exams", "getting good grades". But completly forgetting exams and grading "means to".
In a pure teaching environnement, grades and exams only purpose is to give a learning status indication to the student.
In school (in France national education), they also serve to give you right/priority on school entrances. And serve as social status indicator (the dumbs and the smarts).
Cheating in a pure learning environnement make no sense. If students cheat, it means your environnment contains more than just learning.
When you create extrinsic motivation (carrot and stick), it override intrinsic motivation. And you end up with student doing the homework ONLY if it is graded (carrot) or if not doing it is punishable (stick). And not because it give them a learning opportunity.
Schools (I am still referring to France national education) believe that humans dislike learning. This is false. Babies loves learning. School is teaching us that learning should be hard and painful.
If you do teaching, you don't need a carrot or a stick, because authentic learning is fun by itselves !
(I don't want to make this text longer, but this make me question if schools are just doing big mistakes, or if they have been designed in a way that favour something else than learning (eq : have there been malicious intention ?)).
An answer I gave to a different post addresses some of your comments. You are correct teachers (and schools) serve two (or even more) purposes. It is to teach someone how to do things, i.e. the teacher role and they serve as gatekeepers, i.e. make sure that they know enough to get this qualification.
I also agree with you that in an ideal world we would not need the gatekeeper role and tests would only help the students on how far along their learning journey they are. However, reality means we do need gatekeeping, we need to test that a student has sufficient knowledge to perform a certain task, because literally lives can depend on it, e.g. we would not let people drive on the roads without an exam or let a doctor operate someone without proven knowledge that they can do it.
Because of the gatekeeping requirements and the interests of students they will optimize for outcomes, that might mean they learn some subjects in depth, but it will also mean they learn some subjects with the bare minimum to pass (and that is fine).
Unfortunately the students who optimize for outcomes generally outweigh the students who want to learn (at least vocally). I think everyone who taught will be able to tell you that students are incredibly conservative towards changes, even if they improve their learning outcomes (give us recipe instructions, not try to get us to figure out things for ourselves), because it might mean more work.
And I agree that ideally (and practically) we should need much less carrot and stick, but saying we will never need them is quite unrealistic IMO.
I also agree with you that in an ideal world we would not need the gatekeeper role and tests would only help the students on how far along their learning journey they are. However, reality means we do need gatekeeping, we need to test that a student has sufficient knowledge to perform a certain task, because literally lives can depend on it, e.g. we would not let people drive on the roads without an exam or let a doctor operate someone without proven knowledge that they can do it.
Because of the gatekeeping requirements and the interests of students they will optimize for outcomes, that might mean they learn some subjects in depth, but it will also mean they learn some subjects with the bare minimum to pass (and that is fine).
Unfortunately the students who optimize for outcomes generally outweigh the students who want to learn (at least vocally). I think everyone who taught will be able to tell you that students are incredibly conservative towards changes, even if they improve their learning outcomes (give us recipe instructions, not try to get us to figure out things for ourselves), because it might mean more work.
And I agree that ideally (and practically) we should need much less carrot and stick, but saying we will never need them is quite unrealistic IMO.
Some say it's only cheating if you get caught.
I think that cheating is wrong, but I also think that building school systems that incentivize students to cheat is even more wrong, because it is a systemic bad decision.
During my schooling years, I observed that people most driven to cheating were the ones who could not absorb enormous amounts of material needed to pass an exam. I never had problems with that, so I wasn't tempted to cheat, but I also noticed that a year later, I barely remembered anything from what I have learnt so painfully to pass.
This isn't a good preparation for a job in modern world, where if you do something, you always have Google (or StackOverflow etc.) at your hand. And people who have a good ability to put 2 and 2 together tend to be more successful at such jobs.
During my schooling years, I observed that people most driven to cheating were the ones who could not absorb enormous amounts of material needed to pass an exam. I never had problems with that, so I wasn't tempted to cheat, but I also noticed that a year later, I barely remembered anything from what I have learnt so painfully to pass.
This isn't a good preparation for a job in modern world, where if you do something, you always have Google (or StackOverflow etc.) at your hand. And people who have a good ability to put 2 and 2 together tend to be more successful at such jobs.
Cheating is related to human problems, and engineers aren’t psychologists. It’s human problems when there is a mismatch between teachers and students, between schools and expectations, and students are at the bottom of the ladder and aren’t in a position to discuss what is demanded.
By cheating, you're voting for a society of scammers, and you think you deserve more than the honest student because you're willing to eat honor instead of preserving it and growing it for future generations.
Scammer implies there is a victim. Who is the mark here? The college that charges huge tuition despite having a huge endowment? The professor who is being paid a salary to tech courses ppl are uninterested in? The employer for requiring degrees for jobs that don't need them? If cheating became so widespread that degrees stopped mattering, employers would have to find other ways.
Scammer implies there is a victim. Who is the mark here? The college that charges huge tuition despite having a huge endowment? The professor who is being paid a salary to tech courses ppl are uninterested in? The employer for requiring degrees for jobs that don't need them? If cheating became so widespread that degrees stopped mattering, employers would have to find other ways.
The victim is the person who did the actual work and has the same credential as the person who did not, as well as the group who is using that credential as a decision filter. By cheating, you distort the information that credential is meant to convey.
if you take pride in doing the work, who cares then if other cheat.
Do you care if someone you enter a transaction with cheats, even if you take pride in your side of the bargain?
Humans (and other primates) have an innate desire for fairness. Ethics helps guide human interactions. If you don’t think interpersonal ethics are important, it’s hard to have a functioning society.
Humans (and other primates) have an innate desire for fairness. Ethics helps guide human interactions. If you don’t think interpersonal ethics are important, it’s hard to have a functioning society.
Students cannot do much on their own about the system of incentives that rewards cheating. You may as well post "By tax-optimizing, you're voting for a society of rent collectors who do no useful work and just understand the tax system better than other people"
If someone realizes that they have become an agent of a much larger system tasked with the grunt work of a harmful and illegitimate process like college education as a career credential, and if that person wants to avoid being evil, they need not lift a finger. It is easier not to do the paperwork than to do it!
If someone realizes that they have become an agent of a much larger system tasked with the grunt work of a harmful and illegitimate process like college education as a career credential, and if that person wants to avoid being evil, they need not lift a finger. It is easier not to do the paperwork than to do it!
If this kind of thinking was prevalent, it might work. It is currently not, and I doubt posting about it will help much. Besides, there are lots of incompetent people who prefer the current dishonesty, so breaking this Nash equilibrium is hard.
Sometimes cheating is a smart way to save some time. Scammers are just the other world, it is like when somebody with too much of spare time goes for hunting. All scammers do cheating but only a minority of cheaters go into scam.
Systems that produce so much cheating, are bad system design.
You're at 'cheating = bad', which is the level of a 5 year old naive little boy.
Try upgrading that system instead of pointing fingers. You only have one life to live and all that.
You're at 'cheating = bad', which is the level of a 5 year old naive little boy.
Try upgrading that system instead of pointing fingers. You only have one life to live and all that.
The problem with cheating is not just "it's not fair". In fact, it takes a whole lot of cheating before that becomes a problem (through diploma inflation). The problem with cheating is that students aren't learning. This sets them up for failure on further classes that build on the current one.
Agreeing to follow specific rules and then silently not following them is lying. Do you consider that to be okay too?
They have a point though. If exam is testing for things that can be looked up easily, what's the point? Test for understanding and make tests individual enough to make mass cheating not feasible.
> Agreeing to follow specific rules and then silently not following them is lying. Do you consider that to be okay too?
Students are hardly in a position where they can express their views freely. Do you consider laying out rules and punishing anyone who voices objections okay too?
Things are never just black and white.
> Agreeing to follow specific rules and then silently not following them is lying. Do you consider that to be okay too?
Students are hardly in a position where they can express their views freely. Do you consider laying out rules and punishing anyone who voices objections okay too?
Things are never just black and white.
Yes.
Read any introduction to moral philosophy for an explanation of why that is.
Read any introduction to moral philosophy for an explanation of why that is.
Agile is cheating
Scrum is a gc (group chat)
Scrum is a gc (group chat)
Professionally we collaborate with our peers to achieve some goal. In school, the goal is individual achievement. If you "collaborate" in this way in school, you absolutely aren't achieving the purpose you are spending so much time and money working towards.
If you get away with cheating it’s not cheating. The real problem is whether it’s worth the risk of getting caught and/or losing an opportunity to learn something which will help you later.
> If you get away with cheating it’s not cheating.
Yes it is? Cheating is cheating. You can get caught cheating, but you're still cheating if you're aren't.
Yes it is? Cheating is cheating. You can get caught cheating, but you're still cheating if you're aren't.
Only to yourself, just to be clear I’m not in favour of cheating but just stating that a fact. Think of a hypothetical situation - you cheated and no one in the world knows and you also donot know, can you really prove cheating happened ?
In real world you have to weigh in the risk of getting caught, but if no one can ever know (very very improbable) you didn’t cheat according to them. And make it even more absurd - after cheating you can cheat again by saying I didn’t cheat.
This is applicable to a lot of things like crime, faking it, copying it, you name it.
In real world you have to weigh in the risk of getting caught, but if no one can ever know (very very improbable) you didn’t cheat according to them. And make it even more absurd - after cheating you can cheat again by saying I didn’t cheat.
This is applicable to a lot of things like crime, faking it, copying it, you name it.
Cheating could grade the honest student below you lower on a curve and deny them employment in a competitive job market. Then there'd be a dishonest person earning more economic influence on the world than an honest one.
Honesty is a very subjective experience, but for this comment I guess you are using honest as a proxy to people who didn’t cheat. Yes cheating does affect a group adversely and that is why institutions invest heavily in making risks not worth it. But my original comment stays, if you get away with cheating you did not cheat unless proven guilty.
No, the real problem is dishonesty and unfairness to your classmates and teacher.
It takes a lot of cheating to harm honest students (unless graded on a curve). The real problem with cheating is that you don't learn.
Cheating is a symptom of something worse. Viewing studies as a means to get a diploma, rather than a means to get an education. This is a deep issue, that stems from things like using the threat of failing a test to get people to engage.
The educational system presents itself as a bunch of hoops to jump through to get a successful life. Parents tend to see it the same way. Society often does aswell. This ruins a lot of the intrinsic value of education.
Cheating is a symptom of something worse. Viewing studies as a means to get a diploma, rather than a means to get an education. This is a deep issue, that stems from things like using the threat of failing a test to get people to engage.
The educational system presents itself as a bunch of hoops to jump through to get a successful life. Parents tend to see it the same way. Society often does aswell. This ruins a lot of the intrinsic value of education.
The problem is, a lot of what you learn in university is shit you won't need for at least half a decade in your actual career and by the time you could need it you'd have forgotten it anyways.
Universities used to be the place where the best brains of the country studied and advanced science itself afterwards. Nowadays, with university r&d budgets slashed and those that remain in r&d being forced to waste half their time chasing grants and another quarter in administrative bullcrap, it's a place to weed out people with adhd or otherwise disadvantaged so employers can pick up the "creme de la creme" without violating a ton of anti discrimination law or the risk of hiring a dud. It's obvious when large companies require a BSc for an accountant or other paper pushers of all things.
Students know this and optimize accordingly - as usual, when something becomes a KPI it becomes useless.
Universities used to be the place where the best brains of the country studied and advanced science itself afterwards. Nowadays, with university r&d budgets slashed and those that remain in r&d being forced to waste half their time chasing grants and another quarter in administrative bullcrap, it's a place to weed out people with adhd or otherwise disadvantaged so employers can pick up the "creme de la creme" without violating a ton of anti discrimination law or the risk of hiring a dud. It's obvious when large companies require a BSc for an accountant or other paper pushers of all things.
Students know this and optimize accordingly - as usual, when something becomes a KPI it becomes useless.
It sounds like we agree that university education has changed for the worse.
[deleted]
> Not everyone in the class cheated. But, everyone who cheated failed miserably. I guess the wisdom of the crowd doesn’t count for much when the crowd didn’t go to class or read the textbook.
That's so much "average college student" it hurts.
And all the quizzes were open book, etc.
> The best advice was a student telling everyone they could just go to the website for the textbook, then control-F in the textbook and search for words in the question to find the answers
That's cringe
Forget about the cheating, I'm angry they can't even cheat properly!
That's so much "average college student" it hurts.
And all the quizzes were open book, etc.
> The best advice was a student telling everyone they could just go to the website for the textbook, then control-F in the textbook and search for words in the question to find the answers
That's cringe
Forget about the cheating, I'm angry they can't even cheat properly!
My opinion is that he failed as a teacher.
I mean, come on, imagine a scenario where class A has a test and class B has the same test a day after. Of course the people in class B will ask the people of class A what was in the test. Of course. That's why everyone is tested at the same time.
I mean, come on, imagine a scenario where class A has a test and class B has the same test a day after. Of course the people in class B will ask the people of class A what was in the test. Of course. That's why everyone is tested at the same time.
In Germany (as far as I know), quizzes and homework are not graded, only some % of them needs to be completed in order for people to be admitted to an exam.
Having a similar system would work well there, if one can make exams (and midterms?) either physical or less susceptible to cheating.
Having a similar system would work well there, if one can make exams (and midterms?) either physical or less susceptible to cheating.
Depends on the university - and course. I‘m currently at TUM (CS) and you don‘t need to submit any homework assignments to be admitted to an exam. Though there are some courses where part of or the complete grade are made up of homework assignments.
Cheating is still a problem nonetheless and from personal experience and being involved with grading seems to have gotten bigger with online examinations (obv), closed or open book.
One interesting approach I saw one course do to handle online exams is to have an unsupervised open book exam with some randomization in the problem statements and then inviting a random subset of students for an oral re-examination. Basically just a 10-20 minute conversation in which you should explain how you went about answering the questions. The idea seems to be to do that often enough and you will find the cheaters who will be unable to explain how they derived their answers. I wonder if that‘s an approach that could work generally and maybe even for homework assignments though the effort becomes quite considerable then.
One interesting approach I saw one course do to handle online exams is to have an unsupervised open book exam with some randomization in the problem statements and then inviting a random subset of students for an oral re-examination. Basically just a 10-20 minute conversation in which you should explain how you went about answering the questions. The idea seems to be to do that often enough and you will find the cheaters who will be unable to explain how they derived their answers. I wonder if that‘s an approach that could work generally and maybe even for homework assignments though the effort becomes quite considerable then.
I'm sure same thing happens (or at least happened) in every other course. I'll go as far as to say that any assignment performed not in controlled environment will mean that student work all available sources, including other students.
One solution is make HW an evidence of effort, not knowledge. That's what happens in many courses in my uni: HW are some 10-30% of final grade and average is very high. Students share their solutions with each other and we are ok with it (well TAs are definitely aware) as soon as it is not copy-paste. It is so common that it is called "reference" solution.
Then there are courses that are hard to evaluate during the exam (e.g., programming ones). It seems that my uni solution is to give assignment so hard it will require understanding even when cheating (unless someone solves it for you of course). There are assignments taking north of 40 hours for top students (from scratch).
My point is that cheating is of course bad. But trying to catch cheaters beyond very obvious ones is just waste of time. Just design your course as cheat-proof as possible: ideally, the student who didn't learn won't pass given all possible external resources at home.
One solution is make HW an evidence of effort, not knowledge. That's what happens in many courses in my uni: HW are some 10-30% of final grade and average is very high. Students share their solutions with each other and we are ok with it (well TAs are definitely aware) as soon as it is not copy-paste. It is so common that it is called "reference" solution.
Then there are courses that are hard to evaluate during the exam (e.g., programming ones). It seems that my uni solution is to give assignment so hard it will require understanding even when cheating (unless someone solves it for you of course). There are assignments taking north of 40 hours for top students (from scratch).
My point is that cheating is of course bad. But trying to catch cheaters beyond very obvious ones is just waste of time. Just design your course as cheat-proof as possible: ideally, the student who didn't learn won't pass given all possible external resources at home.
I had a prof during university that had a really good method to get people to engage. You would be assigned a reading, and then complete the quiz as an individual for a small portion of your grade, and then do the exact quiz again in a team of about 5-6 people worth a much greater amount of your grade. Lectures would then have particular focus on topics that students had trouble with on the quiz.
Assignments were designed to require iteration until you met the specifications of the problem. If you got the same or similar answer as anyone else, then it was almost certainly cheated.
Exams were open book, but quite difficult and long. You pretty much had to make sure you knew where to find all the information required in the course materials and were often similarly open ended as the assignments in the course were.
>It seems that my uni solution is to give assignment so hard it will require understanding even when cheating (unless someone solves it for you of course). There are assignments taking north of 40 hours for top students (from scratch).
Using this as a method to reduce cheating disturbs me. The goal shouldn't be that students have to make their homework a full time job, imagine is someone was taking 7 courses all with assignments like that.
Assignments were designed to require iteration until you met the specifications of the problem. If you got the same or similar answer as anyone else, then it was almost certainly cheated.
Exams were open book, but quite difficult and long. You pretty much had to make sure you knew where to find all the information required in the course materials and were often similarly open ended as the assignments in the course were.
>It seems that my uni solution is to give assignment so hard it will require understanding even when cheating (unless someone solves it for you of course). There are assignments taking north of 40 hours for top students (from scratch).
Using this as a method to reduce cheating disturbs me. The goal shouldn't be that students have to make their homework a full time job, imagine is someone was taking 7 courses all with assignments like that.
> Using this as a method to reduce cheating disturbs me. The goal shouldn't be that students have to make their homework a full time job, imagine is someone was taking 7 courses all with assignments like that.
To be fair it's the largest assignment of the semester for that course (compilation theory). The assignment structure per course is more or less fixed, so people know what awaits them in the semester and try not to take courses with large overlapping assignments. Then again, I think almost nobody does it from scratch (and it still takes people tons of time), but rather use "references".
And you know, studying is kinda your fulltime job when you're a student.
To be fair it's the largest assignment of the semester for that course (compilation theory). The assignment structure per course is more or less fixed, so people know what awaits them in the semester and try not to take courses with large overlapping assignments. Then again, I think almost nobody does it from scratch (and it still takes people tons of time), but rather use "references".
And you know, studying is kinda your fulltime job when you're a student.
This is why I do not teach on graduate level. There is only so much I’m willing to do to drag some damn sod kicking and screaming through the content. There is only so much effort I’m willing to put into engaging people who actively do not want to be engaged.
Also, I have a trauma from a calculus exam back in my day. Writen exam, physcial classroom, first year students. The professor hands out the exam, then proceeds to smile, go “i’m gonna get a coffee” and leave. Yay, let’s look things up! In about 3 minutes all of us realized there is nothing to look up. The questions were constructed in a fashion that you could only answer them if you understood the material. Also, any plagiarism would have been obvious. Besides, none of the questions seemed to have _a_ correct answer.
I cannot compose such exams. Therefore I keep an eye out for obvious things but generally assume my students either are motivated enough or are not worth the time to chase after them. I do my best to keep them interested, though. As to grading, I do oral exams over video calls. Takes about 8 min per person and this is where they can’t cheat. They either understand or it’s obvious they don’t.
Also, I have a trauma from a calculus exam back in my day. Writen exam, physcial classroom, first year students. The professor hands out the exam, then proceeds to smile, go “i’m gonna get a coffee” and leave. Yay, let’s look things up! In about 3 minutes all of us realized there is nothing to look up. The questions were constructed in a fashion that you could only answer them if you understood the material. Also, any plagiarism would have been obvious. Besides, none of the questions seemed to have _a_ correct answer.
I cannot compose such exams. Therefore I keep an eye out for obvious things but generally assume my students either are motivated enough or are not worth the time to chase after them. I do my best to keep them interested, though. As to grading, I do oral exams over video calls. Takes about 8 min per person and this is where they can’t cheat. They either understand or it’s obvious they don’t.
This was a completely gripping read. The teacher sounds absolutely incredible, and I would undoubtedly take a class from them. The optional side quest assignments is an interesting strategy.
But at the same time... My goodness. Plagerizing the plagerism essay? That's so brazen, I'm not sure I could give a student a second chance after that. Like... You've got to learn a hard lesson at some point. The sooner the better.
But at the same time... My goodness. Plagerizing the plagerism essay? That's so brazen, I'm not sure I could give a student a second chance after that. Like... You've got to learn a hard lesson at some point. The sooner the better.
I see cheating more as a symptom for the inability to plan. People get a week, and start 5 hours before delivery time. At that point, only cheating or cramming is goung to save you. He might have shifted the balance, but the underlying problem is still there.
So there is a failure in at least the rich, western world:. We can't teach enough children to plan for a week or more. Anyone an idea how to deal with this?
So there is a failure in at least the rich, western world:. We can't teach enough children to plan for a week or more. Anyone an idea how to deal with this?
Create accurate online calenders with deadlines ahead of time.
This is part of why academic credentials have both lost their intrinsic value and become mandatory for all candidates.
While it may seem contradictory at first, the appearance of low ability amongst credentialed candidates also lowers the perceived value of the non-credentialed; fore if the credentialed are so lacking in ability, then those unable to achieve even such a low bar must be worse, yes?
Of course, this isn't always true. But for hiring managers dealing with an insurmountable mountain of candidates any generalized filtering metric, however shaky in its footing, is appealing.
Widespread cheating is part of why we have credential inflation.
While it may seem contradictory at first, the appearance of low ability amongst credentialed candidates also lowers the perceived value of the non-credentialed; fore if the credentialed are so lacking in ability, then those unable to achieve even such a low bar must be worse, yes?
Of course, this isn't always true. But for hiring managers dealing with an insurmountable mountain of candidates any generalized filtering metric, however shaky in its footing, is appealing.
Widespread cheating is part of why we have credential inflation.
I don’t know, a multiple choice quiz shouldn’t be used for grading students at all? My university asks the students to make projects in groups which are different from one another.
One team gets to write a tictactoe game in c with ncurses library, one team gets to write connect four with another library and has to implement a given Interface, etc pp.
Honestly, these kind of multiple choice tests just suck, and OP shouldn’t be surprised that people don’t take this stuff serious.
Honestly, these kind of multiple choice tests just suck, and OP shouldn’t be surprised that people don’t take this stuff serious.
No. Group work is terrible and students are—at least perceptually, when not in fact—in competition with each other both for grades and for time. Even in the best case scenario students are incentivized to do the parts of the work they already do best which seems antithetical to education.
Multiple choice quizzes are also useful to the student because they provide a snapshot of fact memorization and maybe some application but there is no point in counting the grades, IMO.
If we must evaluate students, then we should be treating evaluation as important as imparting knowledge and experience and spend the time on it that it deserves. Students deserve and need timely and thoughtful individual feedback in order to improve anyway. That means thoughtful projects and a lot of time spent grading. How you incentivize this amongst educators who often don’t even want to be teaching is beyond my pay grade.
(Additionally, a grade should reflect level of mastery at the end of the course regardless of progression but that’s not how grades are generally calculated.)
Multiple choice quizzes are also useful to the student because they provide a snapshot of fact memorization and maybe some application but there is no point in counting the grades, IMO.
If we must evaluate students, then we should be treating evaluation as important as imparting knowledge and experience and spend the time on it that it deserves. Students deserve and need timely and thoughtful individual feedback in order to improve anyway. That means thoughtful projects and a lot of time spent grading. How you incentivize this amongst educators who often don’t even want to be teaching is beyond my pay grade.
(Additionally, a grade should reflect level of mastery at the end of the course regardless of progression but that’s not how grades are generally calculated.)
Group work is terrible, but project-based ability assessment is much better than multiple-choice tests. I quit school before graduating, so maybe I’m not the best example, but I had one instructor that noticed a few of us were bored out of our minds in an intro to OO class and told us we could skip all assignments and the final if we turned in a working clone of Asteroids that met certain criteria, using a vector drawing library called Processing, by the end of the semester.
Instead of making class Dog extend class Animal for the whole semester, I found myself learning how to do polygon collision detection, optimize it with a rectangle intersection pre-test, modeling thrust and inertia, etc. I started adding level-ups like extra lives, missiles, procedurally generating increasing difficult levels.
Still some of the most fun I remember having with a computer.
Instead of making class Dog extend class Animal for the whole semester, I found myself learning how to do polygon collision detection, optimize it with a rectangle intersection pre-test, modeling thrust and inertia, etc. I started adding level-ups like extra lives, missiles, procedurally generating increasing difficult levels.
Still some of the most fun I remember having with a computer.
I don't think multiple choice tests and project-based assessment are in conflict. They are both useful tools for evaluation. Multiple choice tests can allow a student to evaluate himself to make sure he has the base level of knowledge required (facts and application) in order to develop mastery. I do think it's useless as a grading metric, even discounting cheating issues. Project-based ability assessment is useful both for gaining mastery (with timely expert feedback) and for evaluating a students' mastery. I think project-based ability assessments for grading purposes ought to be coupled with a conversation about the project so the student can explain/defend his or her choices. As a side effect, it will help prevent cheating by having someone else write your project.
In your particular case, I'm glad you had a good professor that allowed you to spend otherwise wasted time learning. However, I can't help but feel you should never have been forced to take (and presumably pay for) that class.
In your particular case, I'm glad you had a good professor that allowed you to spend otherwise wasted time learning. However, I can't help but feel you should never have been forced to take (and presumably pay for) that class.
> However, I can't help but feel you should never have been forced to take (and presumably pay for) that class
I felt the same way, so I dropped out of school and started looking for someone who would hire me without a degree. I regret not having a university experience, but as far as career goes, I got a two year head start and no debt.
I felt the same way, so I dropped out of school and started looking for someone who would hire me without a degree. I regret not having a university experience, but as far as career goes, I got a two year head start and no debt.
> making class Dog extend class Animal for the whole semester
I expect this is hyperbole, but the sense that degrees have softened their content density is palpable.
Even when I was attending, decades ago, the administration at my university was conjuring plans to greatly diminish the breadth and depth of content in their courses in order to graduate more students.
I expect this is hyperbole, but the sense that degrees have softened their content density is palpable.
Even when I was attending, decades ago, the administration at my university was conjuring plans to greatly diminish the breadth and depth of content in their courses in order to graduate more students.
It depends on the class. Many "intro to OO programming" classes are really "intro to programming" that happen to use OO. There are no or low-level prerequisites, so the class often has to accommodate learners who have never so much as written a hello world script. (There is also pressure for higher level classes to dumb things down so the students from the lower level classes don't reach an insurmountable cliff, even if it's only insurmountable because the school's earlier classes have failed them.)
That's what is wrong! It's like starting an English degree as an illiterate person and expecting the intro courses to make you literate; worse, the programs are designed with this expectation in mind.
Oh, I agree, there are countless problems here:
-There usually isn't a prep course available, nor are there other prerequisites.
-When there is a prep course, it is usually called remedial as if being failed in high school, being an older student who left high school years ago, or just never being exposed to a subject makes you, as a person, deficient. (And, of course, these legally have to be included in a person's transcript.)
-Universities are under pressure to push people through quickly, so they don't want students taking extra prep courses early on.
-Universities/parents/students all want to see good grades and frequently prioritize this over education (which is probably the fundamental problem of education: how to evaluate and what to do with those evaluations)
-There are no ways, difficult ways, or arbitrary ways to drop out of an intro course.
-A syllabus is fundamentally a contract, but you (usually) don't get to see it until you have registered, paid, and been to the course. ... etc.
-There usually isn't a prep course available, nor are there other prerequisites.
-When there is a prep course, it is usually called remedial as if being failed in high school, being an older student who left high school years ago, or just never being exposed to a subject makes you, as a person, deficient. (And, of course, these legally have to be included in a person's transcript.)
-Universities are under pressure to push people through quickly, so they don't want students taking extra prep courses early on.
-Universities/parents/students all want to see good grades and frequently prioritize this over education (which is probably the fundamental problem of education: how to evaluate and what to do with those evaluations)
-There are no ways, difficult ways, or arbitrary ways to drop out of an intro course.
-A syllabus is fundamentally a contract, but you (usually) don't get to see it until you have registered, paid, and been to the course. ... etc.
They're talking about an intro class, so doing beginner level OO stuff isn't exactly surprising.
My intro courses had me building an HC11 out of logic gates. The next semester we wrote code to run on it.
And what exactly does that have to to with an intro OO class? Is this a "if it's lower level it must be harder" kind of thing?
It's not harder, it's more fundamental. Logic gates express forms of the basic foundations of computation, and building from there conveys their power and expressiveness.
In my degree, object oriented programming came in later semesters, often paired with courses on symbolic computing, discrete mathematics, and computability and complexity.
In my degree, object oriented programming came in later semesters, often paired with courses on symbolic computing, discrete mathematics, and computability and complexity.
I still don't see what this has to do with the comment I was responding to. Who cares whether you tackle low level computing earlier or later?
Someone who cares about how our existing knowledge shapes or understanding of new knowledge. Knowing how a computer works helps to understand the why and how of higher level concerns.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it has to come first in a degree.
In any case, you've shifted the goal posts from:
> the sense that degrees have softened their content density is palpable.
Having low level content come later isn't "softened content density".
In any case, you've shifted the goal posts from:
> the sense that degrees have softened their content density is palpable.
Having low level content come later isn't "softened content density".
That sounds like a great option, though I imagine offering an alternative objective like that will get harder to do as the course difficulty/level increases.
But then 1 person ends up doing most of the work on the team
My college Software Design & Testing did this well. One big group project that takes the whole semester, but you have to write and submit a simple plan that outlines each team member's responsibility, then you have periodic milestones. Part of the milestones are reporting on what each team member actually did.
This works because it's closer to a real work environment, where you'll have a manager who's at least somewhat aware (or should be) of how much each person is accomplishing. The whole, "just let the group figure it out" process that is so common in schools doesn't work, because there's no one with manager-level awareness and authority.
This works because it's closer to a real work environment, where you'll have a manager who's at least somewhat aware (or should be) of how much each person is accomplishing. The whole, "just let the group figure it out" process that is so common in schools doesn't work, because there's no one with manager-level awareness and authority.
That person gets a valuable life lesson. Some of us work, so that others prosper.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I suggest adding an estimated reading time by the title. It took me ~45min, and I loved every other minute of it. The fillers were not so fun, but I enjoyed the way the promises pull the reader back into the story.
> If real life was about being monitored by proctoring software that spies on you at home and forces you to test under duress, it would be a sad real life.
Welcome to real life with all kinds of proprietary software.
Welcome to real life with all kinds of proprietary software.
Part of the problem is that higher education in the US is used to both give knowledge and rank students and the latter is very much NOT conducive to giving knowledge.
Society has demand for X trained software engineers as long as X is higher than the available number (X - Y), you have higher salaries which flashes a bright light drawing more people to Software Engineering. To fill that gap, the current educational system draws in the [talented with luck to have gotten the freedom to learn and play with code early] + [people who are talented at anything and pick SE for because of the lifestyle] + [the people who are in it for the money but not necessarily the inherent talent for it] + [the confused or misled who want to try things]. There is a massive missing pool of people who are talented or have the brain to be excellent in SE but never get to try it in an approachable way at with a good teacher or educational tool before they get pulled into something else. The truly talented SE people are often more interested in the Tech and less in teaching, and those who teach may not always have the love for the field an obsessed SE has. The Education system is a very brute tool - spray a little bit of many fields among many kids and see who catches on and then squeeze any love for the field out of them with as much pressure as possible to surface the gold nuggets of aptitude (talent) and attitude (persistence) who are the only ones sent on to train properly. If you want real outcomes, expose every child to a great Software Engineering program that is fun (maybe online, maybe via a textbook, maybe by video + a piece of software like scratch), then let them play consistently for their entire educational career without judgement but with rewards for talent and persistence (only upside, like computer games). Then start filtering only at the career level - when applying for jobs, or judging open source contributions after graduation. You would have a much broader pool of candidates and much higher quality at all levels.
Society has demand for X trained software engineers as long as X is higher than the available number (X - Y), you have higher salaries which flashes a bright light drawing more people to Software Engineering. To fill that gap, the current educational system draws in the [talented with luck to have gotten the freedom to learn and play with code early] + [people who are talented at anything and pick SE for because of the lifestyle] + [the people who are in it for the money but not necessarily the inherent talent for it] + [the confused or misled who want to try things]. There is a massive missing pool of people who are talented or have the brain to be excellent in SE but never get to try it in an approachable way at with a good teacher or educational tool before they get pulled into something else. The truly talented SE people are often more interested in the Tech and less in teaching, and those who teach may not always have the love for the field an obsessed SE has. The Education system is a very brute tool - spray a little bit of many fields among many kids and see who catches on and then squeeze any love for the field out of them with as much pressure as possible to surface the gold nuggets of aptitude (talent) and attitude (persistence) who are the only ones sent on to train properly. If you want real outcomes, expose every child to a great Software Engineering program that is fun (maybe online, maybe via a textbook, maybe by video + a piece of software like scratch), then let them play consistently for their entire educational career without judgement but with rewards for talent and persistence (only upside, like computer games). Then start filtering only at the career level - when applying for jobs, or judging open source contributions after graduation. You would have a much broader pool of candidates and much higher quality at all levels.
I've had to deal with cheating in multiple classes I've taught. The second worst was when someone took their friend's code and just change the name in the header comment. They tried to claim they didn't copy but I had timestamps.
The worst was when a student turned my own solutions back into me with a few variable names changed.
The worst was when a student turned my own solutions back into me with a few variable names changed.
Best tests I had were the ones you could bring your notes or even any book to. The questions were structured in a way, that you had to know and understand the topic quite well to be able to answer/solve them in time. You couldn't just copy answers from the material you brought it with you, but you could use it as a reference to help you solve problems, like you use references in real life to find solutions to problems. If you didn't know the topic well, you didn't stand a chance to complete the test in time.
The tests I respected the least, were the ones were you were required to write down memorized definitions. I mean why? In this day and age I can google any definition on my phone in few seconds. I can also memorize definition of some rule without properly understanding it. That's not useful. Give me a task to solve that requires me to truly understand that rule.
The tests I respected the least, were the ones were you were required to write down memorized definitions. I mean why? In this day and age I can google any definition on my phone in few seconds. I can also memorize definition of some rule without properly understanding it. That's not useful. Give me a task to solve that requires me to truly understand that rule.
Now that‘s some stunning sadism Mr. Crump. Watching them run to their doom, letting them collect further violations, investing absurd amounts of time into punishing them. Has R ever been used for something more nefarious?
If a class can be passed by this kind of cheating, it‘s a shit class, simple as that.
Classes need to be designed with the knowledge in mind, that the modern student is a highly social, cooperative creature that grew up with cheating being completely normal.
I designed classes by 80% of credit being given for big, final projects and the verbal, live „defensio style“ explanation they had to do for their projects, with me asking class general and project specific questions that made detecting fraud and grading very easy.
Your saving grace might be that you actually managed to create a somewhat more engaging and useful class after all. But besides that, your behavior was sadistic and frankly, inhumane.
If a class can be passed by this kind of cheating, it‘s a shit class, simple as that.
Classes need to be designed with the knowledge in mind, that the modern student is a highly social, cooperative creature that grew up with cheating being completely normal.
I designed classes by 80% of credit being given for big, final projects and the verbal, live „defensio style“ explanation they had to do for their projects, with me asking class general and project specific questions that made detecting fraud and grading very easy.
Your saving grace might be that you actually managed to create a somewhat more engaging and useful class after all. But besides that, your behavior was sadistic and frankly, inhumane.
Content has been reviewed by a human and deemed appropriate. Voting engagement has been high and score is currently +1.
This response has been generated by GPT3.
This response has been generated by GPT3.
Way too soft. I went through all of college without participating in anything like that, and you know why? I'm not a scumbag parasite. These rotten apples should have been filtered out of the system long ago. Their place in society is shoveling manure, not wasting valuable space in higher education.
You'd make a great leader.
How is this person teaching anybody if they can't even properly write, format, and cut out all the bull**t from their own article? This reads like a first-grader's story at best. I have zero credibility that this even happened. And the fucking gifs throughout the article... give me a break.
The animated GIFs are really distracting and detract from the writing. I eventually deleted them from the parts I hadn't yet read.
I have to say that Crump was incredibly forgiving and put in a lot of extra effort. I don't think anyone I've been taught by would have gone to this much trouble.
I have to say that Crump was incredibly forgiving and put in a lot of extra effort. I don't think anyone I've been taught by would have gone to this much trouble.
I had to do the same. Infuriating practice. What happened to Firefox stopping playback of .gifs when you press Esc?
Discussion forums like Piazza can really help with stuff like this. By allowing students to communicate with each other in public, with TAs/instructors explicitly present answering questions, the need to get a group chat going diminishes and you avoid the temptation to cheat.
As an aside, I will say, weekly quizzes are one of the lowest-reward types of homework. They are mainly favored by instructors because they are automatically graded, and they do really little to make you excited about the material. Students recognize and respond to instructor effort (or a lack thereof); if there’s a written assignment every two weeks that students know you are going to take time to grade and give feedback on, then they are significantly more likely to invest the effort to do it well.
As an aside, I will say, weekly quizzes are one of the lowest-reward types of homework. They are mainly favored by instructors because they are automatically graded, and they do really little to make you excited about the material. Students recognize and respond to instructor effort (or a lack thereof); if there’s a written assignment every two weeks that students know you are going to take time to grade and give feedback on, then they are significantly more likely to invest the effort to do it well.
> weekly quizzes are one of the lowest-reward types of homework
I loved having weekly quizzes because they forced me to study at a regular pace.
I loved having weekly quizzes because they forced me to study at a regular pace.
Clearly he needs a punishment that costs the students a lot of time. Maybe submit a 12 hour video of you doing every single problem in all the problem sets
This is actually brilliant. Quizzes are ideally used to get people putting in the effort: studying during the semester and nudge them away from procrastinating/crunching at the end (thus are low stakes). But even with low stakes they nudge people to cheat. It was technically hard previously to verify the effort directly, so a quiz result is a noisy proxy. But with current tech you could just record the effort itself. If you are going to do problem sets, no extra effort in recording it.
Colleges need to make up their mind about undergraduate education. The primary drivers of university rankings are research, staff and teaching quality, and professor to student ratio. Your average undergraduate STEM student at Harvard and Dartmouth (lets ignore the other more academic Ivies for now and focus purely on rankings and reputation) will not be subjected to the same rigor in assessments as a typical student at Berkeley or Geogia Tech in the same faculty after taking into account grade inflation. Yet those degrees from the former schools are worth "more" and the value of their degrees is not deminished in any sense. Clearly merit and hard work ends at the admissions office. After that it is just network and legacy.
Cheating is not about the instructors. As gutting as it may be to be a teacher and learn that your students are not interested in honestly engaging in what you may be passionate about, the harm cheaters spread is 10x worse for honest students than it is any instructor.
> Aside from all the ways that I can be empathetic, there was a lot of evidence in the chat that students were blowing off the course and making a mockery of the whole thing. But, the brash language in the chat could also be covering up difficult issues students were facing in their lives that were preventing them from committing to their studies.
This author really does not want to confront some plain truths about his students and academia as it exists today.
> My understanding is that students who collect multiple faculty action reports like baseball cards may cease to be continuing students at my institution.
I suspect the institution doesn't give a good goddamn as long as the students wounds are self-inflected and their checks still clear.
> Even the student who sent 15 emails of lies got a second chance.
In a strange way, this article is really a character study about the author, and not at all about cheating. The author is deeply interested in procedure and drama, which makes for amusing storytelling, like a detective that's trying to find a murderer while constantly trying to convince himself that whoever he was, he didn't really mean it.
It is interesting how often he is attempting to detect cheating and plagiarism, even writing his own R scripts, and then says
> TBH, I’m so over trying to deter my students from cheating. There are so many ways I could lock down my courses. Not interested. If real life was about being monitored by proctoring software that spies on you at home and forces you to test under duress, it would be a sad real life.
But then continues attempting plagiarism detection for the rest of the semester, and the next! Maybe he considers it separate from cheating. Slightly baffled by all his behavior. He is quite kind, and expending extraordinary effort over students who are adamant about expending none at all.
This author really does not want to confront some plain truths about his students and academia as it exists today.
> My understanding is that students who collect multiple faculty action reports like baseball cards may cease to be continuing students at my institution.
I suspect the institution doesn't give a good goddamn as long as the students wounds are self-inflected and their checks still clear.
> Even the student who sent 15 emails of lies got a second chance.
In a strange way, this article is really a character study about the author, and not at all about cheating. The author is deeply interested in procedure and drama, which makes for amusing storytelling, like a detective that's trying to find a murderer while constantly trying to convince himself that whoever he was, he didn't really mean it.
It is interesting how often he is attempting to detect cheating and plagiarism, even writing his own R scripts, and then says
> TBH, I’m so over trying to deter my students from cheating. There are so many ways I could lock down my courses. Not interested. If real life was about being monitored by proctoring software that spies on you at home and forces you to test under duress, it would be a sad real life.
But then continues attempting plagiarism detection for the rest of the semester, and the next! Maybe he considers it separate from cheating. Slightly baffled by all his behavior. He is quite kind, and expending extraordinary effort over students who are adamant about expending none at all.
> this article is really a character study about the author, and not at all about cheating
Yeah exactly. Extreme cop energy in the writing those scripts and publicly documenting so much of the chat text verbatim. I started out sympathetic to the author, and still am abstractly, that's a hard spot for a teacher to be in.
But it started to feel like the author expected me to find it... titillating? attractively transgressive? Just a gross secondhand voyeurism type thing I didn't like it at all.
Talk to the students or fail them all and move on. I don't think the impulse to invest so much time and technique in this "investigation" should be encouraged.
Yeah exactly. Extreme cop energy in the writing those scripts and publicly documenting so much of the chat text verbatim. I started out sympathetic to the author, and still am abstractly, that's a hard spot for a teacher to be in.
But it started to feel like the author expected me to find it... titillating? attractively transgressive? Just a gross secondhand voyeurism type thing I didn't like it at all.
Talk to the students or fail them all and move on. I don't think the impulse to invest so much time and technique in this "investigation" should be encouraged.
> I don't think the impulse to invest so much time and technique in this "investigation" should be encouraged
It resulted in a large amount of the students finally engaging with the material and ultimately caring about the course, though. I don't believe it is healthy to expect that of a professor, but it seemed to work out here.
It resulted in a large amount of the students finally engaging with the material and ultimately caring about the course, though. I don't believe it is healthy to expect that of a professor, but it seemed to work out here.
For that one semester, until the cycle repeats itself. Smarter students in the future won't allow their professor to join the class chats.
Maybe that's true only because the author posted this, though. Hopefully the course changes that the author made will encourage future students to actually spend time on the course. If that's true, does it point towards a deeper solution with making courses more engaging? Not that students cheating are the professor's fault, of course. Nonetheless...
[deleted]
Very disappointed at the cynicism in this thread. It seems that many people believe cheating is acceptable, or even necessary.
There is another aspect to cheating that I don't see mentioned. When lazy students become accustomed to cutting corners, they later become a legal liability as postgrads and employees, in terms of, for example, unethical research practices, copyright theft, and so on. I've seen this in my professional career from people who should know better, and I wish they were reprimanded as students rather than causing issues for the organisations that they're a part of.
There are pedagogical reasons to stop students from cheating early on, but it should be prevented for practical real-world reasons also.
There is another aspect to cheating that I don't see mentioned. When lazy students become accustomed to cutting corners, they later become a legal liability as postgrads and employees, in terms of, for example, unethical research practices, copyright theft, and so on. I've seen this in my professional career from people who should know better, and I wish they were reprimanded as students rather than causing issues for the organisations that they're a part of.
There are pedagogical reasons to stop students from cheating early on, but it should be prevented for practical real-world reasons also.
A great read, but there's one thing I think he could have done differently to prevent the cheating getting out of hand: as soon as he discovered the cheating, just remind all students about academic integrity, and that cheating will mean failure.
It's easy to believe you won't get caught if everybody does it and nobody is reminding you that it's wrong. It can give an impression of unaccountability. I think a simple reminder can put a lot of students straight. Not the hard-core cheaters who are determined to fail, but certainly the much larger group that will get swept up with the cheating if nobody steps in to remind them not to.
It's easy to believe you won't get caught if everybody does it and nobody is reminding you that it's wrong. It can give an impression of unaccountability. I think a simple reminder can put a lot of students straight. Not the hard-core cheaters who are determined to fail, but certainly the much larger group that will get swept up with the cheating if nobody steps in to remind them not to.
What a great read, thank you, this could prob end up being a book! :)
Memories come to mind, from students sharing same day exam questions to parents trying to help their son organise the prints of a final assignment he clearly didn’t write (I overheard ‘we need to call him, we paid good money’). Several levels, criminal even, of cheating.
In the end, for most of us, the gc was the group studies and discussing last assignments after results were out. Learning with each other and cooperation is so fundamental.
What I loved most about the story if most people are shown the way, they won’t cheat, and will thrive. makes you wonder if most cheaters just don’t know any better
Memories come to mind, from students sharing same day exam questions to parents trying to help their son organise the prints of a final assignment he clearly didn’t write (I overheard ‘we need to call him, we paid good money’). Several levels, criminal even, of cheating.
In the end, for most of us, the gc was the group studies and discussing last assignments after results were out. Learning with each other and cooperation is so fundamental.
What I loved most about the story if most people are shown the way, they won’t cheat, and will thrive. makes you wonder if most cheaters just don’t know any better
I might have missed it, but I'm not seeing much discussion on the followup[0] where he talks about moving to a more asynchronous course where it was possible to do enough extra credit assignments that students could bomb their exams and still get an A for the course.
The teacher seems very interested in student engagement with the material and understanding. Which I can only view as a positive.
-[0]: https://crumplab.com/articles/blog/post_996_5_20_22_assignme...
The teacher seems very interested in student engagement with the material and understanding. Which I can only view as a positive.
-[0]: https://crumplab.com/articles/blog/post_996_5_20_22_assignme...
My former boss was an utter buffoon who knew nothing whatsoever about his field but managed to make $3 million as a "director" in the couple years before he was finally fired. Cheating seems to work well.
People who claim cheating will affect you down the line don't understand how the real world works, unless you're a doctor or programmer you rarely directly need the skills taught in school because most jobs are much simpler than school work. I worked as a credit analyst at a bank and a decent highschool graduate could do that work, you could cheat for all 3/4 years of University and it wouldn't affect you at all. Only when we automate away this simple jobs can we start catching cheaters 'down the line'.
Most of the comments seems to be about the impact of cheating on the class or how the system is broken and how it should be fixed. Fact of the matter is, most cheating pays off. In my experience a prof or teacher will rarely go so far as been described in this story.
I took a massive gamble on my high school finals to not only cheat but to steal thousands of tests and exams via malware that I wrote over the course of a year. Its been 10 years since that happened, and reading this I might do a story of how I stole 1 terabyte of data in my final year, and passed all my exams.
I took a massive gamble on my high school finals to not only cheat but to steal thousands of tests and exams via malware that I wrote over the course of a year. Its been 10 years since that happened, and reading this I might do a story of how I stole 1 terabyte of data in my final year, and passed all my exams.
Sounds like a good story.
One of the teachers at my University realized that people were cheating just by looking at the graph of marks. Because the marks did not follow a gaussian distribution, it was pretty clear that cheating was implied. No need to spy on Whatsapp and run scripts for months.
They were pretty severe at the institution level about cheating. All Batchelor and Masters thesis are run through multiple fraud detecting software.
People were forced to do a mandatory Academic Integrity course for one semester and they had to sign legal papers in which they assumed the obligation to respect certain rules.
They were pretty severe at the institution level about cheating. All Batchelor and Masters thesis are run through multiple fraud detecting software.
People were forced to do a mandatory Academic Integrity course for one semester and they had to sign legal papers in which they assumed the obligation to respect certain rules.
"A couple digressions. I have multi-dimensional empathy for my students. Is that a thing? It is. It means that I learn more from my students than they learn from me. There are more students than me, and they have so much more stuff going on than I do. Although I don’t condone cheating at all, I can recognize that students sometimes resort to cheating because of other life stuff going on. Plus, it was/is a global pandemic, with stress galore. So, we were all in a major life stuff happening moment."
The world needs more people with multi-dimensional empathy.
The world needs more people with multi-dimensional empathy.
Software engineering in general does not test well. It is, like many trades, best learned by modeling. This isn’t really conducive to large classrooms/numbers of students. In the end copying is perhaps exactly the best way to learn good programming practices.
What do we do to train our more junior coworkers? Tell them to figure it out? Sink or swim? No, we write mountains of documentation, examples, pair program, etc. We actually value consistency and predictability between engineers. We like doing all these things universities tend not to do.
What do we do to train our more junior coworkers? Tell them to figure it out? Sink or swim? No, we write mountains of documentation, examples, pair program, etc. We actually value consistency and predictability between engineers. We like doing all these things universities tend not to do.
The other side of the argument is that online classes have horrible engagement. Orders of magnitude worse than a normal class.
Virtual meetings also induce more fatigue in the participants than normal meetings (researched).
One or two off weeks can derail a whole semester. And professors themselves seem lost in absence of live feedback.
The schedules for live classes are rigid. While at college it is easy to follow them as you're in the same place, but schedules of individual homes vary widely and many students don't have the means to change them to suit the class timings.
Virtual meetings also induce more fatigue in the participants than normal meetings (researched).
One or two off weeks can derail a whole semester. And professors themselves seem lost in absence of live feedback.
The schedules for live classes are rigid. While at college it is easy to follow them as you're in the same place, but schedules of individual homes vary widely and many students don't have the means to change them to suit the class timings.
Have so far read up to part III (not inclusive)
I've read the story of a failing teacher, who set up his class in a way which normal sharing of experience and information among classmates would fall under the technical definition of "cheating". In order to "not cheat", students had to artificially isolate themselves, alienate themselves from their classmates. For a person of an earlier generation, who did not take online examples when also being in a group chat on their phone, that may seem like not much of a requirement (and even then I'm not sure.)
The responsibility for this debacle lies squarely on the teacher's shoulders - perhaps with some responsibility on the department/faculty for lack of oversight and guidance regarding expected dynamics for different ways of evaluating student achievements.
Rule of thumb: When most people fail, the failure is systematic.
One must also wonder about the maturity of these students. I'm wondering if, over the past couple of decades, a more childish attitude and behavior is not presented as acceptable for a longer period of time. Suddenly these, well, judging by the chat messages, children, come up against the wall of having to obey a semi-arbitrary rule, or else. It seems like they have not been directed along a path where they could take gradual steps to scale this wall. This is perhaps less of the teacher's responsibility, but he must still realize that's the kind of student cohort he is facing.
I've read the story of a failing teacher, who set up his class in a way which normal sharing of experience and information among classmates would fall under the technical definition of "cheating". In order to "not cheat", students had to artificially isolate themselves, alienate themselves from their classmates. For a person of an earlier generation, who did not take online examples when also being in a group chat on their phone, that may seem like not much of a requirement (and even then I'm not sure.)
The responsibility for this debacle lies squarely on the teacher's shoulders - perhaps with some responsibility on the department/faculty for lack of oversight and guidance regarding expected dynamics for different ways of evaluating student achievements.
Rule of thumb: When most people fail, the failure is systematic.
One must also wonder about the maturity of these students. I'm wondering if, over the past couple of decades, a more childish attitude and behavior is not presented as acceptable for a longer period of time. Suddenly these, well, judging by the chat messages, children, come up against the wall of having to obey a semi-arbitrary rule, or else. It seems like they have not been directed along a path where they could take gradual steps to scale this wall. This is perhaps less of the teacher's responsibility, but he must still realize that's the kind of student cohort he is facing.
[deleted]
This guy is an idiot.
He created a testing system that encourages cheating. He made it too easy to cheat, so if one student cheated other students (who are all in competition together) would need to cheat as well less they receive a relatively lower grade.
Then when he detected the cheating he didn’t attempt to minimize the damage. Instead he focused all his time and effort building a solution that nobody needed, and let the main problem escalate to the point where nearly all his students were cheating.
The lecturer should be fired.
He created a testing system that encourages cheating. He made it too easy to cheat, so if one student cheated other students (who are all in competition together) would need to cheat as well less they receive a relatively lower grade.
Then when he detected the cheating he didn’t attempt to minimize the damage. Instead he focused all his time and effort building a solution that nobody needed, and let the main problem escalate to the point where nearly all his students were cheating.
The lecturer should be fired.
One of the longest read I've completed online this year.
The author obviously care a lot about integrity and plagiarism and a lot has been discussed from the author's perspective. I wonder if we can analyze this case study from a game theory angle.
What's the payoff matrix looking like for students in the class at various phases of development?
Were students incentivized to cheat due to the structure of curriculum?
What are the Nash equilibrium scenarios for both professor and students? And how many of them are Pareto optimal?
The author obviously care a lot about integrity and plagiarism and a lot has been discussed from the author's perspective. I wonder if we can analyze this case study from a game theory angle.
What's the payoff matrix looking like for students in the class at various phases of development?
Were students incentivized to cheat due to the structure of curriculum?
What are the Nash equilibrium scenarios for both professor and students? And how many of them are Pareto optimal?
What struck me the most when reading this, is how long they waited to inform the students they knew cheating was occurring. If they had informed the class earlier, they may have been able to stem the worst of it, rather than letting it become normalised. Still spend the time afterwards to fill out the forms and engage with the relevant students, but don't wait to notify until you think you know everything, because that just leaves time for more shit to happen.
An honest person will do the right thing, even if they think there is no chance of being caught. A dishonest person only acts honestly when they think they will be caught. Since there are not too many honest people, our only hope against the corruption of dishonesty is to police and punish dishonesty so more people will at least act honestly.
But then, there is another thing.
Being able to get a degree has become a gate for many jobs. Adding additional courses that are not needed for those jobs may sound good, but it really just prevents some people from getting jobs they could do, but for the inappropriate gate.
Example: adding a mandatory advanced algebra course to a nursing program.
You might argue that a math course helps with abstract reasoning, but you'd be wrong. Passing a math course demonstrates an ability to do a specific kind of abstract reasoning. There is zero benefit for a nurse to be able to do advanced algebra, but many schools now require it. The result is that many people who would be great nurses cannot be a nurse unless they cheat to pass the algebra class. Faced with that decision, do you cheat, or just give up on your dream to be a nurse?
It may be hard for many HNers to comprehend this, but an inability to do advanced math is a thing. For some people, no amount of effort will lead to an understanding of the subject. It's just too abstract. These same people have plenty of other abilities, and are good at many jobs.
Can you blame a student for cheating on such a course, that everyone knows they'll never need to do the job they're going for?
But then, there is another thing.
Being able to get a degree has become a gate for many jobs. Adding additional courses that are not needed for those jobs may sound good, but it really just prevents some people from getting jobs they could do, but for the inappropriate gate.
Example: adding a mandatory advanced algebra course to a nursing program.
You might argue that a math course helps with abstract reasoning, but you'd be wrong. Passing a math course demonstrates an ability to do a specific kind of abstract reasoning. There is zero benefit for a nurse to be able to do advanced algebra, but many schools now require it. The result is that many people who would be great nurses cannot be a nurse unless they cheat to pass the algebra class. Faced with that decision, do you cheat, or just give up on your dream to be a nurse?
It may be hard for many HNers to comprehend this, but an inability to do advanced math is a thing. For some people, no amount of effort will lead to an understanding of the subject. It's just too abstract. These same people have plenty of other abilities, and are good at many jobs.
Can you blame a student for cheating on such a course, that everyone knows they'll never need to do the job they're going for?
His positive story in the epilogue of the students in the next class not cheating is in all likelihood actually a story of the students simply being forced to develop slightly better cheating tradecraft.
The professor here talks about not wanting to enable the features that make it a worse experience to take the tests, but it's an unfortunate truth that there's just going to be cheating if you're giving assignments and assessments where it's easy to cheat.
The professor here talks about not wanting to enable the features that make it a worse experience to take the tests, but it's an unfortunate truth that there's just going to be cheating if you're giving assignments and assessments where it's easy to cheat.
I was assigned a class to shadow when I flirted with being an anthropologist.
(My now deceased PhD committee member griped that I "appropriate the ethnographic gaze" -- that's probably why I raise my eyebrows so much lately.)
The entire class was being lectured on plagarism. They were almost entirely internation students, almost entirely from a specific country, and they almosty entirely manage to misunderstand things only to their benefit.
(It was always an American, not someone from... there... I had to do things like go into my apartment and retreive a Louisville slugger because they were walking off with my neighbor's bike.
(I'm not required to call the police. I can deal with you and let YOU call, get a report number, and hope a detective or whatever decides it's worth the attention of the law. Fool around and find out that even full on cryptoanarchists[1] will step away from they keyboard if you piss them off enough, and if that makes you feel threatened, don't touch physical goods that don't belong to you unless you're willing to risk dying for them.)
[1] https://nakamotoinstitute.org/crypto-anarchist-manifesto/
(My now deceased PhD committee member griped that I "appropriate the ethnographic gaze" -- that's probably why I raise my eyebrows so much lately.)
The entire class was being lectured on plagarism. They were almost entirely internation students, almost entirely from a specific country, and they almosty entirely manage to misunderstand things only to their benefit.
(It was always an American, not someone from... there... I had to do things like go into my apartment and retreive a Louisville slugger because they were walking off with my neighbor's bike.
(I'm not required to call the police. I can deal with you and let YOU call, get a report number, and hope a detective or whatever decides it's worth the attention of the law. Fool around and find out that even full on cryptoanarchists[1] will step away from they keyboard if you piss them off enough, and if that makes you feel threatened, don't touch physical goods that don't belong to you unless you're willing to risk dying for them.)
[1] https://nakamotoinstitute.org/crypto-anarchist-manifesto/
I haven't seen anyone mention grade inflation yet, which I've always thought was deeply related to cheating. Obviously undergraduate GPA is a useful metric for aspiring academics, but I don't understand why everyone else is encouraged to care so much about it. I would rather our undergraduate institutions acknowledge that most students are busy learning a variety of lessons inside and outside the classroom and present those students with honorable paths to lesser commitment. Maybe systems split along mastery, competence, and familiarity (and failure). A world where it is perfectly normal for a future web dev to phone it in on a surface-level track for algorithms, but a future civil engineer is completing oral exams in statics to prove mastery.
Nobody _wants_ to cheat. Personally I really regret all the shenanigans I pulled in college to clear hurdles when I felt I had no other option. I wish I would have spoken more frankly with the professor and worked out some way to write some papers or do a project for an honest (and interesting!) C rather than keep killing myself gaming the problem sets for the B+ that was expected of me in classes I wasn't a good fit for.
Nobody _wants_ to cheat. Personally I really regret all the shenanigans I pulled in college to clear hurdles when I felt I had no other option. I wish I would have spoken more frankly with the professor and worked out some way to write some papers or do a project for an honest (and interesting!) C rather than keep killing myself gaming the problem sets for the B+ that was expected of me in classes I wasn't a good fit for.
[deleted]
I've never understood people's attitudes towards cheating, which is perhaps why its so prevalent. People cheat at sports all the time and people just sort of accept it. When people cheat in school, we just kind of go "well, yeah, kids do that, I guess we'll give you a few warnings first."
If someone is caught cheating how do I know they didn't cheat in previous classes, but got away with it? Do you really want to go to a doctor who, regardless of if he knows his stuff now, is the kind of person who can live with cheating? As I've grown older and seen more and more people get away with not a moment of weakness, but a deep, unfixable character flaw requiring planning and sustained effort to gain an advantage over people foolish enough to be doing things fairly, it makes me wonder why anyone chooses to tolerate this.
Who wants to get a degree from a university that knowingly and willingly passes students who cheat, but just makes them retake the course or in this case do what sounds like essentially extra credit. But rather than prevent people from participating in systems they have demonstrated are not trustworthy enough to participate in, we just give them a stern lecture and extra work, or an asterisk in their hall of fame record, or make them say they're very sorry.
If someone is caught cheating how do I know they didn't cheat in previous classes, but got away with it? Do you really want to go to a doctor who, regardless of if he knows his stuff now, is the kind of person who can live with cheating? As I've grown older and seen more and more people get away with not a moment of weakness, but a deep, unfixable character flaw requiring planning and sustained effort to gain an advantage over people foolish enough to be doing things fairly, it makes me wonder why anyone chooses to tolerate this.
Who wants to get a degree from a university that knowingly and willingly passes students who cheat, but just makes them retake the course or in this case do what sounds like essentially extra credit. But rather than prevent people from participating in systems they have demonstrated are not trustworthy enough to participate in, we just give them a stern lecture and extra work, or an asterisk in their hall of fame record, or make them say they're very sorry.
My attitude towards cheating is that college students have underdeveloped prefontal cortexes, may have come from high schools where the teachers didn't care or weren't able to catch cheaters, may have come from an environment with rampant cheating, etc.
If a student believes that they can get away with cheating, and isn't going to get a good grade otherwise, it's completely logical to cheat, from the perspective of self-interest.
If a teacher believes that they can put a cheater on the right course, and convince them to stop cheating, it's completely logical to take the opportunity to do that.
Meanwhile, the academic integrity policies for a college are designed to catch cheaters that would otherwise slip through the cracks, while still giving people a chance to change their ways. If you expel people for cheating once, you put the burden on each single professor--you're making them the judge, jury, and executioner, so to speak. That makes their job more difficult, because they have to weigh much more serious consequences for cheaters in their class. So you give individual professors discretion, but collect their findings for review by an academic integrity board.
This seems like an effective system.
If a student believes that they can get away with cheating, and isn't going to get a good grade otherwise, it's completely logical to cheat, from the perspective of self-interest.
If a teacher believes that they can put a cheater on the right course, and convince them to stop cheating, it's completely logical to take the opportunity to do that.
Meanwhile, the academic integrity policies for a college are designed to catch cheaters that would otherwise slip through the cracks, while still giving people a chance to change their ways. If you expel people for cheating once, you put the burden on each single professor--you're making them the judge, jury, and executioner, so to speak. That makes their job more difficult, because they have to weigh much more serious consequences for cheaters in their class. So you give individual professors discretion, but collect their findings for review by an academic integrity board.
This seems like an effective system.
> People cheat at sports all the time and people just sort of accept it.
In pro bodybuilding, steroids are nominally illegal, but essentially every pro bodybuilder uses them, the physique necessary to be competitive in pro contests is not achievable without them, and the people running bodybuilding shows deliberately make no effort to enforce this rule.
In that kind of context it's hard for me to say the "cheaters" are doing anything wrong in any practical sense. Nobody involved actually believes in the rule they're breaking.
I think cheaters in other arenas can rationalize away to themselves that their context is equivalent to the bodybuilding context I described above.
In pro bodybuilding, steroids are nominally illegal, but essentially every pro bodybuilder uses them, the physique necessary to be competitive in pro contests is not achievable without them, and the people running bodybuilding shows deliberately make no effort to enforce this rule.
In that kind of context it's hard for me to say the "cheaters" are doing anything wrong in any practical sense. Nobody involved actually believes in the rule they're breaking.
I think cheaters in other arenas can rationalize away to themselves that their context is equivalent to the bodybuilding context I described above.
You're making a good point. We have to remember that rules about cheating are effectively social agreements within a group of people. If the majority of the people within that group don't (anymore) agree with the rule, for all intents and purposes it's no longer a rule -- even if it might nominally be stated somewhere as one.
Culture and social arrangements evolve implicitly at first, and are only later encoded. Of course, the modern homo bureaucraticus might do well to be reminded of this.
Culture and social arrangements evolve implicitly at first, and are only later encoded. Of course, the modern homo bureaucraticus might do well to be reminded of this.
> how do I know they didn't cheat in previous classes
You can safely assume many did, because every time teachers check for cheating and plagiarism, they find a lot, and they rarely look for it.
> Who wants to get a degree from a university that knowingly and willingly passes students who cheat
Anyone who considers it a necessary step in life, and doesn't care about the consequences.
It's totally shitty, and it's the consequence of letting so many people in, while at the same time incentivizing schools for throughput and making life hard for the staff. Then you get at a point where nobody cares anymore, and everything gets smothered under a layer of understanding.
The article demonstrates it. The author of the article is also making the right noises: "I learn more from my students than they learn from me", and similar bullshit. He also doesn't teach a hard course: it seems to be a cogsci intro. Yet he's under pressure not to flunk everyone, and offers some of the easiest ways out: writing a single multiple choice question. And since that didn't make them pass either, they had to rewrite some blathering statement about academic integrity. It's really about letting them pass, under the guise of caring for students, and teaching.
You can safely assume many did, because every time teachers check for cheating and plagiarism, they find a lot, and they rarely look for it.
> Who wants to get a degree from a university that knowingly and willingly passes students who cheat
Anyone who considers it a necessary step in life, and doesn't care about the consequences.
It's totally shitty, and it's the consequence of letting so many people in, while at the same time incentivizing schools for throughput and making life hard for the staff. Then you get at a point where nobody cares anymore, and everything gets smothered under a layer of understanding.
The article demonstrates it. The author of the article is also making the right noises: "I learn more from my students than they learn from me", and similar bullshit. He also doesn't teach a hard course: it seems to be a cogsci intro. Yet he's under pressure not to flunk everyone, and offers some of the easiest ways out: writing a single multiple choice question. And since that didn't make them pass either, they had to rewrite some blathering statement about academic integrity. It's really about letting them pass, under the guise of caring for students, and teaching.
It is probably like the police attitude toward smaller level theft and mugging. Try getting cops to meaningfully respond to a theft or someone mugging you. You will not.
There is just so much bad behaviour in society that we have come to accept it.
There is just so much bad behaviour in society that we have come to accept it.
> If someone is caught cheating how do I know they didn't cheat in previous classes, but got away with it?
I could be wrong but I don't think this happens that often. If you cheated enough not to understand what was going on in calc 1 may god rest your soul as 2 and 3 are going to be downright impossible. For those types of classes you need to mostly understand the material even have a chance at cheating successfully.
I could be wrong but I don't think this happens that often. If you cheated enough not to understand what was going on in calc 1 may god rest your soul as 2 and 3 are going to be downright impossible. For those types of classes you need to mostly understand the material even have a chance at cheating successfully.
> When people cheat in school, we just kind of go "well, yeah, kids do that, I guess we'll give you a few warnings first."
I guess it differs. Here a student caught cheating is expelled for 6 months and have their student grants withdrawn.
I guess it differs. Here a student caught cheating is expelled for 6 months and have their student grants withdrawn.
Most humans have have little to no real integrity. This is why I am hopeful about AGI taking over eventually. (Not murdering people, I hope, just taking over).
So you're hoping we'll be able to effectively align an AGI with ethics we ourselves don't even possess?
I recommend Robert Miles on YouTube for a few lessons on the challenges of creating friendly/aligned AIs. (And why your hope here is somewhat ludicrous).
I recommend Robert Miles on YouTube for a few lessons on the challenges of creating friendly/aligned AIs. (And why your hope here is somewhat ludicrous).
I am very aware of all of the challenges. It was an oversimplification of my thoughts.
I feel that working on that kind of AI that emulates animals with true autonomy etc. in the short term is a very bad idea, and totally unnecessary to get most of the benefits of general purpose AI.
However, realistically, most people do not recognize this, and even the ones that do, many will pursue this dangerous type of ultra humanlike autonomous AGI. So it's going to happen.
In the long run it will be better for the evolution of intelligent life. In the short run it will probably be a disaster for humans.
I feel that working on that kind of AI that emulates animals with true autonomy etc. in the short term is a very bad idea, and totally unnecessary to get most of the benefits of general purpose AI.
However, realistically, most people do not recognize this, and even the ones that do, many will pursue this dangerous type of ultra humanlike autonomous AGI. So it's going to happen.
In the long run it will be better for the evolution of intelligent life. In the short run it will probably be a disaster for humans.
AGI will have its own lacks of integrity, or it's not AGI.
This is why there should be zero tolerance for cheating. Immediate expulsion imo.
Probably get burnt for this but too many animated gifs.
I had the same problem, I really struggled to focus on the article with all the gifs. They reminded me of the ads that im not seeing because of my adblocker. I wish I could easily block gifs in Safari
agree with you, i hid them all with a simple ublock origin filter: `.gif|$domain=crumplab.com,image`
Haven't read the entire post yet, but must say that this was the page that finally made me look into how a webpage works so I could hide the gifs to read the actual content in peace. Why would anyone, much less a cognitive psychologist, think it's a good idea to take a fairly long piece of text and then liberally shower it with attention-grabbing moving images? Must be Twitter brain.
This was aggravating to read. The immaturity of these students is astounding. There are too many universities and too many university students.
Honestly, why bother joining the chat if you're obligated to put in so much effort?
Analysing social media for evidence of violating academic integrity isn't some thin you get paid for.
Personally, I wouldn't. Why waste what little time I have left each day? Not to mention, whatever grade they get, whether they cheated or not doesn't matter, I'd still get paid at the end of the day.
Analysing social media for evidence of violating academic integrity isn't some thin you get paid for.
Personally, I wouldn't. Why waste what little time I have left each day? Not to mention, whatever grade they get, whether they cheated or not doesn't matter, I'd still get paid at the end of the day.
I am surprised that harvesting quiz questions would be considered cheating?
I find this f’d up at so many levels. The instructor seems to be more concerned about how to fill out forms to report a huge amount of her own class and come up with (surprising the student) countermeasures than about how to teach her students.
Such a huge amount of cheating is a clear indication that the whole system is flawed. This should have been the instructor’s top priority. Instead, she chose to fail her students. I was in pain while reading the article.
The moment she saw what she thinks was cheating, she should have confronted the students. And frankly: why shouldn’t the students help each other? Why did everybody have to learn in solitude?
She herself told the students that the midterm would consist of the same quiz questions. Of course you are trying to gather those along with the right answers.
Apparently, she was short on resources (no TA) and put the burden of that problem on the self regulation of her own students. I am ashamed that this calls itself academic teaching.
Such a huge amount of cheating is a clear indication that the whole system is flawed. This should have been the instructor’s top priority. Instead, she chose to fail her students. I was in pain while reading the article.
The moment she saw what she thinks was cheating, she should have confronted the students. And frankly: why shouldn’t the students help each other? Why did everybody have to learn in solitude?
She herself told the students that the midterm would consist of the same quiz questions. Of course you are trying to gather those along with the right answers.
Apparently, she was short on resources (no TA) and put the burden of that problem on the self regulation of her own students. I am ashamed that this calls itself academic teaching.
Your unconscious bias is showing by the fact that you think this professor is a woman.
Quick edit: Also, it's very obvious that the professor had no issues with the class 'helping each other', but what was happening was people literally just sharing answers to the exam, and being completely unable to succeed without doing so. This wasn't a factor of students sharing study notes - the Professor's example is people literally just posting questions from their exams and asking what the answer was.
Quick edit: Also, it's very obvious that the professor had no issues with the class 'helping each other', but what was happening was people literally just sharing answers to the exam, and being completely unable to succeed without doing so. This wasn't a factor of students sharing study notes - the Professor's example is people literally just posting questions from their exams and asking what the answer was.
> Your unconscious bias is showing by the fact that you think this professor is a woman.
I’m wondering if you had posted the same sentence if I had used a male pronoun and which pronoun I should have used instead to not provoke an off-topic comment but at the same time not promote the idea that a professor must be male. ‚They‘ did not seem to be a good choice either.
I’m wondering if you had posted the same sentence if I had used a male pronoun and which pronoun I should have used instead to not provoke an off-topic comment but at the same time not promote the idea that a professor must be male. ‚They‘ did not seem to be a good choice either.
Maybe, just maybe, the students - who are legally adults, by the way - should not cheat.
> And frankly: why shouldn’t the students help each other?
Because they're not helping each other in a way that isn't cheating. You may as well say that stealing is borrowing.
> Such a huge amount of cheating is a clear indication that the whole system is flawed.
The system isn't supposed to be defendable against large scale cheating because if there are that many cheats then those people should not be included in the system, which is why they should be failed (and probably kicked out). That is the defence.
> And frankly: why shouldn’t the students help each other?
Because they're not helping each other in a way that isn't cheating. You may as well say that stealing is borrowing.
> Such a huge amount of cheating is a clear indication that the whole system is flawed.
The system isn't supposed to be defendable against large scale cheating because if there are that many cheats then those people should not be included in the system, which is why they should be failed (and probably kicked out). That is the defence.
The author didn’t fail all of the cheating students. Did you read to the end? Many of them ended up with an A+. That’s in fact the whole point of the article, to say that more engaging course material reduces cheating.
Thank you for pointing this out! I couldn’t make it to the end. I tried several times but found it unbearable for the stated reasons.
>Too bad you used the same phone number that you have on file with the university.
Regardless of the legitimate discussion on cheating, why would a lecturer have access to student phone numbers, either directly or after asking the student affairs office to link them to names? The further I got in the article, the more it seemed like Reddit-style creative writing.
Regardless of the legitimate discussion on cheating, why would a lecturer have access to student phone numbers, either directly or after asking the student affairs office to link them to names? The further I got in the article, the more it seemed like Reddit-style creative writing.
A good answer for this problem is just to produce the sort of questions that are fit to open book exams (I.e. resistant to access to materials) and give a different question to each student.
It can be done by varying a bit the parameters of the question for each student and I am sure AI based solutions for producing a lot of questions are possible
It can be done by varying a bit the parameters of the question for each student and I am sure AI based solutions for producing a lot of questions are possible
This was a great read. I wonder if it's actually more time-efficient at some point to just do an oral exam rather than these paper exams.
In oral exams, it's obvious whether you know the material or not.
It may appear more time-consuming, but considering there is no need to grade or worry about cheating, you may come out ahead.
In oral exams, it's obvious whether you know the material or not.
It may appear more time-consuming, but considering there is no need to grade or worry about cheating, you may come out ahead.
I did that for one class. It was both extremely time efficient and effective.
The downside to oral examinations however is you can't really grade curve them.
Which is a beautiful thing, but also not what the faculty wants.
The faculty grades mostly because they want to cull the chaff from the hardest working grad student candidates.
They aren't after pure comprehension, they want hard workers.
The downside to oral examinations however is you can't really grade curve them.
Which is a beautiful thing, but also not what the faculty wants.
The faculty grades mostly because they want to cull the chaff from the hardest working grad student candidates.
They aren't after pure comprehension, they want hard workers.
My most memorable exam experience as a student was an oral exam in thermodynamics or heat transfer.
They gave a randomly selected question to me and I had 30 minutes to prepare a solution (alone in back of classroom). I provide solution which took 10 minutes then 20 minutes was additional theory questions.
For each student, it took the professor 30 minutes. So for 100 students you can do it in 5 hours.
I believe the professor was John Thome.
They gave a randomly selected question to me and I had 30 minutes to prepare a solution (alone in back of classroom). I provide solution which took 10 minutes then 20 minutes was additional theory questions.
For each student, it took the professor 30 minutes. So for 100 students you can do it in 5 hours.
I believe the professor was John Thome.
*50 hours
This is a widespread problem. The inevitable outcome is that university education loses more and more prestige.
Maybe this is the way it has to be. Self-taught people with impressive portfolios start becoming more and more attractive while well-qualified people become less and less attractive - or even suspect.
Maybe this is the way it has to be. Self-taught people with impressive portfolios start becoming more and more attractive while well-qualified people become less and less attractive - or even suspect.
Since a plurality of the population has higher education degrees and since that segment of society enjoys greater respect and privilege, I'd wager that instead those with higher education will use their positions and voting power towards the passage of laws and regulations to keep the self taught out of the workplace.
You can see the start of that here sometimes. It is sometimes suggested programmers become like "real engineers" by increasing regulation and requiring a certain level of education.
I mean the fact that we are having a serious discussion about forgiving trillions of dollars of debt for this statistically already quite privileged population shows they have to power to pull it off.
You can see the start of that here sometimes. It is sometimes suggested programmers become like "real engineers" by increasing regulation and requiring a certain level of education.
I mean the fact that we are having a serious discussion about forgiving trillions of dollars of debt for this statistically already quite privileged population shows they have to power to pull it off.
I think there's going to be an element of this, but how pervasive will it be?
A plurality of that plurality has a higher education degree from an institution that isn't world famous - including myself. I don't feel at all threatened by self taught people, honestly I was not a great student and consider myself partially self taught anyway.
A plurality of that plurality has a higher education degree from an institution that isn't world famous - including myself. I don't feel at all threatened by self taught people, honestly I was not a great student and consider myself partially self taught anyway.
How pervasive it is depends on how scare resources are. From my experience as resources get scarce humans group up together by a one or more of the common properties they share.
Race, religion, county of origin, urban or rural, sexuality, union or scab, favorite sports team, etc
I don't see why educational attainment is any different. The only part that is missing in the software industry is a scarcity of resources and the shift described in the grandparent comment and those behaviors will happen at scale.
Race, religion, county of origin, urban or rural, sexuality, union or scab, favorite sports team, etc
I don't see why educational attainment is any different. The only part that is missing in the software industry is a scarcity of resources and the shift described in the grandparent comment and those behaviors will happen at scale.
This is just partially true.
University education has lost a lot of its appeal, that's correct, some sort of tragedy of the commons. But that part of "Self-taught people with impressive portfolios " is hilarious, navel gazing to the max. Nobody would deal with a self-taught cardiologist or structural engineer.
University education has lost a lot of its appeal, that's correct, some sort of tragedy of the commons. But that part of "Self-taught people with impressive portfolios " is hilarious, navel gazing to the max. Nobody would deal with a self-taught cardiologist or structural engineer.
I guess we have to draw the distinction between "qualification preferred" and "qualification required".
IIRC in many jurisdictions you can sit the exam to become a lawyer without having a degree or anything. The degree more acts as a series of preparation classes for the very very difficult process of passing the bar.
In this situation, cheating in mid terms becomes a bit pointless. As long as the final exam is done with strict security (easier for a one off event), the qualification means something.
So maybe that's what we want for cardiologists and structural engineers.
IIRC in many jurisdictions you can sit the exam to become a lawyer without having a degree or anything. The degree more acts as a series of preparation classes for the very very difficult process of passing the bar.
In this situation, cheating in mid terms becomes a bit pointless. As long as the final exam is done with strict security (easier for a one off event), the qualification means something.
So maybe that's what we want for cardiologists and structural engineers.
You still have to work under a licensed lawyer as an apprentice as a requisite for the test.
Why not? I think a big part of it would be evaluating whether a job candidate has the skills to do the job, not how they attained their knowledge. I'd be fine with my cardiologist testing out of the USMLE steps to get a job.
I respect anyone who does heart surgery on themselves
This will only get worse as new generations are taught to demand immediate satisfaction and to abhore having to work for results. They think they deserve anything for the simple fact they exist and desire it.
Replacing scientists with political activists and learning with political activism in Universities just magnified this phenomenon.
This will make the people with knowledge and ability and desire to do work 100x more precious.
And the markets are rewarding the hard work and knowledge, not anything else.
I am trying to instill in my small kids the desire to learn and the ability to work. It will be a hard fight because I will sometimes have to fight against school, politics and the current norms of some parts of the society. But my duty as a parent is to try to prepare them for the future, to make them winners.
Replacing scientists with political activists and learning with political activism in Universities just magnified this phenomenon.
This will make the people with knowledge and ability and desire to do work 100x more precious.
And the markets are rewarding the hard work and knowledge, not anything else.
I am trying to instill in my small kids the desire to learn and the ability to work. It will be a hard fight because I will sometimes have to fight against school, politics and the current norms of some parts of the society. But my duty as a parent is to try to prepare them for the future, to make them winners.
I wish we would replace our current post-secondary education system with apprenticeships.
Apprenticeships could combine some classroom instruction with some actual doing.
Now you remove most of the incentive for cheating- the classroom stuff is directly relevant to you because you’re going to have to use it shortly, maybe today. It’s no longer the grade that’s important; it’s the knowledge.
The benefit of actually learning the material becomes immediate and concrete. Tthere won’t be any opportunity for cheating when you’re in front of people actually expecting you to do the thing; you either can or you can’t. And your livelihood now depends on it.
The university system is hopelessly busted in so many ways. There is no way to fix it. But there are other ways to get knowledgeable, productive professionals.
Apprenticeships could combine some classroom instruction with some actual doing.
Now you remove most of the incentive for cheating- the classroom stuff is directly relevant to you because you’re going to have to use it shortly, maybe today. It’s no longer the grade that’s important; it’s the knowledge.
The benefit of actually learning the material becomes immediate and concrete. Tthere won’t be any opportunity for cheating when you’re in front of people actually expecting you to do the thing; you either can or you can’t. And your livelihood now depends on it.
The university system is hopelessly busted in so many ways. There is no way to fix it. But there are other ways to get knowledgeable, productive professionals.
For me, attending university was useful. I studied biochemistry but ended up in software engineering. That is a direct result of having met people and explored different options available to me in university. On top of that, my science and general education requirements helped me to think more broadly and deeply about the world.
I think the apprenticeship model is awesome, and also available through bootcamps + internships.
I think the apprenticeship model is awesome, and also available through bootcamps + internships.
These students are ready to enter the workforce. Result driven, team players, pro-active, tech savvy. They are displaying all qualities required to be a productive employee. To them, and in practice, education is merely a hurdle. Just graduate them already.
What makes me sad isn't any of the mechanics around cheating, it's that such a vast percentage of people aren't honest. What is the point in doing any kind of learning at all - in fact, anything at all - if you're just going to fake it?
It used to be that a good liberal arts university might claim to teach students "how to learn".
Given all the recent deterioration of discourse, maybe the university should start with a remedial "how not to be a liar and a cheat".
Given all the recent deterioration of discourse, maybe the university should start with a remedial "how not to be a liar and a cheat".
I’m guessing this was an introductory course? Every college stuffs kids into courses they have no interest in. Society pressures them into college in the first place. Most introductory courses, perhaps not this one but especially in liberal arts, involve not much beyond agreeing with the professor’s personal opinions presented as fact to get an A. And, well, people like to cheat to get ahead, mooch off the government, etc. Today is probably worse than other periods; generations in the US are on a steep downhill slope, and academia and educators in general seem increasingly deranged. Convincing others this is a solvable problem sounds like a great way to get money.
OK. This is a long slog, but I skimmed and got the gist.
There must be a technical solution to the cheating problem.
Many years ago I taught an intro to programming course. For the grading I built a randomized online test - students would have one hour to answer a number of programming questions using a terminal in the computer lab, and would get their grade as the test progressed with the final grade after the last question. It worked both at freeing up my time for grading, and eliminating cheating.
Automated randomized testing in all types of classes (not just an intro class where this task is much simpler) would go a long way towards solving the cheating problem.
There, a problem for all you to solve.
There must be a technical solution to the cheating problem.
Many years ago I taught an intro to programming course. For the grading I built a randomized online test - students would have one hour to answer a number of programming questions using a terminal in the computer lab, and would get their grade as the test progressed with the final grade after the last question. It worked both at freeing up my time for grading, and eliminating cheating.
Automated randomized testing in all types of classes (not just an intro class where this task is much simpler) would go a long way towards solving the cheating problem.
There, a problem for all you to solve.
Heh, I wonder if the quizzes just shuffled the questions between students, how many would get it wrong because their option A) was other people's option B)
No. It wasn't like that. I built software that would generate unique completely random test questions. The software would eval() the students response and would give 100% if correct, 0 if not.
It’s outrageous that students who logged into the chat but didn’t share answers were punished. What is a student supposed to do when literally everybody else is cheating? Take a C because the course is graded on the curve?
These chats exist in every course in every college course and the students who don’t join them either because they’re honest or don’t have the right friends have no chance of graduating with a decent GPA.
The problem is lazy professors and TAs creating assignments and quizzes that are easy to grade. Essays and papers are harder to grade than multiple choice quizzes but they also prevent students from cheating.
Do your damn job and cheating won’t be a problem.
These chats exist in every course in every college course and the students who don’t join them either because they’re honest or don’t have the right friends have no chance of graduating with a decent GPA.
The problem is lazy professors and TAs creating assignments and quizzes that are easy to grade. Essays and papers are harder to grade than multiple choice quizzes but they also prevent students from cheating.
Do your damn job and cheating won’t be a problem.
As a TA, I can tell you that there is no form of assignment that can not be cheated on. For example, essays and papers will usually contain sections copied straight from literature or from other students.
Another common proposal is to give individual assignments to each student, but it is usually impossible to make equally difficult assignments, so this approach is not very fair. It also does not work when students are paying other people to do the assignments for them, which has become a huge problem over the last few years with the commercialization of cheating through various platforms.
Another common proposal is to give individual assignments to each student, but it is usually impossible to make equally difficult assignments, so this approach is not very fair. It also does not work when students are paying other people to do the assignments for them, which has become a huge problem over the last few years with the commercialization of cheating through various platforms.
Quite sad that nothing came out of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U.
Sir Ken Robinson has a lot to say about the education paradigm and why it should be changed, and in what ways. He appeared on TED[1][2], too, since then, and probably elsewhere as well.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX78iKhInsc [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY
Sir Ken Robinson has a lot to say about the education paradigm and why it should be changed, and in what ways. He appeared on TED[1][2], too, since then, and probably elsewhere as well.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX78iKhInsc [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY
Sadly he passed away in 2020.
Oh wow, I just remembered now. :( That's really upsetting! He was the only person giving me hope. :/ Thank you for the reminder.
How exactly was it cheating ? Students were allowed to share questions or answers and they did just that on a WhatsApp group. Did i read something wrong ? I didn't quite get the path that would be considered cheating.
Good read, but man those gifs are distracting.
To play devil's advocate here, was it clear that the students knew they were cheating and that their behavior was unacceptable?
If a teacher told me that the work was open book, open notes, open internet, I might legitimately believe that I could openly talk to people about it. Probably not for an exam, but for a low-stakes, "check your knowledge" type of take-home quiz? Maybe.
I'm not sure if this is a generational divide or if the author's description of the rules was unclear, but I wonder if some students legitimately didn't realize they were cheating.
If a teacher told me that the work was open book, open notes, open internet, I might legitimately believe that I could openly talk to people about it. Probably not for an exam, but for a low-stakes, "check your knowledge" type of take-home quiz? Maybe.
I'm not sure if this is a generational divide or if the author's description of the rules was unclear, but I wonder if some students legitimately didn't realize they were cheating.
Here's what the article said:
> Also, by the way, I should say that the quizzes were entirely open book and open note. All of the course material was online and freely available to the students. The quizzes were individual assignments, and students were not supposed to help each other by sharing questions or answers.
That seems clear enough, so assuming the syllabus said something similar, I'm fairly confident that the students did know they weren't supposed to be doing what they were doing. Also, if they thought they weren't doing anything wrong, then they wouldn't have been so worried about a snitch.
> Also, by the way, I should say that the quizzes were entirely open book and open note. All of the course material was online and freely available to the students. The quizzes were individual assignments, and students were not supposed to help each other by sharing questions or answers.
That seems clear enough, so assuming the syllabus said something similar, I'm fairly confident that the students did know they weren't supposed to be doing what they were doing. Also, if they thought they weren't doing anything wrong, then they wouldn't have been so worried about a snitch.
Students are cheating on tests, yet technical interview tests are still the standard. How does memorizing a question so you can regurgitate it benefit anyone? I consider even that to be cheating.
You're not thinking through the problem like the interviewer implies and asked for. You're replaying inputs, like a bot programmed to beat a level in Mario.
If they're looking to hire a good Mario player, you're misrepresenting yourself with that technique. The pixel perfect glitch you nail on every screen has nothing to do with your actual ability when you get the role.
You're not thinking through the problem like the interviewer implies and asked for. You're replaying inputs, like a bot programmed to beat a level in Mario.
If they're looking to hire a good Mario player, you're misrepresenting yourself with that technique. The pixel perfect glitch you nail on every screen has nothing to do with your actual ability when you get the role.
If I understand correctly, they had an online async test and they shared screenshots of the answers. Is that even cheating? It wouldn't even register as cheating for me... When I was at the university (not US) we had these online "tests" too, but it was a different category than the real tests. Nobody really cared what you do. Sometimes we sat down together and did it one by one (especially if it was some random generated math problem), other times we just shared the answers (when the test was too lame...)
I've studied at an online university. There were quizzes every week that were not graded; one or two graded ones during the course; one final graded quiz at the end of the course. 99% of all the questions were multiple-choice ones. Some questions from non-graded quizzes would appear in the graded ones. Then the questions from the graded quizzes during the course would appear on the final one. After taking the quiz, you could see the correct answer for each question. As I went through the course, I would add every single quiz question I encountered, the answers, and the correct answer into the database. Sometimes I would google questions I saw on the quiz and would find the list of the questions somebody else had posted. I would then verify the correctness of the answers against the course material and add them to my database as well.
I wrote a JavaScript that would get injected into the page with a quiz using the GreaseMonkey extension. It would go over the questions on the page, do a fuzzy search against my database that I compiled, and put the top 5 best matches next to each question. The library had its limitations, but it would take care of things like words being in a different order or a couple of words missing. I improved it by adding additional transformations to the question. Things like removing any non-letter characters but being careful to handle things like dashes and apostrophes in some cases; removal of the stopwords; stemming.
That would usually take care of about half of the questions. Sometimes, more than 90%. I would then spend the rest of the quiz time manually answering the remaining questions. Since this course was an open textbook, I would have one giant text file that would contain every single text that appeared during the course. It was allowed to look into any course material while taking the quiz. The end result of this is that I would get 98+% of the answers correct in almost every single course I took.
We also had written assignments which I always honestly completed while carefully following the citation rules. No clever tricks here.
I graduated with 10% in my university and was on the honors list. I never thought of what I did as cheating because I never collaborated with others. I never disclosed what I did and how I did it. I think that people who did those quizzes did them in a way that allowed me to do what I did.
I wrote a JavaScript that would get injected into the page with a quiz using the GreaseMonkey extension. It would go over the questions on the page, do a fuzzy search against my database that I compiled, and put the top 5 best matches next to each question. The library had its limitations, but it would take care of things like words being in a different order or a couple of words missing. I improved it by adding additional transformations to the question. Things like removing any non-letter characters but being careful to handle things like dashes and apostrophes in some cases; removal of the stopwords; stemming.
That would usually take care of about half of the questions. Sometimes, more than 90%. I would then spend the rest of the quiz time manually answering the remaining questions. Since this course was an open textbook, I would have one giant text file that would contain every single text that appeared during the course. It was allowed to look into any course material while taking the quiz. The end result of this is that I would get 98+% of the answers correct in almost every single course I took.
We also had written assignments which I always honestly completed while carefully following the citation rules. No clever tricks here.
I graduated with 10% in my university and was on the honors list. I never thought of what I did as cheating because I never collaborated with others. I never disclosed what I did and how I did it. I think that people who did those quizzes did them in a way that allowed me to do what I did.
I've heard a lot of the same from the professors I'm close to, even when taking significant measures to prevent or reduce the incentive to cheat (like making the exam less important, making it open internet but no communication or using that annoyingly intrusive lockdown browser). Even when having the ability to look things up on the internet, there were cases of it being relatively obvious when people were communicating (not that I know how).
Many of them just ended up cancelling the results for those exams outright.
Many of them just ended up cancelling the results for those exams outright.
I think there is a fundamental error in the teacher behaviour. If a student cheat in a physical class, would they wait until the end of the examn/semester or call it out unmediately? Why did he let it go on and on?
With the change of paradigm with remote learning it has been a lot of grey areas, and students principles have been tested. On the teachers side they seem to focus too much in «how clever» they are they can spot the cheating, but did tjey set up the boundaries clearly?
I think the primary goal of a teacher is for their students to learn. The teacher understood this and look for way to discourage the cheating as a second priority and went on the “engaging material” creation first.
Removing the behavior by removing the incentive.
As my HS profesor used to say.. “Locks were created to prevent honest people from stealing, thieves will just break whatever lock they find.”
The goal is not to discourage cheating by punishment but rather to understand the incentives and address them.
As my HS profesor used to say.. “Locks were created to prevent honest people from stealing, thieves will just break whatever lock they find.”
The goal is not to discourage cheating by punishment but rather to understand the incentives and address them.
The amount of effort that this person put into the cheating analysis, and this blog post, is honestly super concerning.
I don’t understand the perspective of an educator who doesn’t expect cheating, and then instead of shutting down the chat immediately, keeps it open the whole semester in some fucked up moralistic detective game.
I truly feel like this was probably a boring class and the opposite of engaging. A very one sided view, we don’t see the student’s perspective at all, outside of the cheating.
I don’t understand the perspective of an educator who doesn’t expect cheating, and then instead of shutting down the chat immediately, keeps it open the whole semester in some fucked up moralistic detective game.
I truly feel like this was probably a boring class and the opposite of engaging. A very one sided view, we don’t see the student’s perspective at all, outside of the cheating.
[deleted]
Yes, cheating nowadays is almost inevitable, because of changed society principles to life, easy access to information, easy access to cheating smart devices, etc.
The solution? Let's finally evolve from schooling and let's forget that schools and universities exist. Let's open source degrees and make them much more compelling. Let's do everything online. Let's create collaborative labs in VR.
The solution? Let's finally evolve from schooling and let's forget that schools and universities exist. Let's open source degrees and make them much more compelling. Let's do everything online. Let's create collaborative labs in VR.
I greatly respect that you were empathetic with the students. The world needs more professors like you. Truly my favorite read on Hacker News so far.
I remember the hard math-heavy university courses having homework questions that came down to copying down a solutions from somewhere, and having a score for it was there to make sure you wrote down those solutions over and over again.
Doing that properly burned those approaches into my mind and even though I wasn't coming up with those solutions myself, I did get the learning step
Doing that properly burned those approaches into my mind and even though I wasn't coming up with those solutions myself, I did get the learning step
[deleted]
> I had been avoiding grading weekly writing assignments because I had many students and no teaching assistant to help me with the grading
Bruh. During the remote-only pandemic? Sounds like you were a lazy professor. I get that it's hard to do work, but this is obvious stuff. Give your students easily cheatable assignments and it's no surprise that they cheat.
Bruh. During the remote-only pandemic? Sounds like you were a lazy professor. I get that it's hard to do work, but this is obvious stuff. Give your students easily cheatable assignments and it's no surprise that they cheat.
Not surprising I'm getting hate for this take. Academic douches tend to be lazy and abdicate responsibility. Weak sauce.
I don't like how the teacher created an anonymous account and started listening to students' conversations. That on its own is creepy at best and lacking academic integrity at worst.
Then he muted it for a couple of months and resumed after accidentally discovering a violation. Then didn't act immediately but waited and observed more violations.
Then he muted it for a couple of months and resumed after accidentally discovering a violation. Then didn't act immediately but waited and observed more violations.
My employer hires a batch of new college grads every year, and they spend time in their first year on different rotations. I spent some time recently with one, going over some advanced CS topics — and started by talking school coursework.
It was eye-opening. I had a miserable pandemic, juggling childcare and online school for my kids with my own job. But this colleague had gotten interested in CS somewhat late in college and had only had a few in-person CS classes before the switch to online. In the colleague’s words, “quality declined a lot then.”
There’s a new cohort of college students who’ve been given a terrible education, and have a lot of loans to pay off. I don’t condone the cheating in TFA, but the professor seems to have a formalist rigidity to academic honesty while teaching a course online in a way that’s almost designed for cheating. And rather than admonishing students when he became aware of what was happening he spent time (days? weeks?) analyzing the chat while the behavior continued.
I empathize a lot with students who’ve just been through a terrible educational experience. The effort this prof has put into plagiarism detection could arguably have been better spent on improving course materials and grading mechanisms to render cheating rare/ineffectual.
It was eye-opening. I had a miserable pandemic, juggling childcare and online school for my kids with my own job. But this colleague had gotten interested in CS somewhat late in college and had only had a few in-person CS classes before the switch to online. In the colleague’s words, “quality declined a lot then.”
There’s a new cohort of college students who’ve been given a terrible education, and have a lot of loans to pay off. I don’t condone the cheating in TFA, but the professor seems to have a formalist rigidity to academic honesty while teaching a course online in a way that’s almost designed for cheating. And rather than admonishing students when he became aware of what was happening he spent time (days? weeks?) analyzing the chat while the behavior continued.
I empathize a lot with students who’ve just been through a terrible educational experience. The effort this prof has put into plagiarism detection could arguably have been better spent on improving course materials and grading mechanisms to render cheating rare/ineffectual.
I agree that while the professor seemed to be responding well in a lot of ways, his failure to quickly address the situation was terrible. He could have given his lecture on academic honesty immediately after realizing the extent of the problem, even if he needed more time to create all the individualized reports. I have a hard time seeing how that wouldn't have improved the situation, perhaps in ways that he doesn't realize even now. (For example, how much student time was wasted on all this drama, which could have been much reduced by earlier action, with a consequent effect on their performance in other courses?)
Online exams without proctoring are a recipe for disaster, and I think that should be pretty obvious to any instructor.
Cheating doesn't seem to be punished any more in the UK because universities need the fees. I witnessed an egregious case of cheating in an MSc exam which was caught, and as far as I can tell, the perpetrator just had to resit.
One of the first year courses in an undergraduate degree ought to be in academic integrity.
One of the first year courses in an undergraduate degree ought to be in academic integrity.
Honestly, if academic institutions don't get serious about cheating, at what point does industry stop paying any attention to whether you have a degree or not? What's the point of even requiring a degree for anything when there is a very large chance the degree holder is just a good cheater?
First of all, I'mm sorry you had to endure something so emotionally straining.
Please consider the the students perspective. I, myself, went through academia with a one single goal - to obtain a piece of paper for future employment reasons, which I endured, with gritted teeth
I have no idea how it works on your country of residence, but I had a curriculum that consisted of about 20% of classes, of absolute irrelevancy to my primary field of study. I have no regrets cheating on those classes, just to get it over with.
I urge you to entertain the idea, that some students, unfortunately, were there not by choice, but merely "passing through".
Consider this a problem with the educational system itself, not students having a personal grudge with your subject or self.
Finally, no offense intended, but I urge you to reconsider your strong loyality to the (sprry, probably misquoting) "academic code of conduct" and filling out reports about your misbehaving students. Replacing idealism in favour of pragmatism might suit everyone's needs better :)
P.S. Sounds like yur students would gratly benefit form some education in the field of OPSEC :)
Please consider the the students perspective. I, myself, went through academia with a one single goal - to obtain a piece of paper for future employment reasons, which I endured, with gritted teeth
I have no idea how it works on your country of residence, but I had a curriculum that consisted of about 20% of classes, of absolute irrelevancy to my primary field of study. I have no regrets cheating on those classes, just to get it over with.
I urge you to entertain the idea, that some students, unfortunately, were there not by choice, but merely "passing through".
Consider this a problem with the educational system itself, not students having a personal grudge with your subject or self.
Finally, no offense intended, but I urge you to reconsider your strong loyality to the (sprry, probably misquoting) "academic code of conduct" and filling out reports about your misbehaving students. Replacing idealism in favour of pragmatism might suit everyone's needs better :)
P.S. Sounds like yur students would gratly benefit form some education in the field of OPSEC :)
> Please consider the the students perspective. I, myself, went through academia with a one single goal - to obtain a piece of paper for future employment reasons, which I endured, with gritted teeth
>
> I have no idea how it works on your country of residence, but I had a curriculum that consisted of about 20% of classes, of absolute irrelevancy to my primary field of study. I have no regrets cheating on those classes, just to get it over with.
The point of academia isn't to prepare you for your future profession. It's not supposed to teach you the on-the-job skills. It's about learning to learn, about getting equipped with a toolset to tackle novel problems and give a broad theoretical basis for that in your field of study. Also to demonstrate you can learn and work through a subject that's not (or you think is not) directly relevant for you.
That and more are the qualities future employers attribute to that piece of paper and letting cheating slide is certainly not pragmatic.
The point of academia isn't to prepare you for your future profession. It's not supposed to teach you the on-the-job skills. It's about learning to learn, about getting equipped with a toolset to tackle novel problems and give a broad theoretical basis for that in your field of study. Also to demonstrate you can learn and work through a subject that's not (or you think is not) directly relevant for you.
That and more are the qualities future employers attribute to that piece of paper and letting cheating slide is certainly not pragmatic.
[deleted]
It's hilarious how common this is, as a TA, I had to deal with this entirity of last few semesters. My students aren't that dumb to invite me into the group chat though.
I have to say the school really let the instructor down. An instructor should not have to fill 70 forms.
I have to say the school really let the instructor down. An instructor should not have to fill 70 forms.
At the very end of the day, none of the economic consequences really matter, but the honest student gets to feel good about themselves for having integrity, the remorseful dishonest student feels remorse, and the amoral dishonest student was lost from the start.
One of the most interesting things that comes out of Academia StackExchange when students are asking about what to do about academic dishonesty violations is how quickly they go to the "Cell Block Tango" defense.
"I didn't do it, but if I done it..."
"I didn't do it, but if I done it..."
At Princeton, this would have led to year suspensions for all students involved. At least when I was there 15 years ago. I know numerous people who had to take a year off. Not saying this is right. It probably is too punitive and disruptive.
Reminds me of the time where someone shared the pdf for our final exam the day before it was going to be held, including the sample solutions and grading key. I still have absolutely no idea how it was obtained.
It certainly made for good learning material.
It certainly made for good learning material.
I used to program answers into my graphic calculator for things I couldn't remember
I remember that cheating was considered very serious and anyone caught would be expelled.
Surely the reputation and integrity of the institution comes before the rights of a dishonest person.
Perhaps more effort should be in catching the cheats and removing them?
Surely the reputation and integrity of the institution comes before the rights of a dishonest person.
Perhaps more effort should be in catching the cheats and removing them?
[deleted]
Would things like this still occur if a person's educational history data were treated like their medical data under HIPAA? It is the cleanest proposal I have seen for decoupling education from careerist motivations.
[deleted]
I am lucky to have found this Debian package https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/similarity-tester (source https://dickgrune.com/Programs/similarity_tester/ ) to help me detect plagiarism in my students's C++ code. The tool is perfect as it gives side by side comparison of codes to help see if there's a really an issue. Usually, it is easy to confirm by spotting specific constructions or even the positions of punctuation in code. I have found something for Python though.
I am reminded of a quote from fictional character Hagbard Celine (Illuminatus!)
"They are not in university to get knowledge, they are here to receive papers that say they are qualified for job xy"
"They are not in university to get knowledge, they are here to receive papers that say they are qualified for job xy"
Epilogue 2.. the group has now moved to something called ‘Discord’
I'd hate to be a professor, for this reason. having to spend hours/day teaching stuff to ppl who don't care. such a waste of effort for both student and professor.
For my excises I started to allow copy/cheating etc because students will cheat themselves. On the other hand I even did on site oral exams (20-40 per course, so it is still manageable) during the pandemic (using video terminals).
Particularly reading this, the whole enforcement of anticheating becomes a privacy nightmare. I do not want my students to learn that putting root kits on PCs is OK (for proctoring) or that archiving potentially private chat messages without consent (I am in Europe, so GDPR applies) is OK.
At the same time students have to learn how to use stackoverflow or copilot effectively. So I want to teach them that initial copying is OK if you fully understand the result and that often doing it yourself from scratch is better to achieve it.
I know we talking about slightly different things, but grading based on multiple choice seems to be at the core of the problem.
Particularly reading this, the whole enforcement of anticheating becomes a privacy nightmare. I do not want my students to learn that putting root kits on PCs is OK (for proctoring) or that archiving potentially private chat messages without consent (I am in Europe, so GDPR applies) is OK.
At the same time students have to learn how to use stackoverflow or copilot effectively. So I want to teach them that initial copying is OK if you fully understand the result and that often doing it yourself from scratch is better to achieve it.
I know we talking about slightly different things, but grading based on multiple choice seems to be at the core of the problem.
The thing that stands out to me is that the professor is bewildered about all of the cheating happening. As a student, this story is very common and almost "normal"
The author has a responsibility to out the cheaters. It's unacceptably unfair to the students in his course who didn't cheat, and cheaters should be shamed publicly and have their career prospects severely damaged. I really don't give a shit what excuses or justifications someone might have had for cheating, if you had to run away from home sleep under the bridge and suck dick for wifi after your dad killed your mom or whatever. I literally do not give one flying fuck. Cheating is not acceptable or excusable, ever, period.
I'll go further and say that if you're not ready to out cheaters in your classes, you have no business teaching
I'll go further and say that if you're not ready to out cheaters in your classes, you have no business teaching
I think it is pretty standard practice to keep cheating confidential (indeed, I think for a lot of universities professors aren't allowed to publicize student names in incidents of cheating). I understand where you're coming from, but college can be an extremely stressful place that can lead students to do actions they otherwise wouldn't have done (or so goes the typical reasoning from universities).
"Shamed publicly and have their career prospects severely damaged..."
The prefontal cortex does not finish developing until age 25 or thereabouts. This is why it is logical and necessary to punish young people differently from the way we punish adults.
"Cheating is not acceptable or excusable, ever, period."
Children develop the ability to lie and cheat around 3 or 4 years of age, although they are very unskilled at it and initially tell lies that are not believable. I think we agree that we can accept and excuse 4-year-olds who lie and cheat, because it will take much longer for them to develop ethics and morals.
The question then is, how do we taper off the acceptance and excuses? Perhaps we agree that it's acceptable at age 4 and unacceptable at age 25, but what about 18? Perhaps people at age 18 still need to learn ethics and morals?
It seems like such a shame to destroy somebody's academic career if there are ways to save it.
The prefontal cortex does not finish developing until age 25 or thereabouts. This is why it is logical and necessary to punish young people differently from the way we punish adults.
"Cheating is not acceptable or excusable, ever, period."
Children develop the ability to lie and cheat around 3 or 4 years of age, although they are very unskilled at it and initially tell lies that are not believable. I think we agree that we can accept and excuse 4-year-olds who lie and cheat, because it will take much longer for them to develop ethics and morals.
The question then is, how do we taper off the acceptance and excuses? Perhaps we agree that it's acceptable at age 4 and unacceptable at age 25, but what about 18? Perhaps people at age 18 still need to learn ethics and morals?
It seems like such a shame to destroy somebody's academic career if there are ways to save it.
What if the test is not great at evaluating the capabilities of a person to do their future job.
Maybe preventing a person that does not understand differential equations from being a doctor, English teacher, event manager ...
„I literally do not give one flying fuck.“
The person who cheats, will give no f** about your opinion either.
Maybe preventing a person that does not understand differential equations from being a doctor, English teacher, event manager ...
„I literally do not give one flying fuck.“
The person who cheats, will give no f** about your opinion either.
Unfortunately, life does not have a responsibility to be fair. Although we would sure like it to be, it is not universally possible.
Cheating matters little. The folks who cheat will spend their whole lives pursuing meaningless petty goals and will end up with average lives .
And that’s fine, maybe it’s all they want
And that’s fine, maybe it’s all they want
Not necessarily. During Covid my school (in France) shifted to online quizzes. Students would start by screenshoting the questions, which would then get automatically uploaded to a shared Dropbox folder. Students would then run a program that would cluster the screenshots and outputs the names of students who had the same questions and then they can collaborate directly. This is brilliant of course and solves all of the communication issues the students in this post faced but hearing about after it the fact (I was an international student and didn't know anyone in my class at the time) made me sick and salty. Most of those students are now workingnin high paying engineering jobs lol I am too but yeah, realistically, cheating works.
Okay, this guy is at CUNY, a good enough school. How dumb are these kids ? The professor is really going out of his way to make sure people engage with the material.
Wow, congrats author if you are reading this
The epic case of a teacher who hunts down the cheaters and doesn't take revenge, instead does the right thing
To all "professors" (so-called) - you are not there to TEST people, you are there to EDUCATE them. Cheating in this context becomes impossible.
We cheat on our partners , will cheat on taxes if we can. The only effective way to stop humans cheating is punishment as a deterrent. We cheat because we are smart, get the same result for less work and even if the cheating takes the same amount of work as studying at least it was your decision. I don't get how this teacher or OP is so surprised that students would cheat. Most of us don't want to be in school, its just a necessary evil to get that all important paper. These students are completely rational and just got unlucky.
I think 75% students cheating is definitely surprising, and probably caused by a culture of rampant cheating at this institution (only a guess though).
> Most of us don't want to be in school, its just a necessary evil to get that all important paper
I get what you mean, and had a similar sentiment during my years at university. I deeply regret this now though. I could have transitioned to a studies I‘m more interested in, or dropped out after the Bachelor‘s and started earning money earlier.
> Most of us don't want to be in school, its just a necessary evil to get that all important paper
I get what you mean, and had a similar sentiment during my years at university. I deeply regret this now though. I could have transitioned to a studies I‘m more interested in, or dropped out after the Bachelor‘s and started earning money earlier.
Interesting, that they used Whatsapp. My impression was, that it’s barely used in the US. I’d expected to see a discord server instead
Wow.
Kinda want to plagiarize this response to bring it full circle
Kinda want to plagiarize this response to bring it full circle
Personally I find cheating repellent. But if a bunch of cheaters can curve you into a lower grade, you don’t know the material.
Paralelisms with deep learning.
He mixed training data (pool of quiz) with test data.
By the second midterm, he changed the approach to catch the cheaters.
He mixed training data (pool of quiz) with test data.
By the second midterm, he changed the approach to catch the cheaters.
Seems like the students spent more time into getting their cheating scheme to work than actually studying the material
What bothers me in this story is that it makes it sound as if it's easy to spot from the whatsapp chat who cheated. That doesn't make sense to me. Surely the students who cheated the worst were the ones who used the shared answers from the chat. But how do you monitor that? Those who shared the answers obviously got them by other means, so did they really cheat or just be too helpful by academic standards?
Really enjoyed reading this. Well written.
*For a semester. The author fixed the problem during the next time the course was taught.
This gave some interesting insight into what a lot of my colleagues and I were thinking was going on as we rapidly transitioned to online delivery for our lectures. Certainly we’ve seen shared IPs and similar results within cohorts…
Traditionally we used closed book exams where mechanical engineering students have to solve series of problems. Stressful and encouraging of learning a lot by rote, these have never been liked any anyone. But they offer a level playing field for students in a perverse way. Many new students have not sat similar state exams either and were given estimated grades.
Many of us switched quickly to lecturing on Zoom and giving midterm exams via online quizzes with Brightspace or Blackboard VLEs. That meant open book exams where we have no ability to proctor (due to GDPR apparently).
The capability of setting up complex randomised exam questions was limited too. Brightspace only supported numerical questions based on simple algebraic expressions and would silently truncate an moderately long equation that previously passed checks.
The use of WhatsApp groups is extremely common in general by students and we all knew this would allow easy cheating on exams. So while we randomised question order and used random variables where possible, most academics felt preventing students from moving back and forward through questions was cruel and was typically avoided. Where it was used was vocally opposed by students.
As we look back at what worked and didn’t I think the consensus is that midterms will remain online and we will return to big exam hall finals.
This year I ran my online exam on campus. I booked a few sizeable rooms and split the students across them. It seemed to limit non-independent work.
Traditionally we used closed book exams where mechanical engineering students have to solve series of problems. Stressful and encouraging of learning a lot by rote, these have never been liked any anyone. But they offer a level playing field for students in a perverse way. Many new students have not sat similar state exams either and were given estimated grades.
Many of us switched quickly to lecturing on Zoom and giving midterm exams via online quizzes with Brightspace or Blackboard VLEs. That meant open book exams where we have no ability to proctor (due to GDPR apparently).
The capability of setting up complex randomised exam questions was limited too. Brightspace only supported numerical questions based on simple algebraic expressions and would silently truncate an moderately long equation that previously passed checks.
The use of WhatsApp groups is extremely common in general by students and we all knew this would allow easy cheating on exams. So while we randomised question order and used random variables where possible, most academics felt preventing students from moving back and forward through questions was cruel and was typically avoided. Where it was used was vocally opposed by students.
As we look back at what worked and didn’t I think the consensus is that midterms will remain online and we will return to big exam hall finals.
This year I ran my online exam on campus. I booked a few sizeable rooms and split the students across them. It seemed to limit non-independent work.
This kind of thing is why I generally don't like people. They are mostly garbage.
You know the saddest thing is that people don't even know how to cheat properly.
[deleted]
Just like college loan forgiveness, cheating just screws those who follow the rules.
> Who knew I could automate pdf text entry from R.
Interesting, wonder if this is easier than Lumin
Interesting, wonder if this is easier than Lumin
This has to be the longest blog post I have read in years. Quite enjoyable.
> A couple digressions. I have multi-dimensional empathy for my students. Is that a thing? It is. It means that I learn more from my students than they learn from me. There are more students than me, and they have so much more stuff going on than I do. Although I don’t condone cheating at all, I can recognize that students sometimes resort to cheating because of other life stuff going on. Plus, it was/is a global pandemic, with stress galore. So, we were all in a major life stuff happening moment.
> I was also weirdly empathizing with how hard it would be to cheat in my course. I was sad and angry about the cheating, but in terms of the process they would use to cheat, I knew it would be harder than normal and I could empathize with the difficulties they were experiencing.
> I don’t like cheating in my classes, and I respond to it when it happens. This was the first time when 75% of the class was cheating way beyond the pale for half a semester. My first inclination was to fail everybody. Aside from all the ways that I can be empathetic, there was a lot of evidence in the chat that students were blowing off the course and making a mockery of the whole thing. But, the brash language in the chat could also be covering up difficult issues students were facing in their lives that were preventing them from committing to their studies. Cheating isn’t an answer, but it happens. Just like how playdough goes through the extruder when you make pasta with the toys from fisher price. Metaphors.
> ...
> The point is I had no intention of zooming into class, failing 75% of my students, and calling them all a bunch of cheaters in the middle of a pandemic…even though a bunch of cheating happened and all that. And, no I’m not that soft. It’s just, I’m not the police. Education isn’t a form of punishment. I’m trying to get students to engage in my course. Failing them all isn’t a solution.
This person sounds like they have perhaps an excess of empathy.
This wasn't a case of people getting behind on one or two things and cheating to catch back up, in which case I could understand the leniency. It was 75% of the class trying to cheat their way through essentially the entire course.
That said, there's certainly worse qualities to have in a professor than the patience of a saint. Their alternative syllabus idea later on is neat, though to me it feels weird to respond to what's essentially a lack of effort with a massive effort of your own.
> The first category of student emails was the “I did it email”. There were also “I did it and I’m sorry I did it emails”. And, stuff in between, like not necessarily sorry. All of these emails contained students pleading with me not to ruin their GPA, or how they have never done any thing like this before, and they were really stressed out, and they would never do this again. Some of them seemed heartfelt.
Well, I'm sure they were very heartfelt about being sorry they got caught. How many do you think would have been feeling sorry if they'd gotten away with it scot free?
> I was also weirdly empathizing with how hard it would be to cheat in my course. I was sad and angry about the cheating, but in terms of the process they would use to cheat, I knew it would be harder than normal and I could empathize with the difficulties they were experiencing.
> I don’t like cheating in my classes, and I respond to it when it happens. This was the first time when 75% of the class was cheating way beyond the pale for half a semester. My first inclination was to fail everybody. Aside from all the ways that I can be empathetic, there was a lot of evidence in the chat that students were blowing off the course and making a mockery of the whole thing. But, the brash language in the chat could also be covering up difficult issues students were facing in their lives that were preventing them from committing to their studies. Cheating isn’t an answer, but it happens. Just like how playdough goes through the extruder when you make pasta with the toys from fisher price. Metaphors.
> ...
> The point is I had no intention of zooming into class, failing 75% of my students, and calling them all a bunch of cheaters in the middle of a pandemic…even though a bunch of cheating happened and all that. And, no I’m not that soft. It’s just, I’m not the police. Education isn’t a form of punishment. I’m trying to get students to engage in my course. Failing them all isn’t a solution.
This person sounds like they have perhaps an excess of empathy.
This wasn't a case of people getting behind on one or two things and cheating to catch back up, in which case I could understand the leniency. It was 75% of the class trying to cheat their way through essentially the entire course.
That said, there's certainly worse qualities to have in a professor than the patience of a saint. Their alternative syllabus idea later on is neat, though to me it feels weird to respond to what's essentially a lack of effort with a massive effort of your own.
> The first category of student emails was the “I did it email”. There were also “I did it and I’m sorry I did it emails”. And, stuff in between, like not necessarily sorry. All of these emails contained students pleading with me not to ruin their GPA, or how they have never done any thing like this before, and they were really stressed out, and they would never do this again. Some of them seemed heartfelt.
Well, I'm sure they were very heartfelt about being sorry they got caught. How many do you think would have been feeling sorry if they'd gotten away with it scot free?
I'm not really a fan of how the author handled the situation, but it is clear they care about their students and want them to learn. But when the second semester begins and the author silently joins the new groupchat... I feel like that is a lack of integrity.
Can you explain further what you mean by "integrity"?
IMO as a teacher the correct action would be to try and resolve the issue of cheating at its core. I feel that staying in the new gc and waiting to see if students cheat again is a lack of integrity - he is waiting to see if students cheat rather than teach and grow them.
Dude is not going to solve "cheating at its core". Read some of the shit going on in this thread even. He's not going to solve the "I am a proud cheater because not cheating means you're stupid" guy. He's not going to solve the "I need this piece of paper because companies are dumb and require a piece of paper instead of proof of competence" guy.
You still haven't really shown how this is a problem with his integrity, you're just using the word in a sentence.
You still haven't really shown how this is a problem with his integrity, you're just using the word in a sentence.
The fault lies with the teacher, not the students.
Designing an exam that can be so trivially gamed to get 100% is irresponsible.
You cannot blame the students for taking the optimal sequence of actions to maximize their chances of a perfect grade while minimizing their chances of a bad grade.
Designing an exam that can be so trivially gamed to get 100% is irresponsible.
You cannot blame the students for taking the optimal sequence of actions to maximize their chances of a perfect grade while minimizing their chances of a bad grade.
Use a question generator- unique questions for everyone, every time.
So you join the chat, say nothing for months, and then pull the rug out from under your students?
If a professor joined a group chat, without any corrections to what was being shared, "no news is good news" would be the assumption.
Trying to read this was embarrassing.
If a professor joined a group chat, without any corrections to what was being shared, "no news is good news" would be the assumption.
Trying to read this was embarrassing.
After leaving the mormon church, I lost much of the attitudes that had been ingrained in me there, but one thing I didn't lose was a hatred for cheating.
> So you join the chat, say nothing for months, and then pull the rug out from under your students?
They pulled the rug out from themselves. Don't wanna fail? Then don't cheat.
> So you join the chat, say nothing for months, and then pull the rug out from under your students?
They pulled the rug out from themselves. Don't wanna fail? Then don't cheat.
Not all of what is going on here is cheating. The exams? Sure. The rest? If my professor was in a group chat, I would assume that what was going on was kosher if nothing was being said.
If my professor (now, seemingly) anonymously stays in a group chat without providing input...how can that be considered ethical, either?
If my professor (now, seemingly) anonymously stays in a group chat without providing input...how can that be considered ethical, either?
> Not all of what is going on here is cheating.
Sure, and they had no problem with the non-cheating discussion going on.
> If my professor was in a group chat, I would assume that what was going on was kosher if nothing was being said.
Okay? I don't see how this conflicts with the article.
Sure, and they had no problem with the non-cheating discussion going on.
> If my professor was in a group chat, I would assume that what was going on was kosher if nothing was being said.
Okay? I don't see how this conflicts with the article.
An undercover cop, dressed as a skateboarder, watches dozens of others skate for months - unimpeded - in a location where trespassing is a gray area.
What should have happened?
A. The cop tells the skateboarders, "just so you know, you're technically not supposed to be doing this. If you do it again, I'll have to take action."
B. He suddenly arrests the skateboarders for trespassing, much like a sting operation.
The professor needed to say something. Period.
What should have happened?
A. The cop tells the skateboarders, "just so you know, you're technically not supposed to be doing this. If you do it again, I'll have to take action."
B. He suddenly arrests the skateboarders for trespassing, much like a sting operation.
The professor needed to say something. Period.
> B. He suddenly arrests the skateboarders for trespassing, much like a sting operation.
I mean, sting operations are a real thing, so...?
In your example it sounds stupid because obviously trespassing to skateboard is such an inconsequential crime. A cop should either should immediately tell people or just not give a shit, because who cares?
Within the context of a university, students cheating their way through every exam is obviously a bigger deal than trespassing for the purpose of exercise.
That said, I agree that just immediately telling people (and then paying closer attention to possible cheating thereafter) is probably the better route, but in the article, they stated they didn't notice the cheating going on until it'd been going on for a while, because they just hadn't paid attention to the chat group.
The professor could've handled things better if they'd been more aware and responsive from the start, but still, the lion's share of the blame rests with the people who chose to cheat.
I mean, sting operations are a real thing, so...?
In your example it sounds stupid because obviously trespassing to skateboard is such an inconsequential crime. A cop should either should immediately tell people or just not give a shit, because who cares?
Within the context of a university, students cheating their way through every exam is obviously a bigger deal than trespassing for the purpose of exercise.
That said, I agree that just immediately telling people (and then paying closer attention to possible cheating thereafter) is probably the better route, but in the article, they stated they didn't notice the cheating going on until it'd been going on for a while, because they just hadn't paid attention to the chat group.
The professor could've handled things better if they'd been more aware and responsive from the start, but still, the lion's share of the blame rests with the people who chose to cheat.
A large part of any syllabus is a description of the academic integrity policy. Most universities even mention it during orientation. Most all my exams had "by signing, I agree to..." next to where you write your name. Universities care a lot about cheating. It even makes the news.
The cop is always visible, the sign is clearly posted, but they still trespass. Most got less-than-minimum sentences anyway.
The cop is always visible, the sign is clearly posted, but they still trespass. Most got less-than-minimum sentences anyway.
The professor surely knows that cheating is near universal because the incentive structure of modern life makes cheating optimal in expectation. Nothing he can do will change this fundamental fact. So why bother?
Another person in the "I am a cheater, surely everyone else thinks like me, right?" bucket
No, I didn't mean that I cheat, and therefore everyone else cheats. I meant that the one time he got to see what's going on, he found that nearly everyone cheats. Unless he has some evidence to the contrary, a reasonable conclusion is that cheating is near-universal.
Evidence to the contrary could be, for example, that this class was very different from a typical class in some way, etc.
Evidence to the contrary could be, for example, that this class was very different from a typical class in some way, etc.
I do not want to defend cheating but I see 2 big issues which promotes this behavior.
1. Course was created to scale so cheating is super easy and harder to spot without side channel (common pool of multiple choice questions).
Author fixed this, which deserves huge thumbs up. Also making course more interesting is great and I would love if all teachers reflected this. Punishing students without changing course would probably did not solve anything.
2. Technical course students have zero clue about technology they use but they completely trust it.
It looks like they do not care about learning how thinks work. Probably they are there just for a degree. Imagine hiring someone like that, freshly from college, without experience and not willing to learn anything.
1. Course was created to scale so cheating is super easy and harder to spot without side channel (common pool of multiple choice questions).
Author fixed this, which deserves huge thumbs up. Also making course more interesting is great and I would love if all teachers reflected this. Punishing students without changing course would probably did not solve anything.
2. Technical course students have zero clue about technology they use but they completely trust it.
It looks like they do not care about learning how thinks work. Probably they are there just for a degree. Imagine hiring someone like that, freshly from college, without experience and not willing to learn anything.
This was a fantastic read, thank you for sharing
I hate to be a cynic here but I feel like education should be engineered in a manner that either :
(A) assumes cheating will take place whenever possible and create curriculum , assignments, quizzes and exams with this in mind.
(B) disincentivize cheating. This is tough to do but if someone is motivated not by a grade but by the experience or knowledge gain itself cheating is no longer of interest.
(A) assumes cheating will take place whenever possible and create curriculum , assignments, quizzes and exams with this in mind.
(B) disincentivize cheating. This is tough to do but if someone is motivated not by a grade but by the experience or knowledge gain itself cheating is no longer of interest.
(B) disincentivize cheating. This is tough to do but if someone is motivated not by a grade but by the experience or knowledge gain itself cheating is no longer of interest.
It’s easy to do—don’t issue any credentials. It’s just that the very lucrative businesses don’t want to do that because they know exactly what they are selling and it ain’t education.
It’s easy to do—don’t issue any credentials. It’s just that the very lucrative businesses don’t want to do that because they know exactly what they are selling and it ain’t education.
The honest students actually value being told if they understood correctly. I guess the most inveterate cheaters wouldn't care, but most students are at least somewhat hopeful they've actually learned, and the summative assessment process is feedback for those students.
It so happens that looking after the mechanics of (computer based) university examination is part of my current role. We do have some mechanisms in place that are intended to make it harder to cheat, but ultimately some students will cheat and one of the interesting things is watching the reaction of a young colleague who went from those exams (a year ago) to his current job, at this same university.
For example there are signs outside every exam room prominently warning students that the university owns video cameras and they are being watched while doing exams. It's true, but of course the main reason we're watching isn't to catch cheaters but to anticipate problems the room's invigilators are about to call us about. Are we watching to see if that girl is wearing a short skirt because she's written notes on her own thighs? Are we watching to see if the Fitbit on that guy's wrist has been modified to display relayed multiple choice answers? No, we're watching because the room has 85 green "OK for this exam: BIOL1024 Genetics" screens and one orange "Pre-check failed. DO NOT USE" screen and in a minute the retired administrator herding students into the room is going to remember that we said Orange = Bad during training and call us about it, by the time they do we want to know why it has an orange screen, whether that room is actually booked for 86 students so that they can't just leave the machine unused, and where else on campus we can put one extra student if we need to move them pronto. We aren't trying to actually fix it, because that's likely to take hours, and we have minutes or sometimes seconds.
One of the most valuable uses of those cameras doesn't actually involve seeing anybody, cheater or not, student or not, at the end of the day if there's one PC which stubbornly claims to still be doing an exam, is it really? If the room is empty, maybe even dark, then the answer is that despite instructions to students and invigilators they left a machine logged in, running an exam, and just walked out of the room. On the other hand, if there's still people stood in the room looking at the PC, well, radios work both ways, lets find out why the hell they aren't finished.
It so happens that looking after the mechanics of (computer based) university examination is part of my current role. We do have some mechanisms in place that are intended to make it harder to cheat, but ultimately some students will cheat and one of the interesting things is watching the reaction of a young colleague who went from those exams (a year ago) to his current job, at this same university.
For example there are signs outside every exam room prominently warning students that the university owns video cameras and they are being watched while doing exams. It's true, but of course the main reason we're watching isn't to catch cheaters but to anticipate problems the room's invigilators are about to call us about. Are we watching to see if that girl is wearing a short skirt because she's written notes on her own thighs? Are we watching to see if the Fitbit on that guy's wrist has been modified to display relayed multiple choice answers? No, we're watching because the room has 85 green "OK for this exam: BIOL1024 Genetics" screens and one orange "Pre-check failed. DO NOT USE" screen and in a minute the retired administrator herding students into the room is going to remember that we said Orange = Bad during training and call us about it, by the time they do we want to know why it has an orange screen, whether that room is actually booked for 86 students so that they can't just leave the machine unused, and where else on campus we can put one extra student if we need to move them pronto. We aren't trying to actually fix it, because that's likely to take hours, and we have minutes or sometimes seconds.
One of the most valuable uses of those cameras doesn't actually involve seeing anybody, cheater or not, student or not, at the end of the day if there's one PC which stubbornly claims to still be doing an exam, is it really? If the room is empty, maybe even dark, then the answer is that despite instructions to students and invigilators they left a machine logged in, running an exam, and just walked out of the room. On the other hand, if there's still people stood in the room looking at the PC, well, radios work both ways, lets find out why the hell they aren't finished.
I grew up in East Asia and (B) just isn't possible here.
Since we were little, we were requested by our parents to get a good grade in examinations in order to, eventually, get into a good college.
We were told that graduating from a good college brings ourselves/the family a better quality of life, but the "benefits" part stops here. People don't care about those knowledges that are not likely to make us money one day. Most of us just study for a better paying jobs.
The society doesn't care about the process, but the outcome, evaluated by the momey in our bank account.
Since we were little, we were requested by our parents to get a good grade in examinations in order to, eventually, get into a good college.
We were told that graduating from a good college brings ourselves/the family a better quality of life, but the "benefits" part stops here. People don't care about those knowledges that are not likely to make us money one day. Most of us just study for a better paying jobs.
The society doesn't care about the process, but the outcome, evaluated by the momey in our bank account.
if cheating to get the piece-of-paper-with-your-name-on-it gets you a better job, without the actual requirement of knowledge, then the blame goes to the employers who solely use a piece of paper for credentials and not knowledge/capability tests.
Sure, we just have to restructure a significant portion of our educational pipeline and employment/hiring process and figure out what to do about a trillion or two of debt to do this, piece of cake.
This is not really an issue that affects anyone outside a handful of individuals getting their first job - once you have an employment history, the fact that someone was willing to pay you money for a couple years is a pretty solid signal that you were doing at least an OK job, and you'll have coworkers with similar reputational signals who can also attest to this.
(although tbh I think references as a hiring signal are going away - referrals to an open position within the referrer's company are still a golden ticket but nobody cares that you have three friends at some unrelated company who will say that you're not a total shitbird, they can already tell that from the fact that you worked there 2 years and weren't fired and it's trivial for someone to "forge" a reference if it's not. References, like suits in the office, were a boomer thing and in the latter years were a symptom of a highly employer-favored labor market. Skilled workers can now write their own ticket and even in the broader labor market nobody cares about references when employers can't hire enough employees to keep product on the shelf. A whole lot of stupid, artificial barriers that never should have existed are coming down, and references are one of them.)
Anyway, this is a lot like the "it's unjust that under-21s can volunteer or be drafted to die for their country but can't drink!!!" argument - yup, it's true, that's unfair as hell, but nobody who's over the age of 21 gives a single shit about remedying it, since it doesn't affect them. In "agile" terms, it's a ticket where there is definitely improvement that is possible in this area, but no business case to upend everything and do the improvement. Once you have that first job under your belt... nothing that came before really matters. When was the last time an interviewer asked a senior engineer about a GPA? Unless it's an ivy-tier they frankly don't even care where you went, Bumfuck State University is just as good as Podunk State University. Nor does the Widget Factory care about whether you had a degree in English or Basketweaving when they are considering you for the position of forklift operator. It's an issue that solely matters to the people getting their first job, and once you're hazed, you're "in the club" and it stops mattering, unless you're such a complete and utter fuckup that you're getting fired repeatedly.
They do care a lot that you worked at a big name company, or that you made large contributions or substantially matured your skills/experience at a smaller company. They do care a lot that you appear knowledgeable around the role they're trying to hire you into. They do care a lot that you can problem-solve and learn the parts you don't know. References, degrees, and universities mostly stop mattering after a couple years and definitely stop mattering by the 10-year mark.
Again, I'm not saying you're wrong at all - and actually the whole system of making people go tens of thousands of dollars into debt for something that is basically only used to get you your first job and never matters again, is obviously problematic. But once again there's not really a way to remedy that, even if you banned asking about degrees entirely, employers are still going to find some similar signal, and it's going to hugely piss off all the people who are now $50k in debt for something they can't even use in an interview process.
Which is guaranteed, 100%, the reason that 99.9% of people went to get a degree. Yeah, education makes you a more well-rounded person, and it should be somewhere between "absolutely minimal costs subsidized hugely by the public" and "actually giving people a stipend to attend" (as in many european countries), because in the long term they are more than going to pay that back in taxes anyway, and we all benefit from having an intellectual workforce that can think critically and is less susceptible to misinformation campaigns/etc. But the reality is right now most people who go to college do so because it's a necessary gatekeeper to pass for you to get a good job.
We need some kind of reform though, this trajectory just doesn't seem sustainable. People have been pushing "trade school"/"coding bootcamp" approaches for years and it just hasn't stuck, there needs to be reform of the college system itself. But that's not remotely politically possible given the broad dysfunction of the american system.
Of course, there is certainly some "foundational" education around core computer-science and software-engineering concepts, and breadth of exposure to people with at least minimal competence in their fields (it's not always great, but neither is the broader job market) around various technologies and concepts that would need at least a multi-year "trade school" approach and not just a "coding boot camp" to replicate. It's not all bad either. But I think at this point everyone acknowledges we have a big problem and a bad trajectory.
This is not really an issue that affects anyone outside a handful of individuals getting their first job - once you have an employment history, the fact that someone was willing to pay you money for a couple years is a pretty solid signal that you were doing at least an OK job, and you'll have coworkers with similar reputational signals who can also attest to this.
(although tbh I think references as a hiring signal are going away - referrals to an open position within the referrer's company are still a golden ticket but nobody cares that you have three friends at some unrelated company who will say that you're not a total shitbird, they can already tell that from the fact that you worked there 2 years and weren't fired and it's trivial for someone to "forge" a reference if it's not. References, like suits in the office, were a boomer thing and in the latter years were a symptom of a highly employer-favored labor market. Skilled workers can now write their own ticket and even in the broader labor market nobody cares about references when employers can't hire enough employees to keep product on the shelf. A whole lot of stupid, artificial barriers that never should have existed are coming down, and references are one of them.)
Anyway, this is a lot like the "it's unjust that under-21s can volunteer or be drafted to die for their country but can't drink!!!" argument - yup, it's true, that's unfair as hell, but nobody who's over the age of 21 gives a single shit about remedying it, since it doesn't affect them. In "agile" terms, it's a ticket where there is definitely improvement that is possible in this area, but no business case to upend everything and do the improvement. Once you have that first job under your belt... nothing that came before really matters. When was the last time an interviewer asked a senior engineer about a GPA? Unless it's an ivy-tier they frankly don't even care where you went, Bumfuck State University is just as good as Podunk State University. Nor does the Widget Factory care about whether you had a degree in English or Basketweaving when they are considering you for the position of forklift operator. It's an issue that solely matters to the people getting their first job, and once you're hazed, you're "in the club" and it stops mattering, unless you're such a complete and utter fuckup that you're getting fired repeatedly.
They do care a lot that you worked at a big name company, or that you made large contributions or substantially matured your skills/experience at a smaller company. They do care a lot that you appear knowledgeable around the role they're trying to hire you into. They do care a lot that you can problem-solve and learn the parts you don't know. References, degrees, and universities mostly stop mattering after a couple years and definitely stop mattering by the 10-year mark.
Again, I'm not saying you're wrong at all - and actually the whole system of making people go tens of thousands of dollars into debt for something that is basically only used to get you your first job and never matters again, is obviously problematic. But once again there's not really a way to remedy that, even if you banned asking about degrees entirely, employers are still going to find some similar signal, and it's going to hugely piss off all the people who are now $50k in debt for something they can't even use in an interview process.
Which is guaranteed, 100%, the reason that 99.9% of people went to get a degree. Yeah, education makes you a more well-rounded person, and it should be somewhere between "absolutely minimal costs subsidized hugely by the public" and "actually giving people a stipend to attend" (as in many european countries), because in the long term they are more than going to pay that back in taxes anyway, and we all benefit from having an intellectual workforce that can think critically and is less susceptible to misinformation campaigns/etc. But the reality is right now most people who go to college do so because it's a necessary gatekeeper to pass for you to get a good job.
We need some kind of reform though, this trajectory just doesn't seem sustainable. People have been pushing "trade school"/"coding bootcamp" approaches for years and it just hasn't stuck, there needs to be reform of the college system itself. But that's not remotely politically possible given the broad dysfunction of the american system.
Of course, there is certainly some "foundational" education around core computer-science and software-engineering concepts, and breadth of exposure to people with at least minimal competence in their fields (it's not always great, but neither is the broader job market) around various technologies and concepts that would need at least a multi-year "trade school" approach and not just a "coding boot camp" to replicate. It's not all bad either. But I think at this point everyone acknowledges we have a big problem and a bad trajectory.
Universities shouldn’t be credential factories.
Get rid of grading and nobody cheats.
Have a separate entity do the verification or make graduation more like PhD defense.
Get rid of grading and nobody cheats.
Have a separate entity do the verification or make graduation more like PhD defense.
I'd argue that's exactly what they're for.
If it's for "pure" education or something with no grades, it's just a glorified library that sells expensive books.
If it's for "pure" education or something with no grades, it's just a glorified library that sells expensive books.
Some people learn better when instructed, classes bring structure needed by all but the most self motivated, and some things are very difficult to learn without engaging with instructors and fellow students.
The thing university seems to do the most these days is weed out people that don’t have the resources or ability to navigate the game put together which doesn’t have that much to do any more with education. A liberal education was by definition intended to make one free, now university is quite a lot about initiating people into wage slavery by putting them in serious debt and only graduating people who are good enough at following rules in complicated somewhat pointless exercises. It is unclear if this process is shaping or shaped by our economy.
The thing university seems to do the most these days is weed out people that don’t have the resources or ability to navigate the game put together which doesn’t have that much to do any more with education. A liberal education was by definition intended to make one free, now university is quite a lot about initiating people into wage slavery by putting them in serious debt and only graduating people who are good enough at following rules in complicated somewhat pointless exercises. It is unclear if this process is shaping or shaped by our economy.
Can we drop the wage slavery and crazy college debt garbage? You can get a fine education at any number of state schools that won't put you $250k in debt.
I really don't feel sorry for people who attend Ivy league schools and rack up debt like that. They know exactly what they're getting into.
I didn't complete college and am making more than many of my peers who did and are still paying off debt 20 years later.
If you can't navigate college hand holding, you'll be fucked in the real world.
I believe college is currently serving it's function.
I really don't feel sorry for people who attend Ivy league schools and rack up debt like that. They know exactly what they're getting into.
I didn't complete college and am making more than many of my peers who did and are still paying off debt 20 years later.
If you can't navigate college hand holding, you'll be fucked in the real world.
I believe college is currently serving it's function.
If you went to college 20 years (or more) ago, things have changed a bit. Everything is more expensive and income hasn't risen to catch up. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-co...
Your personal anecdote is just that. It doesn't make for very strong evidence.
Academically universities are to teach you how to think and do self-directed learning. They also socialise you for the knowledge workforce by widening your horizons.
Testing is a distraction from their core values. And a crutch for handling the poor student to teacher ratio.
Testing is a distraction from their core values. And a crutch for handling the poor student to teacher ratio.
I agree.
When undergraduate education goes well, the students will be interested in the material and motivated to learn it, both on their own and through working on collaborative projects with other students. Then testing and grading, while not necessarily eliminated, become less important in the students’ minds and cheating becomes only a minor problem.
Creating an environment conducive to that kind of learning, though, can be very difficult, especially with large classes, heavy teaching loads, and subjects and curricula that are perceived as requiring passive knowledge acquisition rather than active engagement and exploration.
I will retire next year after teaching for seventeen years at a large university in Japan. Cheating has sometimes occurred, both in my own classes and in the classes of a large first-year writing program I used to manage. But because the classes were mostly project-based, with students writing and revising in stages over the course of the semester and sharing their drafts with each other in class, and because the average class size has been only about fifteen, the amount of cheating has been small and manageable. I’ve been lucky.
When undergraduate education goes well, the students will be interested in the material and motivated to learn it, both on their own and through working on collaborative projects with other students. Then testing and grading, while not necessarily eliminated, become less important in the students’ minds and cheating becomes only a minor problem.
Creating an environment conducive to that kind of learning, though, can be very difficult, especially with large classes, heavy teaching loads, and subjects and curricula that are perceived as requiring passive knowledge acquisition rather than active engagement and exploration.
I will retire next year after teaching for seventeen years at a large university in Japan. Cheating has sometimes occurred, both in my own classes and in the classes of a large first-year writing program I used to manage. But because the classes were mostly project-based, with students writing and revising in stages over the course of the semester and sharing their drafts with each other in class, and because the average class size has been only about fifteen, the amount of cheating has been small and manageable. I’ve been lucky.
Which one is it: the idealized version where universities "teach you how to think" or the murky one that "socialise[s] you"? They're rather different.
> Testing is a distraction from their core values.
That's all fine, but nobody cares about your diploma if it was issued by a school that didn't test you.
So either we accept the modern role of the university, and fund them properly so they can do their task (and restrict the number of students), or reject it and go back to the old ways: you studied philosophy, congrats, but your father was a mason, here's your trowel.
> Testing is a distraction from their core values.
That's all fine, but nobody cares about your diploma if it was issued by a school that didn't test you.
So either we accept the modern role of the university, and fund them properly so they can do their task (and restrict the number of students), or reject it and go back to the old ways: you studied philosophy, congrats, but your father was a mason, here's your trowel.
They're two different roles, but universities have traditionally done both and it has been effective. It's no use teaching Scientists how to think if they don't learn how to collaborate effectively and communicate their ideas to a wider audience.
I'm not sure what you mean by "old ways". The setup you describe is the one we already have. Family connections and money are key to getting a leg up.
I'm not sure what you mean by "old ways". The setup you describe is the one we already have. Family connections and money are key to getting a leg up.
Yeah, I mean that's the idealistic view of what college is. I think this is an outdated view as we have the internet now and knowledge is incredibly easy to find if you can be bothered. Can't be bothered? The world needs ditch diggers too. If you can make it through college, you're cut out for non-ditch digging jobs.
You're basically saying that college is completely pointless except as a way to rank a meritocratic society.
Except college/testing doesn't rank meritocratically. It reproduces our existing structural hierarchies in the next generation. It would be simpler and more honest to give the kids of rich parents fast track internships.
Except college/testing doesn't rank meritocratically. It reproduces our existing structural hierarchies in the next generation. It would be simpler and more honest to give the kids of rich parents fast track internships.
How? Do you have any realistic proposal how to achieve this? Or would it require a minor revolution?
Just do it? Offer classes, don’t record grades, at the end have an optional oral defense that results in a certificate.
The only people who actually care about your college grades are HR reading resumes for your first job, literally that’s it.
The only people who actually care about your college grades are HR reading resumes for your first job, literally that’s it.
Sorry, that's not realistic. Students commonly start studying the day before the exam. How will that work if you're cramming 4 yours into a single exam? It won't. It'll only lead to lowering the bar even more. Much more.
> The only people who actually care about your college grades are HR reading resumes for your first job, literally that’s it.
It's not about grades, it's about passing the requirements for a diploma. And the fact that only HR cares about it (in your rather corporate view of the labor market) is because everybody else assumes that the hurdle has been taken. They don't care about the diploma per se, just that you have a bunch of useful skills. Either HR tests you thoroughly (and they don't have a clue, so that's out of the question), or they rely on a system like the current one. Or do you think that a sociology degree qualifies you as a carpenter?
> The only people who actually care about your college grades are HR reading resumes for your first job, literally that’s it.
It's not about grades, it's about passing the requirements for a diploma. And the fact that only HR cares about it (in your rather corporate view of the labor market) is because everybody else assumes that the hurdle has been taken. They don't care about the diploma per se, just that you have a bunch of useful skills. Either HR tests you thoroughly (and they don't have a clue, so that's out of the question), or they rely on a system like the current one. Or do you think that a sociology degree qualifies you as a carpenter?
Kinda agree though B seems impossible.
I used to study at an "elite" uni going for ~40% failed on the important exams to filter students and you bet everyone I knew was studying exclusively from previous exams and cheating when possible. This led to us being able to solve exam questions extremely quickly and cleanly but we often had no idea what the solution actually meant.
Some people were studying "normally" at first but they'd then get shafted in the exam because they'd have spent lots of time on material that's not graded in the end and would inevitably switch to the meta approach since understanding the material better doesn't mean much if you're barely surviving.
I used to study at an "elite" uni going for ~40% failed on the important exams to filter students and you bet everyone I knew was studying exclusively from previous exams and cheating when possible. This led to us being able to solve exam questions extremely quickly and cleanly but we often had no idea what the solution actually meant.
Some people were studying "normally" at first but they'd then get shafted in the exam because they'd have spent lots of time on material that's not graded in the end and would inevitably switch to the meta approach since understanding the material better doesn't mean much if you're barely surviving.
[deleted]
There are two problems with (B). The first is that however you disincentivize it at the local level, the greater society incentivizes it by pairing earning a degree (as opposed to gaining knowledge) with greater earnings. The second is that people will still get away with cheating.
> (B) disincentivize cheating. This is tough to do but if someone is motivated not by a grade but by the experience or knowledge gain itself cheating is no longer of interest.
When I was in college, the rule in our department was that if you failed the final, you failed the course.
When I was in college, the rule in our department was that if you failed the final, you failed the course.
Strongly agree with (A). As a current college student, the most interesting assignments are the hardest to cheat on.
That is, I’d strongly prefer an exam where I can write an essay to show my understanding of a topic to a series of multiple choice questions where I just regurgitate the lectures.
Unfortunately, most of my professors reuse old content verbatim (usually content they didn’t even write themselves in the first place) and put it in the easiest to grade format possible (multiple choice/auto graded math). My CS classes are concerningly light on actually writing code.
That is, I’d strongly prefer an exam where I can write an essay to show my understanding of a topic to a series of multiple choice questions where I just regurgitate the lectures.
Unfortunately, most of my professors reuse old content verbatim (usually content they didn’t even write themselves in the first place) and put it in the easiest to grade format possible (multiple choice/auto graded math). My CS classes are concerningly light on actually writing code.
Vivid memories of my high school literature teacher reading Cliff’s Notes and ensuring her tests covered things not discussed in the notes…
I like A) simply because sometime during college I became a terrible test taker. I realized that I'm very good at projects and actually understanding the concepts, but I couldn't articulate that in the traditional exam or problem sets.
When it came time to anything that involved presentations or demonstration of a project, I was exceptionally better at the topic. Maybe it was a better way of learning since I was more engaged, or the types of professors that heavily believe cheating is going to happen any way and try to mitigate it actually give a damn.
When it came time to anything that involved presentations or demonstration of a project, I was exceptionally better at the topic. Maybe it was a better way of learning since I was more engaged, or the types of professors that heavily believe cheating is going to happen any way and try to mitigate it actually give a damn.
> (A) assumes cheating will take place whenever possible and create curriculum , assignments, quizzes and exams with this in mind.
If college degrees themselves held no real value, and the purpose of a college education in terms of career was to prepare you for a comprehensive exam, I think you'd see radically different behavior. Grades would no longer matter, or even exist, so cheating your way through a class would seem pointless.
Creating a comprehensive exam that meaningfully tests a college degree's worth of education seems like it'd be near impossible though.
If college degrees themselves held no real value, and the purpose of a college education in terms of career was to prepare you for a comprehensive exam, I think you'd see radically different behavior. Grades would no longer matter, or even exist, so cheating your way through a class would seem pointless.
Creating a comprehensive exam that meaningfully tests a college degree's worth of education seems like it'd be near impossible though.
The guiding principle behind B evaporated. People don't go to university for higher universal meaning anymore. They go to get knowledge they can trade for a better living.
A goal directed attitude has taken over, as described by Erwin Chargaff.
https://mobile.twitter.com/blamlab/status/129727005174625894...
A goal directed attitude has taken over, as described by Erwin Chargaff.
https://mobile.twitter.com/blamlab/status/129727005174625894...
(C) don’t use exams, period.
You might call (C) and extension of (A) . Avoiding all pedagogical tools that can be systematically cheated on , is an effective way to reduce cheating.
It’s the only way.
Give exams in a room, proctored, on paper, at a scheduled time. Open book/open note -- like real life. Everyone takes it at the same time. If you aren't there (without a good reason) you fail.
The deeper point is an exam is a very poor proxy for actual learning to start with. The fact is profs by and large don’t give a shit about teaching quality, let alone learning, and most want to toss up an exam on the learning platform, get grades submitted before the deadline, and move on.
A lot of professors would prefer to skip exams that become a part of your grade. However, we (I teach at a college) are REQUIRED to at least give a final exam and are REQUIRED to have that as a part of their grade. sigh
I'd much rather teach and talk and enjoy with my students, but, alas, the design of most universities box us in at different levels (and let's not even get started on the "must publish research" side of teaching).
Just my $0.02.
I'd much rather teach and talk and enjoy with my students, but, alas, the design of most universities box us in at different levels (and let's not even get started on the "must publish research" side of teaching).
Just my $0.02.
I used to teach myself, but thank god I didn’t have that level of meddling.
> The deeper point is an exam is a very poor proxy for actual learning to start with.
It's far from perfect, but it's better than the alternatives, and various organizations and people and powers-that-be reasonably want some kind of measure of whether someone actually learned something in a class/degree.
It's far from perfect, but it's better than the alternatives, and various organizations and people and powers-that-be reasonably want some kind of measure of whether someone actually learned something in a class/degree.
that just makes it harder. Students have been cheating on in person exams since the dawn of time. You get people texting in the exam, people going to the bathroom and looking up answers, students paying other students to take the exam for them, and on and on and on. There is no exam that can't be cheated on. I'm sure that if I weren't so good at school and had significantly fewer morals, I would have been _great_ at cheating on exams
Exams should be fine as a condition of entry, advancing grade rank, or graduating, but teachers need to be spending the majority of their working time teaching, not ranking and scoring and having to deal with all the overhead of grading. Evaluating whether or not a student has bothered to learn can wait until they attempt to claim a diploma or certification.
Which is why credentialism and learning are very different things.
I have never understood why college professors / college classes are so uninnovative and have such an antagonistic approach to teaching/education. The entire grade culture at universities should be abolished in lieu of an evaluation system that is more reflective of the traits and skills that matter in industry and research environments. In CS programs geared towards helping graduates careers in industry, we should be rewarding students who help other succeed and in research oriented programs, we should have students conduct supervised research project oriented around their personal interests that require written and oral explanations of the work and why they choose the approach and what are the implications. There are so many easy ways to ensure cheating cannot occur that would also benefit students more than the current means of evaluation commonly used in higher education. On a semi related topic, if anyone is aware of research into experimental pedagogical approaches that move beyond traditional methods of evaluation and use concepts like mastery based learning in CS, I'd love to find a research group to work with on some ideas I have to improve instruction in CS and language learning.
You are completely right, the testing /score system is a terrible proxy for understanding and knowledge.
It's also completely unfixable because the solutions you propose (which are obvious) don't scale.
To understand this you only have to look at education through history. A long time ago college education was for a very tiny (well connected) section of society. Conceptually think of it as the aristocracy keeping themselves on top. Teaching staff ratio is high - small classes, lots of attention.
Naturally education slowly opens to the masses. (GI Bill etc). So now there's a scaling problem. Much lower staff ratio, and a need to improve productivity. Think multiple choice, not essays. Lecturers don't know the names (never mind abilities) of Individual students.
Your suggestion is both good, but impractical. There aren't enough people qualified to teach the way you have in mind, and even if there were the student could not afford them.
We can offer a college education for the masses, we can give every college student an indepth real "education", but we can't do both.
Although interestingly the _student_ who approaches a course with zeal, and engages teachers in every possible opportunity, will get the most out of the experience. In other words today the quality of the education rests on the student, not the teacher.
It's also completely unfixable because the solutions you propose (which are obvious) don't scale.
To understand this you only have to look at education through history. A long time ago college education was for a very tiny (well connected) section of society. Conceptually think of it as the aristocracy keeping themselves on top. Teaching staff ratio is high - small classes, lots of attention.
Naturally education slowly opens to the masses. (GI Bill etc). So now there's a scaling problem. Much lower staff ratio, and a need to improve productivity. Think multiple choice, not essays. Lecturers don't know the names (never mind abilities) of Individual students.
Your suggestion is both good, but impractical. There aren't enough people qualified to teach the way you have in mind, and even if there were the student could not afford them.
We can offer a college education for the masses, we can give every college student an indepth real "education", but we can't do both.
Although interestingly the _student_ who approaches a course with zeal, and engages teachers in every possible opportunity, will get the most out of the experience. In other words today the quality of the education rests on the student, not the teacher.
[deleted]
How dumb do you have to be to cheat on a chat app hosted by your professor?
Did they even know they were cheating? Maybe they thought it was okay?
Did they even know they were cheating? Maybe they thought it was okay?
I’m surprised at the number of people here justifying or supporting cheating.
It’s not a victimless crime.
Many university courses have minimum requirements to get into. Eg Engineering, Medicine, etc. Cheating to inflate your grades will result in people who didn’t cheat missing out on, or having less chance of, being accepted into their desired degree. Which they worked honestly for, without cheating.
It’s not a victimless crime.
Many university courses have minimum requirements to get into. Eg Engineering, Medicine, etc. Cheating to inflate your grades will result in people who didn’t cheat missing out on, or having less chance of, being accepted into their desired degree. Which they worked honestly for, without cheating.
Also the people who cheated, if successful, get credentials that mean they may be involved in the design and implementation of software or processes with extremely serious real world consequences. It also seems if you're willing to break rules to cheat, you're probably willing to break rules in other ways such as being open to bribes or cutting some corners where there's some benefit to you at the cost of others.
Look at it this way. Cheating and not cheating has its own risks associated. And when the risk/reward of cheating vastly outperforms on average compared to the risk/reward of not cheating, every single rational actor will cheat. In fact, not cheating is a purely irrational thing to do given that you know these odds - it's based on a belief that your individual action will make any sort of meaningful difference.
And why should any young person think that? Just observing the world around them definitely says the opposite.
And why should any young person think that? Just observing the world around them definitely says the opposite.
Yes, if you exclude ethics - issues of right and wrong - there's little reason not to cheat. But excluding ethics from the picture is more than just "look at it this way", but being amoral. You know, like a psychopath. I hear that's also rewarded in the business world, but doesn't mean you personally have to like it or be that way yourself.
Well, also I would strongly prefer my doctor, pilot, surgeon etc not to be there just because they cheated in exams, but because they know what they're doing.
Well, also I would strongly prefer my doctor, pilot, surgeon etc not to be there just because they cheated in exams, but because they know what they're doing.
Wow, that went quickly from what could have been an interesting discussion on ethics to accusations of amorality and labelings of psychological problems.
Is it ethical to wrangle students through inane, dull exercises that seem practically designed to kill their curiosity and desire to explore knowledge?
In that situation, would it not seem more ethical to get past the exercises in the quickest, least-damaging way possible to be able to do more fulfilling things in life?
Or is doing exercises a moral obligation, regardless of their ill effects on the student?
That's a discussion worth having. "You know, like a psychopath" short-circuits that.
Is it ethical to wrangle students through inane, dull exercises that seem practically designed to kill their curiosity and desire to explore knowledge?
In that situation, would it not seem more ethical to get past the exercises in the quickest, least-damaging way possible to be able to do more fulfilling things in life?
Or is doing exercises a moral obligation, regardless of their ill effects on the student?
That's a discussion worth having. "You know, like a psychopath" short-circuits that.
> In that situation, would it not seem more ethical to get past the exercises in the quickest, least-damaging way possible to be able to do more fulfilling things in life?
Or is doing exercises a moral obligation, regardless of their ill effects on the student?
If you only care about yourself and not the impact on others. Cheating is not a zero sum game. You are depriving others, and are committing fraud.
Perhaps the least damaging way would be to seek professional help to better yourself so you can cope with any “ill effects” you get from doing “inane, dull exercises”.
Or finding a course or career that doesn’t require you to endure activities you don’t want to do. Running your own business maybe.
If you only care about yourself and not the impact on others. Cheating is not a zero sum game. You are depriving others, and are committing fraud.
Perhaps the least damaging way would be to seek professional help to better yourself so you can cope with any “ill effects” you get from doing “inane, dull exercises”.
Or finding a course or career that doesn’t require you to endure activities you don’t want to do. Running your own business maybe.
I feel like you're the one unhelpfully flinging accusations. Apparently I'm not allowed to respond in the way I did? Your comment itself seems to "go quickly" from ethical discussion to short-circuiting that with feigned surprise - "Wow". Your first and last paragraphs do little but accuse/label, and your comment would be far better without them. But then it would just consist of 3 apparently rhetorical and rather loaded questions. It seems they're actually making a statement - so why not actually make that statement, actually say what you wanted to say, instead of letting the unspoken do all the work, and making me guess what that statement is.
What I was saying was amoral and psychopath-like was the act of "excluding ethics from the picture". You have reacted as if I'd said that the person I responded to had those qualities. Sorry I wasn't clearer, to avoid that apparent misunderstanding.
Your questions seem puzzled, irritated, as if I obviously have no common sense or understanding of what life's like, and you've had to instruct me in the basic realities, like a condescending teacher to an unlearning novice. I'm not sure what I said that suggests that. I would've thought it would be uncontroversial, a mere repeating of the dictionary definition, to suggest that to exclude ethics from the picture when acting in life is amoral, and like a psychopath.
What I was saying was amoral and psychopath-like was the act of "excluding ethics from the picture". You have reacted as if I'd said that the person I responded to had those qualities. Sorry I wasn't clearer, to avoid that apparent misunderstanding.
Your questions seem puzzled, irritated, as if I obviously have no common sense or understanding of what life's like, and you've had to instruct me in the basic realities, like a condescending teacher to an unlearning novice. I'm not sure what I said that suggests that. I would've thought it would be uncontroversial, a mere repeating of the dictionary definition, to suggest that to exclude ethics from the picture when acting in life is amoral, and like a psychopath.
> Is it ethical to wrangle students through inane, dull exercises that seem practically designed to kill their curiosity and desire to explore knowledge?
You mean like what they are going to have to do when they actually start working?
You can always discuss the fact that the exercises are bone chillingly boring with the professor, and potentially you don’t even have to do them because all your score comes from the test.
But at the end of the day, if your professor/boss tells you to do the boring stuff, you either do it, quit, or get fired.
You mean like what they are going to have to do when they actually start working?
You can always discuss the fact that the exercises are bone chillingly boring with the professor, and potentially you don’t even have to do them because all your score comes from the test.
But at the end of the day, if your professor/boss tells you to do the boring stuff, you either do it, quit, or get fired.
They are students attending a university to learn new material from a professor who is an expert in the material and has taken the course themselves. The “inane, dull exercises” may be what is expected in the career path chosen.
Cheating only kicks the can down the road to a failed career and possibly even criminal behavior. Best path for a student with that attitude is to drop the course or push through it and reevaluate their educational choices.
Cheating only kicks the can down the road to a failed career and possibly even criminal behavior. Best path for a student with that attitude is to drop the course or push through it and reevaluate their educational choices.
Personally I see it as a moral imperative to be honest, and that includes not cheating on tests. This isn’t rational in the sense of being a logical consequence of some other, more fundamental principle. But it’s also not irrational. It’s just a different set of goals.
…On the other hand, a big part of the reason I ended up with that set of goals is that it worked well for me when I was young, for both practical and emotional reasons I won't waste your time with. So I won't claim to be holier-than-thou. And I don't feel entitled to judge people for having different principles.
…On the other hand, a big part of the reason I ended up with that set of goals is that it worked well for me when I was young, for both practical and emotional reasons I won't waste your time with. So I won't claim to be holier-than-thou. And I don't feel entitled to judge people for having different principles.
Based on this logic we should all be criminals so long as we can easily get away with it? I’m not ok with that. That is not a civil society.
Cheating is a form of fraud, and fraud is a crime.
Doesn’t this logically lead those that don’t want crime and cheating to clamp down hard on these acts to discourage them? Ie should we have harsher punishments? Expel students? Convict students?
Cheating is a form of fraud, and fraud is a crime.
Doesn’t this logically lead those that don’t want crime and cheating to clamp down hard on these acts to discourage them? Ie should we have harsher punishments? Expel students? Convict students?
The process you are discussing is better summarized as: "a Nash equilibrium is not necessarily Pareto optimal, and vice versa." That's the issue with making it about ethics versus success: most successful people just aren't ethical. Entire companies are built around "cheating", and it is often seen as a good business strategy (e.g., Walmart running a store at a deficit to put competitors out of business).
Want people to stop cheating? Fix the incentives. Stop using a points evaluation system, and curves. The professor in this article managed to redesign his assignments to more or less make cheating difficult, and suddenly it was less of a problem. Imagine that!
Want people to stop cheating? Fix the incentives. Stop using a points evaluation system, and curves. The professor in this article managed to redesign his assignments to more or less make cheating difficult, and suddenly it was less of a problem. Imagine that!
> The professor in this article managed to redesign his assignments to more or less make cheating difficult, and suddenly it was less of a problem
The students on the next semester used DMs, as the end of the article points out, and the professor didn't care, which means that the amount of cheating for that semester was unknown and hence, not less of problem. Unless that is, you're the professor and seem unwilling to punish cheats, or you're one of the students who cheated.
The students on the next semester used DMs, as the end of the article points out, and the professor didn't care, which means that the amount of cheating for that semester was unknown and hence, not less of problem. Unless that is, you're the professor and seem unwilling to punish cheats, or you're one of the students who cheated.
in my differential equations class no one could understand the prof...most everyone cheated
This will only increase with AI.
Feels like we're seeing this all over society. From the way executives in businesses and politicians act all the way down to the way people drive. And everyone has a blizzard of excuses for why they constantly look to cut corners.
And these are the kids that are supposedly so much better than the old boomers and they're cheating like it is a reflex.
And these are the kids that are supposedly so much better than the old boomers and they're cheating like it is a reflex.
As someone who “cheated” - it was a requirement to pass classes. “Professors” (researchers and post-docs who hated lecturing) were in a constant arms race against the students. We were assigned problems routinely that we would ask the professor to solve in class - they could not do it. They would fail it themselves. This happened in multiple subjects.
Many classes also had students not showing up if it was clear that they were not going to need to be in class to know the subject material. If you could read it from the book and the professor was straight forward with their testing - students wouldn’t show. It was a waste of time to go to the lectures because often these professors were absolutely terrible. You were just better off reading the book because you’d be less confused by that.
Tbh - college is a giant scam in the way many people think of it as a way of “learning”. For myself and many of my peers - it was purely a transactional procedure. We needed the credentials and we needed good grades in those credentials. Everything else was secondary.
Optimizing for “learning” is such a joke in our capitalistic winner takes all economy. Give me a break. I’m not a Rothschild ffs.
Many classes also had students not showing up if it was clear that they were not going to need to be in class to know the subject material. If you could read it from the book and the professor was straight forward with their testing - students wouldn’t show. It was a waste of time to go to the lectures because often these professors were absolutely terrible. You were just better off reading the book because you’d be less confused by that.
Tbh - college is a giant scam in the way many people think of it as a way of “learning”. For myself and many of my peers - it was purely a transactional procedure. We needed the credentials and we needed good grades in those credentials. Everything else was secondary.
Optimizing for “learning” is such a joke in our capitalistic winner takes all economy. Give me a break. I’m not a Rothschild ffs.
Nah this is a situation like someone else pointed out where you were an underpeformer and surrounded yourself with other underperformers/cheaters, and then assumed everyone else was like you, but in actuality you were in the minority.
Considering it was a top 10 school - sounds like quite an ignorant statement. Most of my peers are at FAANG, founded companies, etc. (as am I obviously)
Many of us are still quite competent. The “professors” were just horrible.
Many of us are still quite competent. The “professors” were just horrible.
[deleted]
I feel so bad for whoever invited him into the chat. That must have been mortifying
That's the best part, the group invite was just posted in the official class chat. Those are some braindead cheaters.
I am also baffled that people were so brazen as to openly cheat in a group of 70+ people. Did they honestly believe that 70 people would all keep your secret and not try and get you failed out of spite? Like, I don't condone cheating but that's just shit ops.
Further evidence that they didn't necessarily even realize they were cheating - aside from the exams - and that the professor should have spoken up sooner instead of playing undercover cop.
He got off to the power here, and you can tell.
He got off to the power here, and you can tell.
Talk about a woopsie daisy!
huh. i am a proud cheater. the entire chain of command, from local bureacrat to the chief of fed, and all company execs are cheaters. so why not me? I'd be a fool if i didnt trick the system.
I personally find cheating repulsive. Are you not bothered by the lack of integrity?
Integrity suffers when you know what's right and still do otherwise. If you dismiss the institution entirely, integrity doesn't suffer. Not giving money to the Church is a sin, but if you aren't taking the Church seriously, your integrity is fine. Ignoring a beggar who is obviously an imposter is fine, but ignoring a beggar who seems legit corrupts integrity, even if the legit beggar is in fact fake.
The issue is the perception society doesn't reward integrity.
Those with integrity are very clearly perceived as the handicapped in modern America.
Nowhere is this more clear than cryptocurrency and gun reform.
Those with integrity are very clearly perceived as the handicapped in modern America.
Nowhere is this more clear than cryptocurrency and gun reform.
The reward for integrity is entirely personal. There's no need for any societal input aside from maybe motivating people to have integrity. There can be some "sacrifice" sure, but in this context there's no real sacrifice. People should earn their grades.
I'd be bothered with my own stupidity if i did not cheat. And nature does not care for what you are repulsed by. Otherwise, cockroach wouldn't exist.
> I'd be bothered with my own stupidity if i did not cheat.
What? I'd be bothered with my own stupidity if I felt I couldn't get a good grade without cheating. I put in a minimal amount of time/effort in university where the subject matter didn't interest me, but always did fine without cheating.
What? I'd be bothered with my own stupidity if I felt I couldn't get a good grade without cheating. I put in a minimal amount of time/effort in university where the subject matter didn't interest me, but always did fine without cheating.
jumping through hoops to get a degree doesn't seem stupid enough to you already? Unfortunately, this is what our world is now, and you have do play this game if you want to be in the middle class. The least you can do is make the process less painful by cheating your way through.
[deleted]
I can't agree, sorry.
You show me a "great" man who died with endowments and charities named after him, and I'll show you a man who spent his life cheating the system.
We'll always have parasites in the system, it's got enough wealth in it to withstand a few. Thankfully in the systems most of us interact within. Which country are you in?
Use discord?
Do college discord servers usually enforce ID? i.e. how would they know this isn't yet another student? Who organizes it like that? Presumably a cheating discord is under the radar and probably not full of people who can/care to properly enforce ID on everyone who joins for this particular class's cheat room.
The whole capitalist system is broken. Not only the teaching part. Our world is ridiculously fucked up and we can count the days till it will collapse.
To stay engaged with a lot of interesting material I would have otherwise forgotten after college or at that time I didn't fully grasp, and because "teaching" actually teaches you the most (close second after "applying"/"creating"), I'm a private tutor as a sideline and as such get an honorabe mention by the OP:
>Or, students can hire people to do their assignments (cough, help them with their homework as a legit tutor).
I totally get his point about moral integrity from a bird's eye view: cheating, plagiarizing and any fraudulent behavior especially in a academic setting has immense destructive repercussions by affecting the credibility of whole fields and with it all the academic careers around it and must be stopped/discouraged at the outset. OPs perspective:
>Let’s start with me, I’ll be the category. I have prior experience with pre-pandemic academic integrity violations. There’s no time for a prequel. But let’s say I’ve been called an obsessive plagiarism detective. Plagiarism really irks me. It irks me so bad I wrote my own R package to detect plagiarism.
My radical approach to that was early on to stay clear of any form institutionalized teaching despite some lucrative job offerings.
Of course a lot of students contacting me are looking for a quick fix, outright asking me to solve their assignments or in some cases ready to pay me royally for just being available online on their exam. The amount of effort, thought and resources put into "cheating", "finding easy ways" ... is vastly and comically disproportionate to the simple tasks given to them. As an entry point to conversation, now, I really enjoy hearing those stories and every student has unique tales to offer.
Because I encourage my students to be brutally honest about their learning progression without fear of shame, judgment etc. in this light they get at least a chance to realize that ultimatley in the long run "cheating" is first and foremost a disservice to themselves and once it is internalized it is difficult to get rid of (paraphrasing: you yourself are the easiest person to fool). But instead of moralizing at this point (mea culpa ...) I actually offer them ways to transform and invest some of their habitual cheating impulse/energy into actual wit[0](deep entrenched into the culture). This part is tricky and highly dependent on their current level of understanding, attention span and motiviation. Basically I trick them into math tricks (i.e. "novel ways" to solving/reframing problems) finetuned to their response this ideally evolves to a ping-pong game, even if it is just say 5min out of 45min, we are now actually gaining momentum ;)
There is no way I could pull that off in front of a class of more than 5 people and I have to be picky because some really are highly resistant to open themselves up for learning and prefer to find "easier ways": memorizing, cheating ...
Given the circumstances, incentives, set up of the tests/exams and the teacher himself being able to be in the group, I mean with a bit of game-theoretical reasoning: the undertow of cheating is pretty irresistible. This makes up for a great story with second chances, human motivations and insights about our current state of affair regarding the educational system.
[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickster
>Or, students can hire people to do their assignments (cough, help them with their homework as a legit tutor).
I totally get his point about moral integrity from a bird's eye view: cheating, plagiarizing and any fraudulent behavior especially in a academic setting has immense destructive repercussions by affecting the credibility of whole fields and with it all the academic careers around it and must be stopped/discouraged at the outset. OPs perspective:
>Let’s start with me, I’ll be the category. I have prior experience with pre-pandemic academic integrity violations. There’s no time for a prequel. But let’s say I’ve been called an obsessive plagiarism detective. Plagiarism really irks me. It irks me so bad I wrote my own R package to detect plagiarism.
My radical approach to that was early on to stay clear of any form institutionalized teaching despite some lucrative job offerings.
Of course a lot of students contacting me are looking for a quick fix, outright asking me to solve their assignments or in some cases ready to pay me royally for just being available online on their exam. The amount of effort, thought and resources put into "cheating", "finding easy ways" ... is vastly and comically disproportionate to the simple tasks given to them. As an entry point to conversation, now, I really enjoy hearing those stories and every student has unique tales to offer.
Because I encourage my students to be brutally honest about their learning progression without fear of shame, judgment etc. in this light they get at least a chance to realize that ultimatley in the long run "cheating" is first and foremost a disservice to themselves and once it is internalized it is difficult to get rid of (paraphrasing: you yourself are the easiest person to fool). But instead of moralizing at this point (mea culpa ...) I actually offer them ways to transform and invest some of their habitual cheating impulse/energy into actual wit[0](deep entrenched into the culture). This part is tricky and highly dependent on their current level of understanding, attention span and motiviation. Basically I trick them into math tricks (i.e. "novel ways" to solving/reframing problems) finetuned to their response this ideally evolves to a ping-pong game, even if it is just say 5min out of 45min, we are now actually gaining momentum ;)
There is no way I could pull that off in front of a class of more than 5 people and I have to be picky because some really are highly resistant to open themselves up for learning and prefer to find "easier ways": memorizing, cheating ...
Given the circumstances, incentives, set up of the tests/exams and the teacher himself being able to be in the group, I mean with a bit of game-theoretical reasoning: the undertow of cheating is pretty irresistible. This makes up for a great story with second chances, human motivations and insights about our current state of affair regarding the educational system.
[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickster
It's been 20 years since I had a student plagiarise my assignment and I still remember how mad it made me to be falsely accused of cheating.
This was before everything was automated - In our C++ course, we had weekly assignments that were done in the lab and we were expected to turn in a printout of the code (this will be important) along with a 3.5" disk with the source and executable. I never had any difficulty completing the assignments and would regularly help others debug their code. One day, a student I had helped previously asked if they could just have a copy of my code so they could compare it to theirs. I declined as kindly as I could and they left, slightly dejected, but not nothing that would have been an immediate red flag.
Remember those printouts? Well, it was not uncommon for one to complete the assignment, prepare their printout and deliverables, then find a bug or two during some last-minute debugging prior to submission. So into the recycle-bin goes the printout.
Well, turns out that this particular student had seen me drop a copy of my code into the bin and they proceeded to retrieve it and copy the code verbatim... bugs and all... And they then submitted it while I was still preparing my corrected submission.
I was later called into the professor's office for a meeting with her and the program coordinator and accused of plagiarising the other student's assignment. I denied it, of course. They gave a long speech on the seriousness of academic integrity and said that if I came clean, they would go easy. I explained there must have been some mistake - you got the wrong guy! But they were quite confident with their findings, which they proceeded to share with me. To say I was shocked when presented with the evidence would be the understatement of the century. I knew immediately what had happened and I knew I could prove my innocence. But I was still beyond pissed. I was pissed at the student who cheated me, and I was pissed at the prof and admin for falsely accusing me.
Fortunately for me, I still had a copy of the old printout in my binder as well as on my network drive - conveniently labelled "v.1.0". I was also able to produce my corrected "v.2.0" and explained exactly where the bugs were and how I fixed them. I then suggested they speak to the other student and ask them to explain how their code works and if they could identify the bugs.
After being confronted with this new evidence, the other student confessed - they had taken my printout from the recycle bin because they knew I always got full marks on the code. But I guess they had also assumed I always got it right on the first try.
The other student was offered the opportunity to drop the class and re-take it next semester rather than receive an F. However, it was later revealed that they had been pulling the same stunt in other programming classes as well. I don't know much about what happened after that but I didn't see them around next semester.
I didn't expect an apology from the student - although that would have been proper. But the fact that neither the professor nor the program coordinator apologised, or even admitted any mistake, never sat right with me.
This article was a great read. Prof seems like he did his best. Fuck cheaters.
This was before everything was automated - In our C++ course, we had weekly assignments that were done in the lab and we were expected to turn in a printout of the code (this will be important) along with a 3.5" disk with the source and executable. I never had any difficulty completing the assignments and would regularly help others debug their code. One day, a student I had helped previously asked if they could just have a copy of my code so they could compare it to theirs. I declined as kindly as I could and they left, slightly dejected, but not nothing that would have been an immediate red flag.
Remember those printouts? Well, it was not uncommon for one to complete the assignment, prepare their printout and deliverables, then find a bug or two during some last-minute debugging prior to submission. So into the recycle-bin goes the printout.
Well, turns out that this particular student had seen me drop a copy of my code into the bin and they proceeded to retrieve it and copy the code verbatim... bugs and all... And they then submitted it while I was still preparing my corrected submission.
I was later called into the professor's office for a meeting with her and the program coordinator and accused of plagiarising the other student's assignment. I denied it, of course. They gave a long speech on the seriousness of academic integrity and said that if I came clean, they would go easy. I explained there must have been some mistake - you got the wrong guy! But they were quite confident with their findings, which they proceeded to share with me. To say I was shocked when presented with the evidence would be the understatement of the century. I knew immediately what had happened and I knew I could prove my innocence. But I was still beyond pissed. I was pissed at the student who cheated me, and I was pissed at the prof and admin for falsely accusing me.
Fortunately for me, I still had a copy of the old printout in my binder as well as on my network drive - conveniently labelled "v.1.0". I was also able to produce my corrected "v.2.0" and explained exactly where the bugs were and how I fixed them. I then suggested they speak to the other student and ask them to explain how their code works and if they could identify the bugs.
After being confronted with this new evidence, the other student confessed - they had taken my printout from the recycle bin because they knew I always got full marks on the code. But I guess they had also assumed I always got it right on the first try.
The other student was offered the opportunity to drop the class and re-take it next semester rather than receive an F. However, it was later revealed that they had been pulling the same stunt in other programming classes as well. I don't know much about what happened after that but I didn't see them around next semester.
I didn't expect an apology from the student - although that would have been proper. But the fact that neither the professor nor the program coordinator apologised, or even admitted any mistake, never sat right with me.
This article was a great read. Prof seems like he did his best. Fuck cheaters.
In chinese, copying and learning are the same word.
Also, "cheating" may be viewed as "not re-inventing the wheel" (someone already made the proof for this theorem, just copy paste it from your smartphone), "not doing the same work twice" (your neigboor just solved the equation, why re-solve it ? ), and "using the fastest, most reliable solution" (your neigboor is better than you in Maths, just take his answers). This is similar to taking a library (ex : deep-equal) or framework (nextjs) or service (carrds, netlify) instead of doing it yourselves.
I agree that, the issue is mostly not the student but the school (and society):
1. Does the student really need to remember historical dates, or Maths equations, when nowadays he can just google them in 10sec ? (Aka : unnecessary use of memory)
2. Does the student really need to understand the notion by himselves ? For example, I don't know how to use quaternion myself, buy I know how to work with, in Unity. I also don't care about Pythagore theorem proof, I know it works, that's all I need (all Maths lover will condemn me).
The thing is that we believe that school focus on teaching. They don't. They are called schools, but behave a lot more like evaluation (grading) centers. And mostly evaluate (grade) memorization and servitude btw, not actual understanding.
To be clear, evaluation (grading) is what you in job interview and for pilot, to make sure he knows how to fly the plane.
Is evaluation a part of learning ? It is. But not the same type of evaluation.
"I am able to make a small game like ping pong from scratch ?" - evaluate yourselves, test your skills. If you have success, it means learning phase is completed. The main differences are that : - You do it for yourselves, not for someone or something else (employer, school, teacher, parents, certification organism). If you cheat, you have 0 gain out of it. Cheating in a pure learning environnement make no sense. If students cheat, it means your environnment contains more than just learning.
Testing yourselves, to know for yourselves, if you have got an understanding of a notion. Is part of learning.
Without grading, a test become just a way to confirm to yourselves your knowledge. This is part of learning, and cheating on that make no sense, because you fool only yourselves.
School mix both learning and grading, it shouldn't.
In chinese, copying and learning are the same word.
Also, "cheating" may be viewed as "not re-inventing the wheel" (someone already made the proof for this theorem, just copy paste it from your smartphone), "not doing the same work twice" (your neigboor just solved the equation, why re-solve it ? ), and "using the fastest, most reliable solution" (your neigboor is better than you in Maths, just take his answers). This is similar to taking a library (ex : deep-equal) or framework (nextjs) or service (carrds, netlify) instead of doing it yourselves.
I agree that, the issue is mostly not the student but the school (and society):
1. Does the student really need to remember historical dates, or Maths equations, when nowadays he can just google them in 10sec ? (Aka : unnecessary use of memory)
2. Does the student really need to understand the notion by himselves ? For example, I don't know how to use quaternion myself, buy I know how to work with, in Unity. I also don't care about Pythagore theorem proof, I know it works, that's all I need (all Maths lover will condemn me).
The thing is that we believe that school focus on teaching. They don't. They are called schools, but behave a lot more like evaluation (grading) centers. And mostly evaluate (grade) memorization and servitude btw, not actual understanding.
To be clear, evaluation (grading) is what you in job interview and for pilot, to make sure he knows how to fly the plane.
Is evaluation a part of learning ? It is. But not the same type of evaluation.
"I am able to make a small game like ping pong from scratch ?" - evaluate yourselves, test your skills. If you have success, it means learning phase is completed.
When evaluation is part of learning: - You do it for yourselves, not for someone or something else (employer, school, teacher, parents, certification organism). That is called intresic motivation (vs extrinsic). - There may be or not be grading, but only you care about grading.
The employer doesn't care about how you grade to the tests he send to you, what he care about is that you've got the skills he need. And grading is just a means for that.
Everything the school does should be a means for making someone a good person for the society, a happy person, a person that can contribute to the society (a phrasing more large than employable).
What I have seen in my scolarity, is students and teacher focused on "passing exams", "getting good grades". But completly forgetting exams and grading "means to".
In a pure teaching environnement, grades and exams only purpose is to give a learning status indication to the student.
In school (in France national education), they also serve to give you right/priority on school entrances. And serve as social status indicator (the dumbs and the smarts).
Cheating in a pure learning environnement make no sense. If students cheat, it means your environnment contains more than just learning.
When you create extrinsic motivation (carrot and stick), it override intrinsic motivation. And you end up with student doing the homework ONLY if it is graded (carrot) or if not doing it is punishable (stick). And not because it give them a learning opportunity.
Schools (I am still referring to France national education) believe that humans dislike learning. This is false. Babies loves learning. School is teaching us that learning should be hard and painful.
If you do teaching, you don't need a carrot or a stick, because authentic learning is fun by itselves !
(I don't want to make this text longer, but this make me question if schools are just doing big mistakes, or if they have been designed in a way that favour something else than learning (eq : have there been malicious intention ?)).
Also, "cheating" may be viewed as "not re-inventing the wheel" (someone already made the proof for this theorem, just copy paste it from your smartphone), "not doing the same work twice" (your neigboor just solved the equation, why re-solve it ? ), and "using the fastest, most reliable solution" (your neigboor is better than you in Maths, just take his answers). This is similar to taking a library (ex : deep-equal) or framework (nextjs) or service (carrds, netlify) instead of doing it yourselves.
I agree that, the issue is mostly not the student but the school (and society):
1. Does the student really need to remember historical dates, or Maths equations, when nowadays he can just google them in 10sec ? (Aka : unnecessary use of memory)
2. Does the student really need to understand the notion by himselves ? For example, I don't know how to use quaternion myself, buy I know how to work with, in Unity. I also don't care about Pythagore theorem proof, I know it works, that's all I need (all Maths lover will condemn me).
The thing is that we believe that school focus on teaching. They don't. They are called schools, but behave a lot more like evaluation (grading) centers. And mostly evaluate (grade) memorization and servitude btw, not actual understanding.
To be clear, evaluation (grading) is what you in job interview and for pilot, to make sure he knows how to fly the plane.
Is evaluation a part of learning ? It is. But not the same type of evaluation.
"I am able to make a small game like ping pong from scratch ?" - evaluate yourselves, test your skills. If you have success, it means learning phase is completed. The main differences are that : - You do it for yourselves, not for someone or something else (employer, school, teacher, parents, certification organism). If you cheat, you have 0 gain out of it. Cheating in a pure learning environnement make no sense. If students cheat, it means your environnment contains more than just learning.
Testing yourselves, to know for yourselves, if you have got an understanding of a notion. Is part of learning.
Without grading, a test become just a way to confirm to yourselves your knowledge. This is part of learning, and cheating on that make no sense, because you fool only yourselves.
School mix both learning and grading, it shouldn't.
In chinese, copying and learning are the same word.
Also, "cheating" may be viewed as "not re-inventing the wheel" (someone already made the proof for this theorem, just copy paste it from your smartphone), "not doing the same work twice" (your neigboor just solved the equation, why re-solve it ? ), and "using the fastest, most reliable solution" (your neigboor is better than you in Maths, just take his answers). This is similar to taking a library (ex : deep-equal) or framework (nextjs) or service (carrds, netlify) instead of doing it yourselves.
I agree that, the issue is mostly not the student but the school (and society):
1. Does the student really need to remember historical dates, or Maths equations, when nowadays he can just google them in 10sec ? (Aka : unnecessary use of memory)
2. Does the student really need to understand the notion by himselves ? For example, I don't know how to use quaternion myself, buy I know how to work with, in Unity. I also don't care about Pythagore theorem proof, I know it works, that's all I need (all Maths lover will condemn me).
The thing is that we believe that school focus on teaching. They don't. They are called schools, but behave a lot more like evaluation (grading) centers. And mostly evaluate (grade) memorization and servitude btw, not actual understanding.
To be clear, evaluation (grading) is what you in job interview and for pilot, to make sure he knows how to fly the plane.
Is evaluation a part of learning ? It is. But not the same type of evaluation.
"I am able to make a small game like ping pong from scratch ?" - evaluate yourselves, test your skills. If you have success, it means learning phase is completed.
When evaluation is part of learning: - You do it for yourselves, not for someone or something else (employer, school, teacher, parents, certification organism). That is called intresic motivation (vs extrinsic). - There may be or not be grading, but only you care about grading.
The employer doesn't care about how you grade to the tests he send to you, what he care about is that you've got the skills he need. And grading is just a means for that.
Everything the school does should be a means for making someone a good person for the society, a happy person, a person that can contribute to the society (a phrasing more large than employable).
What I have seen in my scolarity, is students and teacher focused on "passing exams", "getting good grades". But completly forgetting exams and grading "means to".
In a pure teaching environnement, grades and exams only purpose is to give a learning status indication to the student.
In school (in France national education), they also serve to give you right/priority on school entrances. And serve as social status indicator (the dumbs and the smarts).
Cheating in a pure learning environnement make no sense. If students cheat, it means your environnment contains more than just learning.
When you create extrinsic motivation (carrot and stick), it override intrinsic motivation. And you end up with student doing the homework ONLY if it is graded (carrot) or if not doing it is punishable (stick). And not because it give them a learning opportunity.
Schools (I am still referring to France national education) believe that humans dislike learning. This is false. Babies loves learning. School is teaching us that learning should be hard and painful.
If you do teaching, you don't need a carrot or a stick, because authentic learning is fun by itselves !
(I don't want to make this text longer, but this make me question if schools are just doing big mistakes, or if they have been designed in a way that favour something else than learning (eq : have there been malicious intention ?)).
[deleted]
There are a couple reasons why I think it's important for cheating not to be widespread. I've seen The Case Against Education, signalling theory, and all the usual stuff along those lines (well, maybe it's only usual if you have a particularly contrarian friend who never stops talking about it) and while it's made me jaded about where The True Value Of A College Education lies, it didn't make me think "well, it's pointless, so I might as well cheat!"
There are sort of three groups at play here, although the boundaries are fuzzy. Some are truly there to learn, in which case there's not much motivation to cheat. Some are there to get a degree because of its implications in the job market, but don't cheat (for better or for worse). And some are there for the piece of paper and will do whatever it takes to get it. I don't fault these people: maybe they have to maintain a certain GPA for a visa or scholarship, or maybe they got COVID and an inflexible professor told them as of 2022 it's "policy" not to offer extensions "just" because of COVID. At least, I wouldn't fault cheaters were it not for the knock-on effects.
Part of me says the faster we dilute the value of a degree (by granting them to people who cheat their way through) the faster we get rid of the wasteful, cost-disease-ridden, elitist status quo for universities (at least in the US) as the amount of entropy afforded to a prospective employer by the presence of a degree drops to zero. But I also want all the work (and $$$) I have put into getting a degree to mean something. Every time someone cheats their way through a course and, despite their degree or GPA, is less competent on the job because of it, they marginally decrease the school's reputation: if the last person with those credentials wasn't actually that good, why would the next? I'm not sure how much this is happening yet, but I think it will increase in the future if cheating remains easy and common. Even discounting "degree seigniorage", if a professor grades on a curve, obviously students that don't cheat will be at a disadvantage. It's not really correct to say "cheaters don't affect you, just focus on your own work."
So why not have everyone cheat? First of all, some people actually want to learn something. Second of all, I think most people would like it less than I if universities and their degrees lost their cultural and economic cachet. Finally, I can't believe I have to say this, but cheating is inequitable: some are better at cheating than others. In the past (and probably still today, but what do I know) this was frats with banks of past assignments and tests. In the last few years, it goes as in the article: someone makes a group chat, though if they have an ounce of sense they won't post a link to it in a chat the professor is monitoring, at least if they intend to cheat through it. Invites spread organically from student to student or from DNS-like "hub" chats where people can ask for invites to any class's group chat. It would be really bad for cheaters if professors were on the "hub", able to join every class's group chat, so invites to the "hub" are guarded more zealously. Obviously they'd never be shared in a Zoom chat or other official platform, so online students (most of them, in 2020 and 2021) are left out. Offline, less socially connected people are less likely to get invited. Personally, even putting morals aside, I would not have been able to cheat if I wanted in the past few years. Cheating was everywhere, but I was anxious enough as it is actually doing the work; the added anxiety of cheating and maybe getting caught (especially in such a dramatic way as in this post!) would have been untenable. Maybe I should demand exam answer keys as a Section 504 accomodation...
There are sort of three groups at play here, although the boundaries are fuzzy. Some are truly there to learn, in which case there's not much motivation to cheat. Some are there to get a degree because of its implications in the job market, but don't cheat (for better or for worse). And some are there for the piece of paper and will do whatever it takes to get it. I don't fault these people: maybe they have to maintain a certain GPA for a visa or scholarship, or maybe they got COVID and an inflexible professor told them as of 2022 it's "policy" not to offer extensions "just" because of COVID. At least, I wouldn't fault cheaters were it not for the knock-on effects.
Part of me says the faster we dilute the value of a degree (by granting them to people who cheat their way through) the faster we get rid of the wasteful, cost-disease-ridden, elitist status quo for universities (at least in the US) as the amount of entropy afforded to a prospective employer by the presence of a degree drops to zero. But I also want all the work (and $$$) I have put into getting a degree to mean something. Every time someone cheats their way through a course and, despite their degree or GPA, is less competent on the job because of it, they marginally decrease the school's reputation: if the last person with those credentials wasn't actually that good, why would the next? I'm not sure how much this is happening yet, but I think it will increase in the future if cheating remains easy and common. Even discounting "degree seigniorage", if a professor grades on a curve, obviously students that don't cheat will be at a disadvantage. It's not really correct to say "cheaters don't affect you, just focus on your own work."
So why not have everyone cheat? First of all, some people actually want to learn something. Second of all, I think most people would like it less than I if universities and their degrees lost their cultural and economic cachet. Finally, I can't believe I have to say this, but cheating is inequitable: some are better at cheating than others. In the past (and probably still today, but what do I know) this was frats with banks of past assignments and tests. In the last few years, it goes as in the article: someone makes a group chat, though if they have an ounce of sense they won't post a link to it in a chat the professor is monitoring, at least if they intend to cheat through it. Invites spread organically from student to student or from DNS-like "hub" chats where people can ask for invites to any class's group chat. It would be really bad for cheaters if professors were on the "hub", able to join every class's group chat, so invites to the "hub" are guarded more zealously. Obviously they'd never be shared in a Zoom chat or other official platform, so online students (most of them, in 2020 and 2021) are left out. Offline, less socially connected people are less likely to get invited. Personally, even putting morals aside, I would not have been able to cheat if I wanted in the past few years. Cheating was everywhere, but I was anxious enough as it is actually doing the work; the added anxiety of cheating and maybe getting caught (especially in such a dramatic way as in this post!) would have been untenable. Maybe I should demand exam answer keys as a Section 504 accomodation...
Cheating is the natural result of an exclusive funnel for entry into the middle class.
This has been going on for decades in Asia (which is why Chinese students cheat so much), and now America is finally here as well.
Academics like to wax poetic about how students are "only cheating themselves" and "losing out on the educational opportunities", but the reality is much more mercenary and down-to-earth: Either you pass this hurdle by hook or by crook, or you spend the rest of your life flipping burgers. It's not a hard choice.
Once you have the piece of paper (regardless of how you got it), you're in the club. So the goal is to obtain that piece of paper by any means necessary.
This has been going on for decades in Asia (which is why Chinese students cheat so much), and now America is finally here as well.
Academics like to wax poetic about how students are "only cheating themselves" and "losing out on the educational opportunities", but the reality is much more mercenary and down-to-earth: Either you pass this hurdle by hook or by crook, or you spend the rest of your life flipping burgers. It's not a hard choice.
Once you have the piece of paper (regardless of how you got it), you're in the club. So the goal is to obtain that piece of paper by any means necessary.
> Either you pass this hurdle by hook or by crook, or you spend the rest of your life flipping burgers. It's not a hard choice.
Yes, but the assumption is you're passing with the knowledge in your head. Having the career knowledge is what in theory allows you to get the job, and then not flip burgers. I'm not sure how students end up thinking it's literally the number of your grade that makes the difference.
Maybe it differs from career to career, because I guess some careers it's a matter of getting your foot in the door and that's it. With more technical careers it's already the case your grade is not as important as demonstrating expertise in the first few months on the job.
Yes, but the assumption is you're passing with the knowledge in your head. Having the career knowledge is what in theory allows you to get the job, and then not flip burgers. I'm not sure how students end up thinking it's literally the number of your grade that makes the difference.
Maybe it differs from career to career, because I guess some careers it's a matter of getting your foot in the door and that's it. With more technical careers it's already the case your grade is not as important as demonstrating expertise in the first few months on the job.
> I'm not sure how students end up thinking it's literally the number of your grade that makes the difference.
Because it literally is true. Students aren't stupid; they know that higher education is largely a sham, and that the number they get and the prestige of the institution is what makes the difference (beyond simply having the paper - which is the most important part of course) in their entry level to the middle class or upper-middle-class workplace. The actual content of their education is largely irrelevant for most places that require it. Only the number matters.
And cheating isn't the only symptom of this problem; grade inflation is another. Both students and faculty are responding rationally to the unspoken truth. To NOT cheat is to increase the risk of living a life of poverty. To NOT inflate grades is to condemn more of your students to that life. Honor codes only mean something in places where everyone is of similar privilege.
As the metric becomes less indicative of reality, the smart people find more creative ways to game it.
Because it literally is true. Students aren't stupid; they know that higher education is largely a sham, and that the number they get and the prestige of the institution is what makes the difference (beyond simply having the paper - which is the most important part of course) in their entry level to the middle class or upper-middle-class workplace. The actual content of their education is largely irrelevant for most places that require it. Only the number matters.
And cheating isn't the only symptom of this problem; grade inflation is another. Both students and faculty are responding rationally to the unspoken truth. To NOT cheat is to increase the risk of living a life of poverty. To NOT inflate grades is to condemn more of your students to that life. Honor codes only mean something in places where everyone is of similar privilege.
As the metric becomes less indicative of reality, the smart people find more creative ways to game it.
Yeah fair point, and it's unfortunate it is that way. I wonder how much the Internet has contributed to this because schools used to be the only source of information in many cases but now a lot of that is easily searchable.
[deleted]
> as important as demonstrating expertise in the first few months on the job.
But you must get the job first and you generally get a job with a resume. Doesn't matter what is in your head. You better have enough on a one page piece of paper to make people believe you know it. A grade is one piece of evidence you can use for that.
But you must get the job first and you generally get a job with a resume. Doesn't matter what is in your head. You better have enough on a one page piece of paper to make people believe you know it. A grade is one piece of evidence you can use for that.
This is the simplest and most accurate summary I've seen so far. Unless you're a wolf or extremely lucky, without a degree there is no way to get into a 40-50 hour per week job where you can get paid a car, a nice apartment, and vacations at no risk to your own finances. Middle-class jobs are the pinnacle of non-aristocratic luxury.
> This has been going on for decades in Asia
I’m no sinologist, but isn’t this off by at least an order of magnitude if not two? The imperial civil service exam is famous after all and the Chinese culture is millennia ancient. The incentives for cheating have been around for a very long time.
I’m no sinologist, but isn’t this off by at least an order of magnitude if not two? The imperial civil service exam is famous after all and the Chinese culture is millennia ancient. The incentives for cheating have been around for a very long time.
Call me an elitist but this is where I like the French "Grandes Ecoles" system:
- public educations gets you a 2 year intensive training leading up to a competitive exam with one branch towards engineering schools and one branch towards business schools
- the competitive exam is the real deal, and it's not really "cheatable": you get your chair in a room with ample space for a few days, a few hours/day on row, and a guy in each room monitoring the exam, no cellphones, until you have taken all subjects
- the results allow you in one or more schools, and of course accessing the really best schools implies outstanding level in the exam
- ... and indeed, after that, you get the sesame and no-one cares if you chest while in school, actually nobody cares about your grades there, just that you get the diploma ...
No, none of this is new and it didn't start in Asia. People have always cheated and always will.
Great summary. Might have to save this.
[deleted]
lostcohort(1)
Order of importance you get told at school: grades, experience, network. Order of importance you realize is out there in life: network, experience, grades.
I have a masters and never have I been asked for it for work (either for credentials or because I actually needed the advanced topics in it). Grades never ever been on the table.
I have a masters and never have I been asked for it for work (either for credentials or because I actually needed the advanced topics in it). Grades never ever been on the table.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Do you mean that it's not on your CV, or that you don't send out CVs?
It's on my cv but never a requirement in a job description.
[deleted]
Am I the only one disturbed by how many students are texting in ebonics? I'm not sure when that began, but my millennial friends always use correct grammar and such in texts
[deleted]
You know, an abundance of gifs does not add any substance to your article, only distracting the readers from its content, which is, may I add, so unnecessarily and pedantically detailed. What a redditor. Consider reducing your carbon footprint, and deleting all gifs from the article.
Exams are the mark of a lazy instructor who doesn’t want to design appropriately challenging assignments, as the author says: “I hadn’t fully prepped the class”.
What appropriately challenging cheat-proof calculus assignment could you give to a classroom of 100 undergrads?
As soon as those questions leave the classroom, they will be passed around in group chats. That’s why exams remain relevant. If a student averages 95% on their assignments, but shows up to the exam and can’t solve ∫sin x dx like they had supposedly done a hundred times on their own, then they’re probably cheating.
As soon as those questions leave the classroom, they will be passed around in group chats. That’s why exams remain relevant. If a student averages 95% on their assignments, but shows up to the exam and can’t solve ∫sin x dx like they had supposedly done a hundred times on their own, then they’re probably cheating.
We don’t even have math assignments anymore. All we do is write an exam at the end of the semester, and the people who didn’t learn will just not pass.
The math exam which I wrote was also very demanding and had a very tight time limit. There wasn’t any time to compare results with a group chat or use tools like wolfram alpha. Either you knew how to solve the exercises or you didn’t and failed.
The math exam which I wrote was also very demanding and had a very tight time limit. There wasn’t any time to compare results with a group chat or use tools like wolfram alpha. Either you knew how to solve the exercises or you didn’t and failed.
If you are teaching something you're probably teaching it for >10 years. If every year you create 20 multi-part questions ("We have a factory producing boxes, what's the optimal size of box for X when Y"). You can then distribute a random question to every student in a similar bin of grade distribution. If a group of people are cheating they'll likely be in the same grade bin so this makes sure each cheater doesn't see the questions everyone else does.
You repeat this process every year for 10 years and now you have 200 questions. The next professor comes in and does the same but now also has 200 questions + answer guides.
With some basic programming you could make it automatically change the numbers (to "friendly" numbers that break up into round numbers) and have an infinite pool of challenging quiz, midterm, and final questions. If everyone gets different questions they cannot cheat by sharing answers. Only by sharing approach.
You repeat this process every year for 10 years and now you have 200 questions. The next professor comes in and does the same but now also has 200 questions + answer guides.
With some basic programming you could make it automatically change the numbers (to "friendly" numbers that break up into round numbers) and have an infinite pool of challenging quiz, midterm, and final questions. If everyone gets different questions they cannot cheat by sharing answers. Only by sharing approach.
Our physics department did that with no success. All questions and answers were collaboratively collected by students in a shared Dropbox folder.
For one of my physics classes, it was like 10% HW, 10% class participation quizzes, 30% lab, 50% exams. The HW was optional (and your exam scores would replace your HW scores if you so chose) but the HW pretty closely followed the exam. The class participation quiz points were fully awarded as long as you showed up every day to lecture. The labs weren't skippable or cheatable because everyone had different measurements and you had to document every step of the way. The exams were personalized 1-10 such that you'd never be sitting next to anyone who had your same exam (and the questions were never recycled). Two pages of notes allowed on every exam.
Apart from some high-tech cheating, I'd say it was a reasonably cheat-proof class. I don't know how applicable that model is to calculus though.
Apart from some high-tech cheating, I'd say it was a reasonably cheat-proof class. I don't know how applicable that model is to calculus though.
Sounds like a proof of work system is needed. Let’s say every answer included a something unique to the test taker, time, place and question. These values would be inserted early in the computational process, like maybe as a coefficient to sin, such that the process is easy to grade but difficult to cheat since the values of each downstream step are unique.
When I see statements like this I know they are by people who have never actually tried to teach a class.
What you are describing in an incredibly labor-intensive process. If you want to restructure education so no teacher ever has more than 8 students and 2 classes a semester (and tuition is $100k/yr)... maybe you can make this work.
In the real world, where a teacher has 3 sections of 30 students, "just make exciting and engaging material!" is honestly an asinine statement. You can't spend 2 hours evaluating each student's homework assignment.
What you are describing in an incredibly labor-intensive process. If you want to restructure education so no teacher ever has more than 8 students and 2 classes a semester (and tuition is $100k/yr)... maybe you can make this work.
In the real world, where a teacher has 3 sections of 30 students, "just make exciting and engaging material!" is honestly an asinine statement. You can't spend 2 hours evaluating each student's homework assignment.
IIRC, in European universities, university courses tend to be much more heavily exam-weighted than American ones. I've heard of classes whose grades were nothing but exams.
When I did Physics in the UK, all of my non-labs modules were 100% exam
This.
Putting a multiple choice test online and expecting students to not take advantage of this examination method is very naive.
Putting a multiple choice test online and expecting students to not take advantage of this examination method is very naive.
And in most courses will just reward cheaters who succeed in not being caught.
Cheating... I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.
Give a quiz that can be completed in your own time over the course of a week. That sounds more like an assignment to me. So... the cheating was violating the rule that it can't be done cooperatively? If I'm cheating by asking other students about an assignment then I think I cheated on everything.
And, of course, I did not. My answers to assignments were my own, but, often, I collaborated with other students to understand the questions, or to develop an idea of how to approach finding the solutions, or to clarify issues that were unclear.
And, always, to make sure I got the right answer. Because if I didn't, it meant that I did not understand something and I needed to go back over the material to work out what that was. Any other approach would have rendered school valueless.
This is the normal process of education. You can tell that I did not cheat because my work and my answers were unique. If I submitted an image of someone else's work, that would be obvious.
Ah, but wait! I think I see. If the answers are multiple choice, that doesn't work.
But why are they multiple choice? To make it easier and cheaper for the school. Your inflation of the profit margin on my education makes me a cheater because you can't tell if I did the work myself? That sounds about right.
I think academic integrity is eroded more by the profit motive than by the Jesuitical definition of cheating in the article.
Even though I went to what are considered some the best schools, the greatest insult to academic integrity was always the faculty, because most of them didn't know the subject they were teaching, faked it, and didn't care.
And when I see many of the students who didn't cheat coming out of school not knowing shit from Shinola, I have to wonder why it matters? You get out what you put in, so who cares if people violate an arcane rule that says, "this, this here is an assignment; but that over there, that thing that looks identical to this in every way, that's a quiz, so don't talk to your friends about it or we'll nip your promising young academic career in the bud. Understand?"
The only lesson here is that you need to cheat better.
Give a quiz that can be completed in your own time over the course of a week. That sounds more like an assignment to me. So... the cheating was violating the rule that it can't be done cooperatively? If I'm cheating by asking other students about an assignment then I think I cheated on everything.
And, of course, I did not. My answers to assignments were my own, but, often, I collaborated with other students to understand the questions, or to develop an idea of how to approach finding the solutions, or to clarify issues that were unclear.
And, always, to make sure I got the right answer. Because if I didn't, it meant that I did not understand something and I needed to go back over the material to work out what that was. Any other approach would have rendered school valueless.
This is the normal process of education. You can tell that I did not cheat because my work and my answers were unique. If I submitted an image of someone else's work, that would be obvious.
Ah, but wait! I think I see. If the answers are multiple choice, that doesn't work.
But why are they multiple choice? To make it easier and cheaper for the school. Your inflation of the profit margin on my education makes me a cheater because you can't tell if I did the work myself? That sounds about right.
I think academic integrity is eroded more by the profit motive than by the Jesuitical definition of cheating in the article.
Even though I went to what are considered some the best schools, the greatest insult to academic integrity was always the faculty, because most of them didn't know the subject they were teaching, faked it, and didn't care.
And when I see many of the students who didn't cheat coming out of school not knowing shit from Shinola, I have to wonder why it matters? You get out what you put in, so who cares if people violate an arcane rule that says, "this, this here is an assignment; but that over there, that thing that looks identical to this in every way, that's a quiz, so don't talk to your friends about it or we'll nip your promising young academic career in the bud. Understand?"
The only lesson here is that you need to cheat better.
Come on now, if you're sharing screenshots of the test and asking other students for answers, you know, they know, everyone knows: you're cheating.
This post really turned my stomach, but not because of the cheating. Yeah, obviously the cheating is wrong and students who cheated should be held accountable according to university policy. Yeah, it's nice that the professor was able to get something of a "happy ending" for at least some of the students at the end.
But the whole meat of this enormous post is the professor having a massive power trip while toying around with the students, reading every message they post without them knowing.
He knew this cheating was happening pretty early on. He was writing R scripts to cross-reference all the group chat participants to the individuals involved. He wrote up all those reports and then still goes ahead with the second midterm. He obviously took pleasure in examining how they were acting; he has dozens and dozens of individual chat messages pasted into that post complete with his snarky little comments about them:
> “nah i aint cheat i took that exam at 7 and did it alone still failed” (hmmm, let me cross reference this claim with your texts in the chat at 7…)
> “if i find out who snitched we got a problem fr” (I had to report this student to judicial affairs)
There are more and more. The professor is clearly relishing each of these little pieces of evidence, filling out all of those forms, and watching the students squirm and panic as he tells them he knows they're cheating:
> There was no way I was going to keep a straight face, plus I wanted to see what happened on the chat, so I video muted myself (bad internet connection day).
It's borderline sadistic. He could have ended the whole debacle at any point, be he chose to spend dozens of hours poring over this chat and examining the students' reactions to what he was doing. Especially given the conclusion where he put in options for all or most of the students who cheated to redeem themselves - at least partially.
The only constructive piece of this entire post is the end where for the second asynchronous version of the course, he adjusts its design and content to be more engaging and conducive to online learning. The rest is just an obsessive power trip.
But the whole meat of this enormous post is the professor having a massive power trip while toying around with the students, reading every message they post without them knowing.
He knew this cheating was happening pretty early on. He was writing R scripts to cross-reference all the group chat participants to the individuals involved. He wrote up all those reports and then still goes ahead with the second midterm. He obviously took pleasure in examining how they were acting; he has dozens and dozens of individual chat messages pasted into that post complete with his snarky little comments about them:
> “nah i aint cheat i took that exam at 7 and did it alone still failed” (hmmm, let me cross reference this claim with your texts in the chat at 7…)
> “if i find out who snitched we got a problem fr” (I had to report this student to judicial affairs)
There are more and more. The professor is clearly relishing each of these little pieces of evidence, filling out all of those forms, and watching the students squirm and panic as he tells them he knows they're cheating:
> There was no way I was going to keep a straight face, plus I wanted to see what happened on the chat, so I video muted myself (bad internet connection day).
It's borderline sadistic. He could have ended the whole debacle at any point, be he chose to spend dozens of hours poring over this chat and examining the students' reactions to what he was doing. Especially given the conclusion where he put in options for all or most of the students who cheated to redeem themselves - at least partially.
The only constructive piece of this entire post is the end where for the second asynchronous version of the course, he adjusts its design and content to be more engaging and conducive to online learning. The rest is just an obsessive power trip.
Nah the students are the sadistic ones who coudl have ended it at any point by saying "let's all stop cheating".
Completely agree, this professor is clearly an asshole.
> For example, in this course I ran short multiple choice quizzes each week. Students could take the quiz as many times as they wanted during the week. The quiz questions changed each time (pulled randomly from a pool), and students always got their most recent quiz grade. The quizzes were low stakes. I also told students that taking the quizzes would help them study for the midterms, which would contain questions from the quizzes.
So… your students were… studying? This isn’t cheating. There’s more in the article that clearly frames these quizzes as learning reinforcement and permissive in how the students take them. The students were doing what was intended: studying the material and preparing for the exam that matters. Good for them. Shame it got missed in the zealous pursuit of a pervasive cheating racket.
So… your students were… studying? This isn’t cheating. There’s more in the article that clearly frames these quizzes as learning reinforcement and permissive in how the students take them. The students were doing what was intended: studying the material and preparing for the exam that matters. Good for them. Shame it got missed in the zealous pursuit of a pervasive cheating racket.
And yet low-stakes cheating on these quizzes escalated to blatant cheating on the midterms, which the cheaters bombed once that was thwarted. Classifying this as “studying” is far too generous given the objective evidence of performance.
Yeah I caught that too. Overall very good article, but I did find it bizarre that they were made that students were collecting past quizzes into reference material. This seems like one of the few legitimate uses of these sorts of class groups
Correct, that is not the cheating OP is talking about. Take another read.
I’d prefer not to. The author framed students embracing their own educational structure as cheating, and set out to sleuth them out as cheaters for doing what the program was designed for them to do. That’s dishonest and I don’t trust anything else the article says.
Okay, don't, but then you'll continue believing incorrect things like
> The author framed students embracing their own educational structure as cheating
> The author framed students embracing their own educational structure as cheating
That's a ridiculous characterization of the student's behavior, but you'd know that if you had read the article you're criticizing.
The other commenter said it was correct before saying it was incorrect, but whatever
This was handled very very poorly by the professor. Their first mistake was putting policy before education. It simply does not matter that students violated a school policy or that the school process required forms. If you cheat in Candyland you have to remember it's still Candyland, don't get so full of yourself that you think your academic bubble and its processes matter.
Secondly they delayed what really mattered, pointing out that students were putting in a lot of effort to accomplish something just as farcical as what the teacher was doing. Passing a course without learning anything. Because of the self importance off professors and institutions students are given the impression that grades matter. Then they do stuff like this.
Instead the Prof could have immediately said holy crap everyone I just realized I've been logged into chat all year, most of you have been cheating badly, and some of you are getting nothing from this course.
So now we're going to talk about online privacy, security hygiene, and time effort tradeoffs. My goal is for you to be less stupid and better informed when you leave this class.
Then they could go back and find the students who hadn't done any work (other than cheating) and drop them from the class.
FFS teach kids don't play games.
Secondly they delayed what really mattered, pointing out that students were putting in a lot of effort to accomplish something just as farcical as what the teacher was doing. Passing a course without learning anything. Because of the self importance off professors and institutions students are given the impression that grades matter. Then they do stuff like this.
Instead the Prof could have immediately said holy crap everyone I just realized I've been logged into chat all year, most of you have been cheating badly, and some of you are getting nothing from this course.
So now we're going to talk about online privacy, security hygiene, and time effort tradeoffs. My goal is for you to be less stupid and better informed when you leave this class.
Then they could go back and find the students who hadn't done any work (other than cheating) and drop them from the class.
FFS teach kids don't play games.
I don't see a point in blaming students for cheating, or trying to give them a guilty conscious about how they are impacting students in curve grading scenarios.
The moral indignation that I'm seeing in the comments about this issue is just silly as the students are just acting the way humans act. Especially given the fact that most students are in their late teens or early 20's.
Cheating is just human nature, especially that some people see a degree a gateway to success or even as survival (no degree no job, no job no food). And as survival machines, like all beings, people will do whatever it takes to get a degree, including cheating least of all.
While college is an academic institution that is supposed to be about acquiring knowledge, the fact that almost every well paying job requires a degree perverses the incentives leading it to be a place where you get a diploma so you can move on with your life.
So should we just tolerate cheating, with all this in mind? No, I think the burden of preventing cheating should be on the schools themselves to design testing in a way that makes cheating harder than actually learning the subject and to make learning more engaging even for those who are there just to get a diploma. This is hard of course.
An even better solution would be to fix our current system that creates these perverse incentives. But that is even harder and I can't even phantom how that would be done.
The moral indignation that I'm seeing in the comments about this issue is just silly as the students are just acting the way humans act. Especially given the fact that most students are in their late teens or early 20's.
Cheating is just human nature, especially that some people see a degree a gateway to success or even as survival (no degree no job, no job no food). And as survival machines, like all beings, people will do whatever it takes to get a degree, including cheating least of all.
While college is an academic institution that is supposed to be about acquiring knowledge, the fact that almost every well paying job requires a degree perverses the incentives leading it to be a place where you get a diploma so you can move on with your life.
So should we just tolerate cheating, with all this in mind? No, I think the burden of preventing cheating should be on the schools themselves to design testing in a way that makes cheating harder than actually learning the subject and to make learning more engaging even for those who are there just to get a diploma. This is hard of course.
An even better solution would be to fix our current system that creates these perverse incentives. But that is even harder and I can't even phantom how that would be done.
I’m honestly surprised to see so many responses in this thread that diverge so wildly from my own.
It was inappropriate for this instructor to join the chat and silently surveil their students. When they saw the students exchanging information like that the first time after forgetting about it, they should have posted a warning on the thread and left.
Some of the energy of analyzing their students cheating would have been better spent looking at how to make the assessment of learning more resistant to a student sharing a screenshot of a question.
It was inappropriate for this instructor to join the chat and silently surveil their students. When they saw the students exchanging information like that the first time after forgetting about it, they should have posted a warning on the thread and left.
Some of the energy of analyzing their students cheating would have been better spent looking at how to make the assessment of learning more resistant to a student sharing a screenshot of a question.
> It was inappropriate for this instructor to join the chat and silently surveil their students.
Why? It allowed him to gather evidence of who was invoiced and provide them with a second chance. And apparently it really helped students in the next course to be more honest.
Why? It allowed him to gather evidence of who was invoiced and provide them with a second chance. And apparently it really helped students in the next course to be more honest.
Not surprised. Just about everyone performs some amount or cheating in high school and college. Really if anything these places are teaching you not to get caught.
To be honest I think academic integrity policies are stupid. Colleges administrators are living in a pretend world that doesn’t exist where they think the kids are there because they care and dont just want the piece of paper they are paying 200K for so they can go get a job in the real world and start paying down their debt.
Im so incredibly past giving a shit about cheating in college.
To be honest I think academic integrity policies are stupid. Colleges administrators are living in a pretend world that doesn’t exist where they think the kids are there because they care and dont just want the piece of paper they are paying 200K for so they can go get a job in the real world and start paying down their debt.
Im so incredibly past giving a shit about cheating in college.
No, a subgroup of students surround themselves with cheaters and believe everyone else is cheating. There are plenty of students who are quite satisfied learning the subject matter and receiving a grade for their performance. They just aren't part of the study/social groups that devolve into cheating.
> No, a subgroup of students surround themselves with cheaters and believe everyone else is cheating.
It's exactly this. I didn't cheat in college, I've always hated cheaters, plus obviously I didn't want the risk of potentially being caught. People I was friends with in my CS degree, to my knowledge, didn't cheat either. Maybe they were cheating and I just didn't notice or something, but I think it's unlikely.
When I was an undergrad TA for our intro CS class, we did have to deal with some cheaters, but not that many. Either it's because it's BYU, where the level of honesty is higher (I'd lose stuff all the time, and even laptops would show up at the lost and found), or we just sucked at finding the cheaters.
It's exactly this. I didn't cheat in college, I've always hated cheaters, plus obviously I didn't want the risk of potentially being caught. People I was friends with in my CS degree, to my knowledge, didn't cheat either. Maybe they were cheating and I just didn't notice or something, but I think it's unlikely.
When I was an undergrad TA for our intro CS class, we did have to deal with some cheaters, but not that many. Either it's because it's BYU, where the level of honesty is higher (I'd lose stuff all the time, and even laptops would show up at the lost and found), or we just sucked at finding the cheaters.
> Just about everyone performs some amount or cheating in high school and college
That's awful and not my experience.
> To be honest I think academic integrity policies are stupid
What's the point of waiting four years to give cheaters a degree? If they're not going to learn anything it's a complete waste, just hand it to them when they pay the lump sum.
That's awful and not my experience.
> To be honest I think academic integrity policies are stupid
What's the point of waiting four years to give cheaters a degree? If they're not going to learn anything it's a complete waste, just hand it to them when they pay the lump sum.
Do you mean that you're incredibly past careing about arbitrary constraints on someone's ability to solve a problem?
If there is a policeman, the onus of enforcement lies on the policeman. The teacher plays this role by giving a grade. Any teacher that allows cheating is encouraging it.
If there is a policeman, the onus of enforcement lies on the policeman. The teacher plays this role by giving a grade. Any teacher that allows cheating is encouraging it.
Im tired of the overtop concern about it and the heavy-handed punishment I have seen for it mostly. Im also just not a fan of the entire academic system which puts people in massive debt (often because of parent/social pressure) that has surprised pikachu face when they cheat so they can pay off that debt.
The system is absolutely fucked.
The system is absolutely fucked.
They could avoid falling behind by actually learning the material, and you know, pass exams and assignments. They don't need to cheat. If they're under such duress most institutions will alter degree plans or have other accommodations; no need to cheat.
As someone who studied pedagogy for years and quit due to an immense frustration with exactly this — how broken the system is — I would encourage you to entertain the thought that maybe, you as a person who is almost in all cases not a teacher, nor someone with any experience apart from once having been a student, do not have a good understanding of how exactly this system should be fixed, and that it’s not broken for fun but because there are some very difficult unresolved issues.
People love to rant about how bad tests are. “We just study for the tests” and so on. And yet this complaint seems to be international. Curious, isn’t it, how all these systems seem to fail in the same way?
In the case of testing it’s because you choose to focus on the obviously bad thing (current state of testing) rather than the very complex and difficult question behind it: HOW do you measure knowledge? And when you decide how, how do you scale it?
These are very hard questions, and it’s frustrating to read the phrase “we need to fix the system” because yes, obviously we do, but agreeing that things are bad isn’t the hard part, and probably input from people who have never worked in the field is of pretty limited value in how to resolve the hard part, and will not do much more than annoy teachers even more.
So what’s the solution then? Well, maybe we should start by rolling back this common conception that when it comes to schools, everyone’s opinion matters an equal amount, and then listen to the teachers and academics.
Cynically, this will never happen because reforms to battle educational issues in any democratic society usually takes more than 5 election cycles to show obvious results (and when the bad results start stacking up current leaders will take the flak regardless).